Shyam Dev and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Pankaj Naqvi, J.—The petitioners claim themselves to be the land oustees, whose land has been acquired for the benefits of respondents, have now staked a claim for petitioner No. 2? for a suitable job, pursuant to the Government Order. The issue is squarely covered in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate and Others, , wherein this Court has held as under:

In Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, . It was held that there is no requirement under Article 21 of the Constitution to provide employment to a member of the family displaced by the acquisition of land. In Director, Mandi Parishad and Others Vs. Sohan Lal and Another, , a Division Bench of this Court held that when the petitioner has received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act he cannot claim appointment in addition. The Government Order not being issued under a statutory provisions cannot have any statutory force. In The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh and Others, (vide paragraph 15) the Supreme Court observed:

In order that mandamus may be issued to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.

In the present case, we have not been shown any statutory provision requiring a job to be given to one member of the family of the person whose land has been acquired. In Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29679 of 1999, decided on 21.7.1999 one of us (M. Katju, J.) has taken a similar view.

In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any principle of ''law that on acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act apart from giving them compensation under the Act a job has also to be provided. It is well settled that a mere direction in a judgment without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent vide Delhi Administration (Now N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Manohar Lal, , Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs. Raja Balwant Singh College and Others, etc. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not precedents.

There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act under which the Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued. Whatever compensation has to be given for acquisition of the land is provided under the Land Acquisition Act itself which is a self-contained Code. Any G.O. providing for any further benefit not mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such GO. would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as already mentioned above.

That apart, in our opinion, the aforesaid G.O. is wholly unworkable. The record shows mat the petitioner had only 12 biswas and ten biswansi land in his share which was acquired. Thus only about half a bigha of the petitioner''s land was acquired in the present case. If the Circular dated 28.12.1974 is given a literal interpretation it would mean that if even one square yard land of a person is acquired one of his family members would have to be given employment. This would be wholly unreasonable and arbitrary.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as entire compensation has not been paid, petitioner No. 2 was entitled for a suitable job with the respondent establishment. Non-payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land could not be the basis to claim appointment in service.

The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed. No order as to costs.