Summary
Landowners compensated for acquisition for the Railways’ MRTS project had no established right to alternative housing plots from the State or Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the absence of an applicable statute or rehabilitation policy. The earlier final direction merely required consideration of their representations and did not mandate allotment. Policies and precedents concerning acquisitions for housing or urban development did not establish entitlement for this railway project.
Issues
- Whether the earlier direction to consider representations mandated alternative-site allotment.
- Whether the landowners established an applicable policy or legal right to alternative housing plots.
Held
- Finality of the earlier order did not enlarge its terms: a direction to consider representations was not a peremptory direction to allot alternative land despite the absence of an applicable obligation. (¶ 8)
- The acquisition was for a Central railway project, not a State Housing Board or urban-development housing scheme. No scheme for alternative sites applied to this project, and statutory compensation had been paid. (¶ 9–12)
- Instances of allotment under housing-development policies and decisions addressing other projects with applicable policies did not establish parity or entitlement here. The dispute concerning discontinuation of discretionary allotment in 2011 therefore required no decision. (¶ 12–14)
Result
State appeals allowed. High Court’s common judgment dated 28 April 2006 directing alternative allotments set aside and the four writ petitions dismissed. Pending interim applications disposed of; no costs.