Land Acquisition Does Not Confer Right to Government Job—Compensation is the Sole Entitlement Under 1894 Act: Supreme Court Dismisses 25-Year-Late Job Claim

“Policy cannot override statute; acquisition under the 1894 Act entitles only to compensation, not employment” - In a clear reaffirmation of the limited scope of entitlements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Supreme Court of India on 7 November 2025 dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by an individual seeking government employment in lieu of land acquired more than two decades ago. The Court held that compensation is the only right conferred by the acquisition statute, and any administrative policy of employment cannot override this statutory mandate, especially when invoked after an inordinate delay.

“Petitioner Not Even Born When Land Was Acquired—Delay of Over 25 Years Fatal to Any Equitable Claim”

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, claimed entitlement to appointment in a government job on the basis that land belonging to his family had been acquired by the State of Haryana in 1998 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation was duly paid at the time. However, it was only in 2025—27 years later, and 18 years after any policy regarding employment was formulated—that the petitioner approached authorities with a demand for appointment on compassionate or compensatory grounds.

What is more striking is that the petitioner was not even born at the time of acquisition. The Court observed:

“The petitioner who was not even born at the time when the land was acquired, in the year 2025, applied for a job in lieu of the acquired land.”

“There Is No Provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Grant of Employment in Exchange for Acquired Land”

Reiterating the statutory framework, the Bench held unequivocally:

“Under the provisions of the Act, on the land being acquired, the petitioner or his family is entitled only to the compensation which has already been paid.”

Referring to the legal limitations of such requests, the Court added that:

“There is no provision for grant of job in lieu of the acquired land.”

Thus, statutory law does not support the petitioner's claim, and any policy decision made by the government cannot override the clear language of the Act.

“Policy Cannot Prevail Over Statute—Delay Defeats Equity”

The petitioner had relied on a government policy framed long after the acquisition, which in certain cases provided employment to land-losers. However, the Supreme Court decisively stated:

“The policy decision, if any, of giving job in lieu of the acquired land cannot prevail over the statutory provisions.”

The claim was also found to be grossly delayed, with the Court observing that the job request came:

“After more than 18 years of the framing of the policy.”

Such delay, the Court held, defeats equity and renders the claim wholly misconceived.

“No Illegality in Rejection by Authorities or High Court”—SLP Dismissed

Concluding its brief but firm order, the Supreme Court found no fault in the reasoning of the High Court or in the actions of the government authorities who had earlier denied the employment claim:

“We find no error or illegality on the part of the authorities and the High Court in dismissing the claim of the petition for job.”

The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed, with the Court noting that all pending applications stood disposed of.

Clarifying That Acquisition Laws Do Not Confer Employment Entitlement

This decision provides crucial judicial clarity on a common misconception surrounding compensation and employment in land acquisition matters. It reaffirms the principle that:

“Compensation—not employment—is the only enforceable right under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.”

The ruling is also a reminder that administrative policies cannot override statutes, and that belated claims rooted in policy rather than law are unsustainable.

The Court’s approach is consistent with earlier precedents, including State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 708, and Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548, where it was repeatedly held that appointment on compassionate or compensatory grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly when statutory provisions do not provide for such relief.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2025