Haldhar Prasad Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present batch of writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment to one of the family members of the petitioners’ family as per the provisions of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 issued by the Government or pay amount equivalent to the salary as per entitlement on the basis of eligibility and qualification after taking possession of the acquired land as per the Policy, as the petitioners’ claim/representation has been rejected vide order dated 16.07.2012.

The present writ petitions bearing WPS No.4169, 4170, 4171, 4173 of 2012 were earlier decided by a common order dated 25.10.2013 along with WPS No.4172/2012 preferred by the petitioner Rajesh Kumar Bibay, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2021 having no instructions in the matter. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider one member of each displaced family for employment as per Clause 7.1 or any other relevant clause of the Policy, 2007 and if employment is not available, alternative rehabilitation package to one member of each of the displaced family shall be provided as per the provisions of the Policy, against which the respondent company filed review petitions bearing REVP Nos.24, 21, 23, 25 & 26 of 2014 seeking review/recall of the order dated 25.10.2013. The review petitions filed by the respondent company were allowed and the order dated 25.10.2013 was recalled on the ground that the aforesaid writ petitions were decided wrongly applying the law laid down by this Court in WPC No.692/2012 parties being Kumar Ban Goswami and others vs State of Chhattisgarh and others and has been held in paras 7 & 8 as under:-

“7. In so far as the contents of Para 3 of the order under review is concerned, Shri Nair has explained that the distinguishing features between two cases escaped his attention, because he was supplied copy of the order passed in Kumar Ban Goswami (supra) in the Court itself. Moreover, the issue as to whether the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 would also apply to establishment of a sub-station or whether establishment of a sub-station amounts to commercial purpose has widespread repercussions throughout the State, because every year the applicants establish a large number of sub-stations apart from establishment of transformers for which also, at times, acquisition of land is required. If acquisition for such purpose would also attract the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, it may affect the applicants and similarly, if the respondents are entitled in law to secure employment, it should not be denied to them, therefore, the issue concerning applicability of the Rehabilitation Policy,2007, being matter of general importance, it ought to be settled by this Court by a speaking order and not merely on the basis of some other order passed by this Court which, according to the applicant, is distinguishable.

In view of the above, the order passed by this Court on 25.10.2013 is recalled and all the writ petitions are restored to its original number for decision on merits in accordance with law.”

Thereafter,  the  present writ  petitions  were  again restored and were heard and are being decided by this common order.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are farmers having lands situated at Villages Benchar and Chhurikala, as the case may be, Tahsil Kaghora, District Korba (C.G.). The respondent Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (for short ‘the respondent company’) took a decision to setup electrical sub stations in Katghora for which the agricultural land was needed, thereafter proceeding of acquisition of land was set into motion and a notification was issued by the SDO, Katghora inviting objections of the lands owners falling in the required area, upon which the petitioners filed their objection on 08.09.2010 stating therein that the acquisition of their lands would adversely affect their livelihood and their family members, as such before their land is acquired, the respondents should first ensure employment to one of the family members of the petitioners as per the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, despite the same the petitioners’ land was earmarked for acquisition. Thereafter the petitioners were noticed by the respondent Company to appear in the Office of the SDO on 26.06.2011 regarding disbursement of the amount of compensation, upon which the petitioners appeared and submitted their objection again on 26.06.2011 itself and thereafter again on 25.07.2011, the petitioners submitted their objection before the SDO Katghora, but when no action was taken by the respondent company on their petitioners representation/objection, the petitioners were compelled to file writ petitions bearing WPS No.455, 456, 457 & 458 of 2012 before this Court, which were disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2012 vide Annexure-P/7 directing the respondent company to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law, by a speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of representation. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners’ representation has been considered and their claim of providing employment to one of the family members of the petitioners has been rejected vide impugned order dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure-P/1) citing that the adequate compensation has been given to the petitioners, however no employment can be granted, as the sub-stations would be maintained by outsource and as such no post has been created by the company, thereby rejected the petitioners’ claim of providing employment, however assurance was given that if any regular post is created, the petitioners’ or their family members shall be given preference as per their eligibility, against which the present writ petitions have been filed, which were earlier decided by order dated 25.10.2013 but subsequently the order was recalled on the review petitions filed by the respondent company and have been heard again.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners’ lands have been acquired for the industrial purpose by the respondent company but the petitioners and their family members have no source of livelihood. As per the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, employment to one family member of the affected farmer by the industry/company whose land has been acquired is guaranteed, but till date no family member of the petitioner’s family has been given any employment by the respondent company. Therefore, the writ petitions may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to provide employment to each family member of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel and submit that jointly submit that the lands belonging to petitioners were acquired for establishment of sub-station and not for any factory or industry, therefore the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 has no application. The said Policy applies for only those land oustees whose land is acquired for the purpose of any factory or industry and this Policy works only in a situation when there are chances of giving employment to a member of the displaced family but in sub-station, there is no chance for employment. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation of petitioners’ land, which was already deposited by the respondent company. Condition 7 of the Policy does not apply at all in the present case and there is no right of employment conferred on the petitioner by the Rehabilitation Policy where there is no sanctioned post or vacant post and giving employment to a member of displaced family is not a mandatory condition in the Policy and in the present case, the petitioners’ land has been acquired for the purpose of establishment of sub-station and the entire work is managed by the outsource, as such no regular post was ever created. Therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Gujrat Electricity Board vs State of Gujarat and another, reported in (1984) 1 GLR 51.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is not disputed that the respondent company acquired the land of petitioners for establishment of sub station and this Court in the previous round of litigation passed order dated 31.01.2012 directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law and by a speaking order, thereafter the respondent authorities after consideration rejected the claim/representation of the petitioners by the order (Annexure-P/1), against which the present writ petitions were filed, which were earlier decided vide order dated 25.10.2013 but subsequently the said order was recalled on the review petitions filed by the respondents and the present writ petitions have been restored and heard again.

