Summary
The Court rejected an employment claim under a land-acquisition rehabilitation arrangement requiring a qualifying two-acre holding. The claimant’s own recorded land measured only 0.300 acres; the Collector’s total of 2.01 acres included others’ land based on affidavits that did not convey title. Family-unit treatment did not justify aggregation of non-dependent relatives’ holdings on those materials. The employer’s appeals were allowed, the High Court’s employment direction set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the claimant established the qualifying landholding by adding relatives’ and others’ land through affidavits.
Held
- The agreed employment threshold was at least two acres of acquired land. The Collector’s certificate showed only 0.300 acres in the claimant’s own name; its larger total depended on affidavits from other holders. No supporting title or revenue documents established his ownership of the additional land. (¶¶ 3, 4, 8, 9)
- An affidavit in a claimant’s favour does not convey title. The holdings of relatives and others therefore could not be aggregated merely on those self-serving statements. (¶¶ 9, 12, 13)
- The scheme treated the family as a unit, but non-dependent relatives constituted separate units for this purpose. The affidavits of the father, brother and nephews supplied no basis to satisfy the claimant’s threshold on the record. The Court referred to other welfare legislation illustratively when discussing the family-unit principle. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The High Court wrongly treated the larger total as an established qualifying holding. Despite sufficient opportunities, the claimant had failed to prove eligibility; the employment direction was set aside and his writ petition dismissed. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Employer’s appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the claimant’s writ petition dismissed.