Per Massodi, J.;— 1. A chunk of land measuring 1 kanal in village Chanunta Tehsil Ramnagar, Distric' U (' lampur, owned by respondent No. 1, was taken over by the appellants in the year 1987-88 for construction of 15000 Gallon water reservoir to supply drinking water to the local population. It is admitted case of the parties that compensation was not paid to the respondent No. 1 in lieu of the aforesaid land. The appellant however, as pleaded by respondent No. 1, made a promise to provide government employment to one of her family members. 2. The respondent No. 1 felt aggrieved when the appellants did not keep their promise and approached the writ Court by riling SWP No. 626/2005. The respondents' case was that because of the promise made and in terms of SRO 181/1988, the appellants have no obligation to provide government employment to one of her family members. It was insisted that no compensation had been paid to respondents after the aforesaid land was taken over and that after the acquisition, she was left with less than one half of agricultural land. 3. The appellants in their reply to the writ petition insisted that only four and a half Marias of land was taken over by them for construction of water reservoir and that the respondent were not entitled to any benefit under SRO 181/1998, inasmuch as they were owners in possession of 19 Kanals and 14 Marias of agricultural land and therefore left with 19th Kanals and 9 and a half Marias after four and a half Marias were taken over by the appellants. The appellants denied that they made any assurance to respondent No. 1 to provide government employment to one of her family members in lieu of the land taken over by them. The appellants in the said background defended the consideration order dated 25th July, 2002, whereby respondents claim was considered in compliance of writ court Judgement dated 12.02.2002 rendered in SWP No. 168/2002, earlier filed by the respondent No. 1. It was further pleaded that as SRO 181/1988 was rescinded by SRO 124/1991 dated 11th July, 1991, the rescinded SRO (181/1988) was of no help to respondents. 4. It was further pleaded that as SRO 181/1988 was rescinded by SRO 124/1991 dated 11th July, 1991, the rescinded SRO (181/1988) was of no help to respondents. 4. Learned Single Judge on going through the pleadings and the record, lamented that a land in question owned by a war widow was taken over in 1987-88, without following the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and that for about two decades neither any compensation was paid to the respondent No. 1 nor one of her family members was given government employment. The stand taken by the appellants that only four and a half Marias of respondent No. 1's proprietary land was taken over was found to be belied by the record maintained by the appellants, including the report received from the revenue agency. Learned Single Judge while rejecting the argument putforth by the appellants that once SRO 181/1988 was rescinded by SRO 214/1991, the respondent No. 1 could not claim any right under the rescinded SRO referred to the Division Bench Judgment in LP A (SW) No. 309/1996 decided on 29th December, 1999. The LPA Court relying on Calcutta Port Trust v. Deba Prasad Bag, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 454 and Hari Ram v. State and Ore., 1993 (3) SCT 87, held that "the concept to give appointment to a person whose land is acquired is a concept which has been judicially recognized" and that estate holder would be well within his rights to contend that up to the issuance of SRO 214/1991, he was entitled to get government employment in terms of the earlier SRO. 5. The writ Court was not impressed by the contention that the land taken over was not more than 50% of the total agricultural land held by the respondents. It was pointed out that as per the revenue record, the Khewat No. 414 comprising 19 Kanals and 14 Marias was not in exclusive ownership of respondent No. 1, but coshared by other co-sharers and that the share of respondent No. 1 came to two Kanals out of which one Kanal was taken over by the appellants for construction of water reservoir. The writ Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition with the following directions:- i. "The order impugned dt. The writ Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition with the following directions:- i. "The order impugned dt. 25th July, 02, passed by the Executive Engineer, THE Division, Udhampur, rejecting the claim of the petitioner No. 2 for appointment in PHE department shall stand quashed; ii. That the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur shall assess the lease money with respect to one kanal of land belonging to petitioner No. 1 taken over by the respondent department w.e.f. the date it was taken over till today. The assessment would be done within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said officer; iii. The Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, shall also assess the compensation of the land taken over by the respondent department taking into consideration the present market value and as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This assessment would be done within the same period as mentioned above and thereafter the lease amount as also the amount of compensation shall be released in favour of the petitioner No. 1 within a further period of one month; iv. Respondents shall also consider the claims of the petitioner No. 2 for appointment within the period stipulated above; v. Petitioner No. 1 is also held entitled to cost of Rs. 10,000/-which shall be paid by respondent- department within the same period as mentioned above." 