Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors vs Debkumar Mukherjee & Ors

Tirthankar Ghosh, J

The present appeals being MAT 853 of 2019, MAT 854 of 2019 and MAT 855 of 2019 have been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP 20533(W) of 2012, WP 20537(W) of 2012 and WP 20538(W) of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as writ petitions) which was disposed of by a common judgment dated 16th April, 2019. The grievance of the appellants related to the order of the Learned Single Judge being passed, ignoring the scheme (hereinafter referred to as the land loser scheme) and directing the appellants to give appointment to the writ petitioners under the land loser scheme category within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

The writ petitioners initially submitted their representations with the appellant No.4 on 17th September, 2009 praying for their employment under the land loser scheme category and subsequently also served a demand justice notice dated 16th July, 2010 upon the appellants No.2, 3, 4. As the representations were not considered the writ petitioners preferred WP 25056(W) of 2010, wherein a Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 10th December, 2012 was pleased to direct as follows:-

"Let the respective representations of the petitioners be examined in accordance with law by the appropriate officer of the Eastern Coalfields upon giving to the petitioners or their representatives opportunity of hearing. The decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall be communicated to the petitioners within a further period of one week."

Consequently, the General Manager, Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. by an order dated 12th May, 2012 was pleased to dispose of the representations by observing as follows:-

"Land measuring 13.20 acres in Plot No.75, Mouza Salchur, JL No. 47, PS- Saltora, Dt. Bankura was possessed by ECL from LA Collector, Bankura in LA case No. 17/81-82 on 04.12.1981.

One Sri Narayandas bandyopadhaya divested/transferred the3 land to the petitioners by a Regd. Sale deed on the following mentioned dates:

Sk. Imadul Haque dated 14.12.1981 by Regd. Sale deed

2. Sri Satyajit Bandyopadhaya - 11.12.1981 -do-

3. Sri Deb Kumar Mukherjee 16.12.1981 -do-

4. Sri Ram Prasad alias Mantu Chakraborty - 16.12.1981 -do-

5. Sri Ajit Kr. Mondal - 14.12.1981 -do-

All the lands have been divested /transferred after the date of acquisition by ECL, so it is not at all legal.

It is further mentioned that there is no relationship between land owner and the land losers which is the prime criteria for employment under land loser scheme.

Hence the offering employment under land loser scheme in the instant case is not maintainable as per the Co's guidelines. Therefore the employment claim of the above petitioners is rejected."

Being aggrieved by the order dated 12th May, 2012 passed by the General Manager, Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Ltd., the respondents / petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ petitions. The Learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 16th April, 2019 was pleased to allow the same and directed the appellants to give appointment to the writ petitioners under the category of land loser scheme.

Mr. Shib Shankar Banerjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge failed to consider the existing land loser scheme and the purpose of the scheme would be frustrated in case the writ petitioners are allowed to have employment after the possession was taken by the appellants. Additionally the writ petitioners did not satisfy the requirements of the land loser scheme and without considering the various parameters provided under the scheme, the Learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the appellants to give appointment to the writ petitioners. It was also argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the manner in which the writ petitioners have acquired the property, encourages speculative sale and purchase of land.

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / writ petitioners supported the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge and contended that the land vested in the State of West Bengal under the Act II of 1948 from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of the notice under Section 4(1) of the said Act but not before that date. As such according to him, unlike the Act of 1894 possession of the land was not the starting point of vesting, but publication of a Gazette Notification of the acquisition notice under Section 4(1) by virtue of Section 4(1a) of the Act II of 1948 was the starting point. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the writ petitioners were recognised as claimant for compensation as a land loser.

The Learned Counsel for the State-respondents also contended that the acquisition was pursuant to the Notification published in the Official Gazette on 5th September, 1983 and as such the land vested in the State only on and from 5th September, 1983. According to him, if the land vested in the State, then the title of the land still remained with Narayan Das Bandopadhyay prior to that date, including the dates on which he executed registered deeds in favour of the writ petitioners. Learned Counsel further submitted that mere delivery of possession through its authority to the appellants on 4th December, 1981, did not divest the transferor of his title under the said Act and as such the status of the writ petitioners would come within the purview of land losers.