The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment to one of the family members of the petitioners’ family as per the provisions of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 issued by the Governmentfor employment on the basis of the Chhattisgarh State Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 vide Annexure-P/6, as the petitioners’ lands have been acquired by the respondent company for establishment of substations. The important provisions of this policy are as under:-

The respondents objected on this ground that sub station is not a factory or industry and even the established sub-stations are maintained by the outsource, as such no regular post was created, thus the petitioners or their family members cannot be provided employment.

The High Court of Gujarat in Gujrat Electricity Board (supra) considered and decided the similar issue after dealing with various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts and it has been held in paras 5 & 14 as under:-

"5......................................................................................

.............. Specifically, sub-stations are used for one or more of the following purposes : (1) transformation from one voltage level to another, (2) isolating faulted circuits; (3) controlling transmission voltage and power factor; (4) switching to change power flows to or from generating plants or interconnected power companies; (5) converting alternating current to direct current or vice versa; (6) converting from one frequency to another; (7) regulating voltage on feeder circuits; (8) automatic transfer to alternate sources of power; and (9) measuring and controlling electric power.

Sub-stations are classified by the duty they perform. Transmission, bulk-power, or switching sub-stations are those associated with the higher voltage or transmission portion of the power system. Distribution sub-stations are associated with the distribution system and the primary feeders for supply to residential, commercial and industrial loads. Customer sub-stations are on the premises of utility customers, such as shopping centers, large office or commercial buildings, and industrial plants. Load-center sub-stations are located within large buildings industrial plants as part of the distribution system within a large plant.

In view of all the aforesaid it would seem that the approach and the view expressed in the said letter dated 15th January, 1979 by respondent No. 2 cannot be endorsed and must be held to be erroneous. The petitioner cannot be required in the manner in which it is done to get all its sub-stations registered as factories. The directions contained in the said letter are hereby quashed. We hereby direct respondent No. 2 to enquire into the facts of each individual sub-station of the petitioner in the light of what has been observed hereinabove and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before requiring it to get all or any of the sub-stations registered as a "factory" under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. Petition therefore succeeds to the extent mentioned above.”

Vide Annexure-P/1, the petitioners’ representation for providing employment to each of their family members has been rejected on the ground that the adequate compensation has been given to the petitioners, however no employment can be granted, as the sub-stations would be maintained by outsource and as such no post has been created by the company, however assurance was given that if any regular post is needed, the same shall be created and the petitioners or their family members shall be considered as per their eligibility criteria. The letter (Annexure-P/1) dated 16.07.2012 is as under:-

Thus, it is clear from this letter that the entire work of sub-station was proposed by outsource and there is no scope of employment to any of the petitioners or their family members and the petitioners’ lands have been acquired for the establishment of sub-stations and not for any industry or factory and even adequate compensation has been provided to the petitioners, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petitions.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the respondent authorities are directed that if any regular post is created in the respondent company, preference shall be given to the petitioners or their family members as per their eligibility and qualification.