6. The writ Court Judgment dated 12.10.2006 is questioned on the grounds set out in the appeal. 7. We have gone through the appeal as also writ Court Judgment and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. The claim set up by the respondent No. 1 in SWP No. 168/2002, SWP No. 1781/2004 and repeated in SWP No. 826/2005 to the effect that the appellants at the time of taking over the proprietary land for construction of water reservoir, made a promise that one of her family members would be given government employment, finds support from the conduct of the parties at the time of taking over possession of the said proprietary land in 1987-88 and thereafter, before the intending department was to make a request for acquisition to the Collector and Collector on receipt of the request was to proceed under land acquisition Act. The other option available to the intending department was to enter into private negotiations with the respondents and clinch a deal with approval of the competent authority. In such an event the negotiations and their outcome would be well documented and in terms of Rule 24 Land Acquisition Act, 1990, a proper conveyance deed would have been executed by the parties. 9. In the present case neither acquisition proceedings were initiated, nor is the property in question claimed to have been acquired through private negotiations. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the appellants did not propose to pay any compensation but as claimed by the respondent No. 1, made a promise that one of the family members of respondent No. 1 would be provided government employment, scope for which was created under SRO 181/1988. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents alive to the admission made by the appellants in their reply to the writ petition and the documents relied upon to the effect that respondent No. 1's proprietary land measuring 1 Kanal was taken over in connection with construction of water reservoir, seeks to place reliance on Rule 24- A Land Acquisition Rules for Public Purposes (Council Order No. 939-C of 1936). It would be advantageous to extract the Rule hereunder. It would be advantageous to extract the Rule hereunder. It reads:- "24-A. Procedure for concluding bargain by private negotiations in respect of land taken possession of without resorting to acquisition proceedings Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Committee consisting of (a) Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned; (b) District Superintending Engineer concerned; (c) District Level Officer of the Department concerned; Shall be competent to enter into an agreement with the person interested in land to conclude bargain by private negotiation in respect of land possession whereof has been taken by the Government before issuance of Notification SRO-419 dated 19-9.1981 without resorting to acquisition proceedings under the J&K Land Acquisition Act:- Provided that the persons, who have donated their lands to the C. D. and N. E. S./Public Works Department/Education department agencies for construction of roads/Canals and for other public purposes before 1977 and the possession where of has been already taken by any Government Department, shall not be entitled to any compensation: Provided that the rates as may be agreed upon as selling and buying price of the land, shall not exceed the rates prevalent in the locality where the land is situate." 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants argues that as the land in question was, taken over in terms of Proviso to Section 24, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any compensation. Reliance on Rule 24-A is grossly misplaced. It is pertinent to point out that Rule 24 dealing with the concluded negotiations was substituted by SRO 419 dated 19th September, 1981. The substituted Rule provided for mechanism to conclude negotiations with an estate holder/vendor. Rule 24- A was introduced to deal with the transactions negotiated prior to the notification SRO 419 dated 19.09.1981. Rule 24-A provides for constitution of a Committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned, District Superintending Engineer and District Level Officer of the Department concerned to enter into an agreement with the persons interested in land to conclude bargain by private negotiations. In such cases the Proviso to Rule 24-A lays down that the person(s) who donated land for the purpose detailed in the Proviso before 1977 AD and the possession has been taken over by the Government, shall not be entitled to any compensation. 12. In such cases the Proviso to Rule 24-A lays down that the person(s) who donated land for the purpose detailed in the Proviso before 1977 AD and the possession has been taken over by the Government, shall not be entitled to any compensation. 12. In the present case, neither the respondent No. 1 has donated the land nor the land has been taken over before 1977. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that land has been taken over by the appellants in 1987-88. Again the respondent No. 1 does not admit to have donated the land nor is such a claim set up by the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 on the other hand insists that the land was given in lieu of a promise made by the appellants that government employment would be provided to one of her family members. The appellants, therefore, cannot wriggle out their commitment, by relying on Rule 24-A. 13. For the reasons discussed, the appeal is without merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.