Having heard the respective parties and considering the materials placed before the Court, this Court feels that the schemes so referred should be taken into consideration before arriving at a finding. The two clauses referred to in the scheme dated 3rd September, 1975 signed by the Chief Personnel Officer, Coal Mines Authority Ltd, is set out as follows:-

"1) If the minimum area of land acquired is not less than one acre and not more than 3 acres one person may be offered employment irrespective of the number of the families owning the land.

2) If the land is more than 3 acres, employment may be given to not more two persons provided, however, there is more than one family i.e. if there is more than one owner."

The scheme dated 13.03.1983 signed by the Additional Chief Personal Manager of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is also pertinent and requires to be taken into consideration, as such the clauses relevant for the purpose of the case is set out as follows:-

"a) Employment may be offered in the lowest category to the dependent of an owner of land only when none of his dependent, is employed in any capacity in our organization.

b) The owner of the land "must" "own" their land for minimum period of five years.

c) Employment to female dependents who can not be gainfully employed should be desisted.

d) The dependent should be fit and be not more than normally 35 years.

e) When the owner of land is in possession of the land for a period less than 5 years and the same is required for us urgently for mining purpose, steps for acquisition of the same through the land Revenue Department of the State Government may be taken instead of purchasing the same directly.

f) Advance action plan for bulk purchase of land required for the mining purpose instead of piecemeal purchase may be taken."

In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Banshi Dhibar reported in AIR OnLine 2019 Cal 191, it has been observed in Paragraphs 13, 14 & 15 which reads as follows:-

"13. ..... The policy which we are thinking about was in the nature of an offer by the appellant company to all the land owners to sell their land to the Company on certain terms and conditions. One of such terms and conditions of the policy decision of 1975 was that if the land was sold, one person from the family of the land owner would be eligible for employment with the appellant. There was no stipulation about the length of ownership; but it appears that there was indeed speculative buying and selling of lands for the purpose of getting employment for which this policy had to be changed in 1983 and further modified in 1984. By this modification only those who owned land for five years became eligible to get the benefit of this policy.

Further we are of the view that the policy of 1975 was not a right attached to the land, in the sense that the transferee of the land became entitled to the benefit of the policy till it was in force. It was simply the terms of an offer from the appellant company to the owners of land and these terms of offer could be enforced at the time of purchase of the property. The respondent did not avail of this policy till 1983. In 1983 and 1984 this policy was modified. So it could be said that the terms of offer were changed so as to include owners of a minimum period of five years eligible for employment upon sale of their land to the appellant. When the same was actually made in 1986, it was under the policy or terms of offer as modified in 1983 and 1984.

In our view the Charmin-cum-Managing Director on 19th March, 2004 had correctly appreciated the matter holding the respondent not eligible for employment."

We have considered the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and the manner in which the scheme was taken into consideration before arriving at its conclusion. The Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions only took into account the issue of "acquisition" and "possession" and did not take into consideration whether the writ petitioners were satisfying the requirements of any of the scheme / policy existing at the relevant period of time.

If the scheme dated 03.09.1975 is taken into consideration then the writ petitioners namely Debkumar Mukherjee, Satyajit Bandopadhyay and Sk. Imadul Haque do not come within the definition of family of a land loser as defined under the said scheme, since they purchased the land from Narayan Das Bandopadhyay by a registered deed of sale dated 16.12.1981, 11.12.1981 and 14.12.1981 respectively. On the other hand if the scheme dated 13.08.1983 is taken into account, in that case five years of ownership was required which was not available with the writ petitioners. As a result none of the writ petitioners qualify under the scheme / policies so existing at the relevant point of time for being entitled to get an employment under the land loser category.

Thus, the order dated 12th May, 2012 passed by the General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Satgram Area was in consonance with the scheme existing at the relevant period of time and as such the finding to the effect that the petitioners do not fall under any of the category of the land loser scheme for which employment may be offered to them, do not suffer from any illegality.

MAT 853 of 2019, MAT 854 of 2019 & MAT 855 of 2019 are accordingly allowed, the connected applications are also disposed of and as such the writ petitions are dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on a priority basis.