AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On January 20, 2017, the petitioner filed the affidavit of
service and in spite of notice none appeared on behalf of the
respondents to oppose the application. The respondent no. 4 was
directed to file a report in the form of an affidavit in response to the
allegations made in the writ petition, on the next date of hearing.
The petitioner was directed to communicate the gist of the order to
the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 was to act on such
communication.
The matter was next taken up on May 4, 2017, when the
petitioner filed an affidavit of service from which it appeared that
the petitioner had communicated the order passed on January 20,
2017 to the respondent no. 4 by speed post on January 30, 2017.
In spite of it none appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Consequently, no report was forthcoming.
Therefore, the case was heard ex parte. The case of the
petitioner, inter alia, is that her husband died long ago leaving
behind the petitioner and his only daughter. The lands which the
petitioner had inherited from her husband were acquired by the
Eastern coalfields Ltd. i.e., the respondent no. 2, which was her
sole source of sustenance. She alleges that the entire agricultural
lands situated at Damra under the Sripur area was affected by the
work of excavation and extraction of minerals by the respondent
no. 2. As the petitioner and others raised an objection, the
respondent no. 2 company decided to acquire all agricultural lands
from the land owners for the purpose of mining operation at
Bhanora West Block and Damra colliery under Sripur area.
It is the further case of the petitioner that from the end of the
respondent no. 2 company a proposal was given to all the land owners to hand over the lands to them against which the Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. would provide an employment against one acre of
land to the owner or his nominee. Since the petitioner had no male
issue the name of her son-in-law, Somnath Chatterjee had been
recorded as the nominee of the petitioner. An agreement was made
between the two which specifically provided for such employment.
Since the petitioner''s land was taken after the death of the
husband of the petitioner, her name was recorded in the record of
rights, and after making a search from the relevant department,
the respondent company had entered into an agreement with the
petitioner. The entire plots of land of the petitioner were acquired
by the respondent no. 2 on January 13, 1996.
Annexure P3 is a communication by the agent of Kalipahari
colliery on January 30, 1996, by which the employment file of the
petitioner along with others was forwarded to the Personnel
Manager (I.C), Sripur area for providing an employment to the
nominees of the owners of land, including the petitioner.
Subsequently, the file was forwarded to the higher authority also.
It has been the grievance of the petitioner that the
correspondence were made by the authority concerned for employment under the Land Loser Scheme, but without any valid
reason the authority stopped to provide an employment to the
nominee of the petitioner although some of the land losers had got
their employment. It has been the specific case of the petitioner
that the land had been acquired by the respondent no. 2 company
without any compensation and as per the agreement no
employment had been provided to the nominee of the petitioner. As
a result of that she has been suffering for more than 20 years.
The petitioner further alleges that she along with the other
land losers had repeatedly presented themselves before the
respondents authorities and they were assured that employment
would be provided to all the land losers which did not materialize.
In the process the respondents have violated the contract entered
into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2.
The nominee of the petitioner along with others repeatedly
demanded justice but no response had been received from the
respondents. Consequently, the petitioner had to approach this
Court, inter alia, praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents, particularly, the Chief Managing
Director, i.e., the respondent no. 3, to provide an employment to the nominee of the petitioner under the Land Loser Scheme giving
effect from the date the possession of the plots of land were taken
over by the respondent no. 3 and a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner
for using her lands for more than 20 years as also to pay to her the
present market value of the lands in question.
The writ petition does not represent a complete statement
about the lands taken by the respondent no. 2 company from the
petitioner. There is no schedule of land either mentioned in the
pleadings of the writ petition or separately annexed to it. The
petitioner has, however, a non-encumbrance certificate issued by a
learned Advocate on August 14, 1995 as well as a legal opinion as
regards the lands of the petitioner issued by another learned
Advocate on August 25, 1995, to the agent of the Damra colliery.
Both these documents contain a schedule of lands in several plot
numbers and they tally with each other. In course of hearing, Mr.
Kar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has produced in Court
a copy of registered sale deed executed on September 27, 1995.
