Lakhan Lal Rathore vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short ''the Company'') to consider the case of the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy of the State and to direct the respondent/Company to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his land. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the resident of village Bhashmakhar, Gevra, and is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 262/10, situated at Patwari Halka No. 53 admeasuring 0.02 acres having some construction over it. The said land was acquired by'' the respondent/Company in lieu of that, as per the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Scheme, 1991 and its amendment dated 21.12.1995, the petitioner nominated himself for employment and submitted his nomination form along with the requisite papers before the respondent/Company. On the said application, the Naib Tahsildar made an enquiry of the petitioner''s case and submitted its report that petitioner was having the ownership and possession over the said land for more than 20 years. A recommendation was made to the respondent/Company for including the name of the petitioner in the list of the persons eligible for employment in lieu of acquisition. The said recommendation was forwarded by the Chief General Manager, Kusmunda Area on 11.09.2006 to the Director (personnel), on the basis of the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, along with the documents necessary for considering the case of the petitioner and to provide him employment. The petitioner also moved a representation to the Collector, upon which the Sub Divisional Officer submitted his report stating that the title of the petitioner was confirmed and the same was formed to communication dated 12.04.2007, intimated the petitioner that his name was recommended for grant of employment by the SDO, Katghora. Despite all these efforts, when the petitioner could not get employment in lieu of acquisition of his land, he made an application to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent/Company on 19.04.2007. The petitioner also sent a legal notice to the respondent/Company, but till date, nothing has been done. Thus, this petition.

Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent/Company is arbitrary and illegal as even after confirmation of the possession of the petitioner over the land in question, and acquisition of the same by the respondent/Company, he has not been granted employment. The revenue authorities as well as the Collector has recommended his name for grant of employment. Shri Shrivastava would next submit that the consent given by the petitioner was for a different piece of land, not for the land in question. In fact, after partition, the petitioner and his brother had different holdings and they became separate families, which was 20 years before, a joint family property. Even if the partition had taken place in the year 1995, it does not mean that the petitioner was not in possession of the joint Hindu Family property. The requirement under the rehabilitation policy is with regard to the possession, and not the ownership.

Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that no relief has been claimed against the State. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was found to be in possession of the land since last 20 years and was having the owner ship.

Shri Praveen Das, learned counsel for the respondent/company would submit that an award was passed with regard to acquisition of land admeasuring 100.85 acres for Laxman Project of respondent/company. According to the rehabilitation policy, it is required that the ownership of land should be for at least 20 years prior to its acquisition. In the instant case, 0.04 acre of land bearing Khasra No. 262/5 was acquired which was in joint name of Panchram, Santram and the petitioner and their widow mother, Tij Kunwar. He would further submit that in lieu of acquisition of the land, one of the Co-owner namely Santram was given employment.

The petitioner had also consented in this regard, thus he cannot claim employment in lieu of acquisition. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 96,687/- was paid to the petitioner and Rs. 810740/- was also paid in lieu of Abadi land, house and trees standing on the land bearing Khasra No. 262/10. Earlier the petitioner was co-owner of the land in dispute and in the year 1994-95, the petitioner took his separate share of 0.02 acres land from the joint property. Thus, it cannot be held that the petitioner was in possession of the said plot for more than 20 years.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

It is indisputable that the rehabilitation policy of the, then State Government dated 25.12.1991 and its amendment dated 21.12.1995 provides that the candidates should have been born in that area, he should have obtained education there itself and should be holder of the land (Land owner) Continuously for at least 20 years before acquisition of the land. It is not in dispute that prior to 1995, before partition, the land was in the joint name and there was a joint family property and as such, owned jointly by the co-owners. In lieu of acquisition of land, pursuant to the consent given by the petitioner (Annexure R/4-6/3), employment was given to the brother of the petitioner namely Santram, in addition to the compensation. Thus, claim of the petitioner on the basis that from the year 1995, he was holding the land separately and as such, he became entitled to employment in addition to the employment granted to Santram, is unsustainable. The land was acquired in the year 2004, pursuant to the award dated 27.01.2004 and as such, after partition of the land, the petitioner has not completed 20 years of sole ownership on the land in question, as required under the rehabilitation policy.. Under the policy only one member of the family having owner ship jointly was entitled to grant of employment and in the instant case one member namely; Santram, with consent of the petitioner and others, was granted employment under the rehabilitation policy.

There is no challenge to the rehabilitation policy and the petitioner has accepted the rehabilitation policy while consenting for employment to his brother in lieu of acquisition of the land. Thus, at this stage, he cannot claim employment on the ground that from 1995 onwards till acquisition of the land in the year 2004, he was owner of a separate piece of land which was carved out of the joint family property. The petitioner had not completed 20 years continuous ownership on the said piece of land before its acquisition.

In view of the foregoing, this petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.