#rehabilitation policy

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that land oustees retain employment rights under the state rehabilitation policy in force at the time of land acquisition, even if subsequent corporate policies attempt to override them. The court held that such changes violate Article 14 and 21, reinforcing the principle of legitimate expectation for displaced families.

Uttarakhand HC rules that mutation orders recognizing inheritance rights predating a rehabilitation scheme cut-off cannot be disregarded, as doing so violates Article 14. The court set aside the rejection of a legal heir’s claim, emphasizing that administrative decisions must account for corrected revenue records, not just rigid cut-off dates.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that encroachers on public land for extended periods cannot be evicted without rehabilitation, directing authorities to decide applications within 60 days. The judgment reinforces the state's obligation under Article 21 to provide shelter as part of the right to life.

Bombay High Court holds that Railway authorities need not provide rehabilitation to unauthorised occupants unless they prove eligibility under resettlement policy under Public Premises Act.

Madhya Pradesh High Court mandates registration of Sardar Sarovar Project land allotment letters under Section 17 of Registration Act to secure legal title and prevent future disputes.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that authorities must decide rehabilitation claims before eviction; coercive action barred pending decision.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that land oustees are entitled to employment under the rehabilitation policy applicable at the time of land acquisition, not subsequent policies.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that state must decide employment claims under rehabilitation policy within stipulated time, ensuring non-discrimination and procedural fairness.