The vendor is the petitioner and the purchaser is the respondent
no. 2, represented by the agent, Damra colliery. Share of the
petitioner in the plots of land as mentioned in the schedule to the said sale deed agrees with the lands mentioned in the two
certificates annexed to the writ petition. The petitioner has also
annexed a copy of the searching report in respect of the said plots
of lands.
The allegation of the petitioner that the land had been
acquired by the respondent no. 2 without any compensation is not
correct. It appears from the said sale deed, as produced by Mr.
Kar, that the petitioner had transferred her right, title and interest
in respect of the plots of land mentioned in the schedule to the
same for a consideration of Rs. 9,345/-. She has also admitted
more than once in the said deed that the said amount had been
received by her by way of an account payee cheque and upon
acknowledging the same, she was executing the deed of sale.
Annexure P2 is a document of the respondent no. 2 itself
about the recruitment of personnel for purchasing the land. It
appears that this was signed by several authorities of the
respondent no. 2 company and the plots of land which have been
purchased are the same as mentioned in various other documents.
In those documents the petitioner figures as a land loser and her
nominee was Somnath Chatterjee as mentioned in the writ petition. The deed number as mentioned in Annexure P2 is the
same as mentioned in the deed produced in the Court.
It further appears from Annexure P3 that the agent of the
concerned colliery had sent the employment file of the nominee of
the petitioner along with two others under the Land Loser Scheme
forwarding it to the appropriate authority.
It further appears from the correspondence made by one
Nimai Chakraborty and the nominee of the petitioner to the Chief
Managing Director of the respondent no. 2 that for the lands
acquired of one Nimai Charan Misra and others, he had already
been provided with an employment in 1997 but the others were
not. The same communication was repeatedly made by the
nominee of the petitioner along with others without evoking any
positive response.
As mentioned above, the respondents did not context this
case, far less by filing a report in the form of an affidavit in
response to the allegation made in the writ petition. The Court,
therefore, is not in a position to ascertain the version of the respondents. As such the statements and the allegations made by
the petitioner go uncontroverted.
From several documents, it appears that the case made out
by the petitioner for appointment of her nominee from the category
of land loser is not a wild one or an absurd demand without any
basis. If the respondents had not given the petitioner a specific
assurance there would not have any occasion for them to sign the
proforma for recruitment of personnel for purchase of land in
Sripur area or nor was there any requirement for forwarding the
case of the petitioner by the agent of the concerned colliery to the
Personnel Manager (I.C), Sripur area. From a later communication,
it appeared that the employment file of three persons including
that of the petitioner was forwarded to the addressee.
These clearly go to suggest that there must have been a case
for providing employment to either to the land loser or her nominee
otherwise the respondents would never have opened or maintained
the file relating to the employment of the petitioner''s nominee.
Similarly, the proforma for recruitment of personnel from the land
loser category would not have been also signed by various
authorities of the respondent no. 2.
In such view of it, the respondents should have acted
promptly and informed the petitioner about the employment of her
nominee. Since the respondents are not coming forwarded the
allegations made in the writ petition must have to be treated as
unimpeached.
The writ petition is, therefore, allowed by directing the
General Manager, i.e., the respondent no. 4 to positively consider
the case of the petitioner regarding the employment of her nominee
under the land loser category within a period of six weeks from the
date of communication of the order. In case it appears to him that
the respondent no. 2 company had held out any promise for
recruitment of the nominee of the petitioner he shall ascertain why
the same had not yet been implemented and, if there was any such
promise by the company, he shall take all possible steps for
providing an employment to the petitioner''s nominee within a
further period of eight weeks. In case, for any reason whatsoever,
such employment cannot be given to the petitioner the
respondents must financially compensate her for the loss suffered
by her. Considering the fact that all the lands of the petitioner were
taken over in the year 1995 by the respondent no. 2 company. The
whole exercise is to be completed within the period as mentioned above. In the event it is found that there was no promise held out
by the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 4 shall communicate
the decision to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the
date of the communication of the order.
There shall be no order as to the costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all
requisite formalities.