AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Basha, J.—The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to
appoint the petitioner herein in Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Mills, Punzhai Pugaloor Village, Karur Taluk and District according to the
petitioner''s qualification.
The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of one Mr. Rajalingam. The father of the petitioner was having 0.11 cents of agricultural land in
Survey No. 659, Punzhai Pugaloor Village, Karur Taluk and Karur District and cultivating the said land for the livelihood of their family. In the year
1982, the said land was acquired by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of establishing the Tamil Nadu News Print and Paper Mills. Several other
persons lands were also acquired for the above said purpose. At the time of acquisition of said lands, a promise was made to the land owners
whose lands were acquired for establishing of the said Mill that one member from the family would be provided job according to their qualification
in the said Mill by the 1st and the 2nd respondents. The petitioner made representations dated 15.8.1998 and 12.7.1999 seeking for the above
said relief of appointment on the above said ground of acquisition of the lands belonging to his father. As there is no response from the
respondents, the petitioner has come forward with this present petition for the relief stated above.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the ground of acquisition of the land
belonging to his father on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 656 Labour and Employment Department dated 29.6.1978. It is further contended that the
said land of the petitioner''s father was acquired in the year 1982 and as such, the petitioner is entitled to seek the benefit under the said
Government Order which has come into force even prior to raising of the issue involved in this matter. The learned Counsel would further submit
that the land of the petitioner''s father was acquired for the purpose of establishing the Mill only on the promise for providing a job for one of the
members of the family. It is submitted that inspite of such promise made by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has been deprived from getting
a job as he is entitled on the basis of the claim provided under G.O.Ms. No. 656 Labour and Employment Department dated 29.6.1978. It is
pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that similarly placed family members from whom lands were acquired by the 3rd respondent
have been provided jobs. But the petitioner has been deprived of such opportunity of getting the job without any valid reason. Therefore, it is
contended that the respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to provide the appointment as per the entitlement of the petitioner.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner cannot seek the relief of appointment as a
matter of right by invoking the provision under G.O.Ms. No. 656 Labour and Employment Department dated 29.6.1978. It is further contended
that the petitioner is bound to establish that his family was displaced due to the acquisition of the land belonging to his father and there is no other
source of income to make their livelihood. The learned Counsel would further contend that the respondents 1 and 2 have not received any
representation as alleged by the petitioner for seeking the relief of appointment. It is submitted that it is the burden of the petitioner to prove first of
all that he is the adopted son by producing the legal documents. Secondly, the petitioner is also bound to prove that he is possessing the required
qualification for any appointment in the Mill of the respondents 1 and 2. The learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the
following decisions of this Court in support of his contention:
Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Chennai and Anr. v. Arulnathan and Ors. 2004 (4) L.L.N. 163.
Unreported judgements of this Court in the Union of India represented by the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Anushakti Bhavan,
Mumbai-39 and Anr. v. E. Shanmugavelu W.A. No. 1116 of 2007 dated 24.10.2007 and
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (A Government of India Undertaking), Project Site, Kudankulam-627106, Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District, through its Project Director case W.A. No. 401 of 2007 dated 30.10.2007.
Learned Government Advocate also heard on the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned
Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
I have heard the rival contentions put forth on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
The fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of appointment in the Mill of the respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of G.O.Ms.
No. 856 Labour and Employment dated 29.6.1978 provided the petitioner produces acceptable evidence and records to substantiate his claim
that he is the adopted son of the deceased, from whom the agricultural land was acquired. It is not disputed by the respondents that the land of one
Rajalingam was acquired by the third respondent to an extent of 0.11 cents for the purpose of establishing the Mill of the respondents 1 and 2. The
said person was already paid with the compensation. The respondents 1 and 2 made it clear in the counter affidavit that the said Rajalingam made
a declaration to the Tahsildar, the third respondent herein, that his family consists of his wife Arukkani and daughter Rajeswari and there is no
mention about the petitioner in the said declaration stating that he is the adopted son of the deceased Rajalingam. Therefore it is the responsibility
and obligation of the petitioner to first establish before the authorities concerned that he is the adopted son of the said Rajalingam from whom the
said land was acquired by the third respondent herein. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is also liable to establish his
qualification for any appointment from the respondents 1 and 2.
At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the petitioner cannot claim any appointment as a matter of right on the ground of acquisition of the land
as the petitioner has no vested right to claim an appointment on the ground of acquisition of land. It is relevant to refer certain decisions of the
Supreme Court on this aspect.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, held as follows:
...Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their
land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is
devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide
employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growth of the
country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It was established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired.
Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any
fundamental right. Yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure
that each family was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the plant. We fail to appreciate how such a step by the
Government is violative of Article 21. The claim of the petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment or the future generation is
ensured of a preferential claim it would be arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching Article 21 without any regard
to its scope and ambit as explained by this Court. Truly speaking, it is just the other way. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article
14.
A Division Bench of this Court in Chairman, T.N.E.B. v. Arulnathan reported in 2004 (4) L.L.N. 163 following the principle laid down by the
Hon''ble Apex Court in Buta Prasad Kumbhar''s case held that ""the similarly placed claimants like the petitioner do not have any fundamental right
to be provided with employment by the appellant solely on the ground that their lands have been acquired"" and further held that ""the employment to
be provided only to persons who had been ""displaced"" and who had been dependent on those lands as their sole means of livelihood subject to the
condition that they fulfil the criteria that they are eligible for employment"".
The Hon''ble Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Malkiat Singh reported in 2005 (1) L.L.N. 33 held as follows:
...The respondent has got compensation for his land, which was acquired. The scheme giving appointment on priority basis was only in the
nature of concession to eligible candidates which the respondent could not claim as a matter or right having taken compensation amount for his land
which was required, more so when he did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the revised scheme....
The above well-settled principle of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court makes it crystal clear that it is the burden of the petitioner to
establish his claim by fulfilling the condition that he is the legal heir of the deceased owner of the land and further to establish that he comes under
the category of the persons who had been displaced and who had been dependent on those lands as their sole means of livelihood.
It is open to the petitioner to prefer a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and in the event of receipt of such representation of the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same in the light of
the principles laid down by the Apex Court, as pointed out earlier, in the decisions cited supra and to pass order on merits and in accordance with
law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said representation of the petitioner.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.