Sanjay Prasad vs Central Coal Field Ltd. and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated-21.11.2006, passed by the General Manager (B.S.), Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Ltd. Ramgarh, (Annexure-12), whereby the petitioner''s claim for employment, in lieu of the petitioner''s land, which the Respondent-C.C.L. has acquired, has been rejected.

It appears that earlier, the petitioner by filing a writ application vide W.P. (S) No. 4687 of 2001, had prayed for a direction upon the Respondent-C.C.L. to consider his case for appointment as per scheme, to grant employment to one of the member of the family of which land has been acquired

While disposing of the writ application vide order dated-11.09.2003, this Court had passed the following observations: -

In the circumstances, for determination of the question as to what is the total land of the family of the petitioner was acquired, the case is remitted back to the General Manager, Barkakana Area, C.C.L.

The petitioner may produce documents before the General Manager, Barkakana Area, C.C.L. in support of claim of acquisition of more than 2 acres of land. The General Manager, Barkakana Area, C.C.L. if so required may enquire from the concerned office of the State Government and will communicate its decision to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation.

If it is found that more than 2 acres of land of petitioner''s family was acquired for C.C.L., the competent authority will consider the case of petitioner for appointment within a period of three months from the date of decision.

In case the authorities dispute the claim of acquisition of 2 acres of land, in such case, the petitioner may move before a civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief

Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that as per the directions contained in the aforesaid order, which was passed in the earlier writ application, the petitioner had submitted his representation but by the impugned order (Annexure-12), the representation was rejected by the concerned authorities of the Respondent-C.C.L. Reading out the portions of the impugned order, learned Counsel explains that the Respondents have admitted the fact that the total area of 1.99 acres approximately, of the acquired lands, had fallen in the petitioner''s share. As regards the shortage of the remaining half decimal, the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure, which was allowed and adopted by the Respondent-C.C.L., had clubbed half decimal of the adjacent land belonging to his neighbour, with his 1.99 acres of the land and the same was delivered to the Respondent-C.C.L. Learned Counsel submits that such clubbing of the adjacent land to make the total two acres of land, was permissible on the date when the land was acquired. The rejection against the clubbing, which was known as "Bunching", could not be rejected by the concerned authorities in 2004, when the impugned decision was taken.

Learned Counsel adds further that the total lands, which were acquired by the Respondents, was more than four acres and against two acres of land, two members of another family, namely, Prem Kumar Sahu and Amit Kumar have been given employment by the Respondent-C.C.L., whereas the petitioner is being arbitrarily denied of the privilege, even though the total two acres of land has been acquired from the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents-C.C.L. would raise a preliminary objection by referring to the order, passed in the earlier writ application and state that the petitioner ought to have referred the dispute to the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the question of reference of the dispute to the civil court, did not arise, since such reference would have been called upon only, if there is a dispute regarding the area acquired by the Respondent-C.C.L.

In the light of the explanations offered by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the contents of the impugned order, it appears that admittedly, 1.99 acres of land belonging to the petitioner together with half decimal of land belonging to the petitioner''s neighbour, making a total of two acres, was delivered by the petitioner, was accepted by the Respondents-C.C.L. authorities. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute now that the total two acres of land has not been delivered by the petitioner to the Respondents. Such delivery was also accepted by the Respondents, even as reflected in Annexure-8

The benefit of the scheme of such "Bunching" which was applicable on the date of delivery of the land in 1993 cannot be withdrawn now on the ground that the scheme has been subsequently withdrawn.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find that the Respondents-authorities of the C.C.L., having admittedly, acquired two acres of land from the petitioner, as reflected in Annexure-8 to the writ application, they are liable to carry out their obligations as per the terms of the Agreement for the grant of employment to one of the members of the petitioner''s family.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the Respondent-C.C.L., to take an appropriate decision in respect of the petitioner''s claim for grant of employment under the Scheme for the acquisition of two acres of land by the C.C.L. in 1993. The decision on the issue shall have to be taken by the concerned authorities of the Respondents within three months from the date of this order and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner effectively.

Let a copy of this order be given to counsel for the Respondent-C.C.L.