In Brief
The Supreme Court held that land acquisition does not violate fundamental rights of displaced persons, who are entitled to resettlement under applicable policies but not as a matter of legal right. The Court distinguished Brij Mohan v. HUDA, finding it inapplicable to cases where oustees failed to apply in prescribed format with earnest money deposits. The applicable policy is the one in force when an application is made pursuant to a current advertisement and allotment. The Court directed eligible oustees to apply under the 2016 policy within four weeks, rejecting claims under the earlier 1992 policy. The Court clarified that mandatory injunctions require breach of enforceable obligations and judicial discretion, and that rehabilitation schemes are discretionary, not constitutionally mandated benefits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.