Vishal Aggarwal vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Civil Miscellaneous 25703 of 1997 is allowed. Affidavit is taken on record.

The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation to grant him appointment in accordance with the terms imposed in the award of Land Acquisition Collector............

A few facts may be noticed.

On 9.7.1989, the State Government issued a Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Land was acquired for the public purpose of setting up a Petroleum Depot. On 7.5.1990, the Notification u/s 6 was issued. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 27.12.1991. It was, inter alia, provided that "the Indian Oil Corporation will provide employment to one eligible member per family whose land is acquired". On 10.6.1993, the petitioner''s mother filed a civil suit for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the respondent-Corporation to give employment to the petitioner who had passed the B.Com. examination in the year 1992. This suit was, however, withdrawn on 28.12.1996. Thereafter, she filed civil writ petition No. 9597 of 1996 in the High Court with the same prayer. On 9.7.1996, this writ petition was dismissed on the ground that her suit had been dismissed "as withdrawn without permission to file a fresh suit/petition on the same cause of action." It was, however, observed that the petitioner may, if so advised, peruse her remedy with the authorities concerned. The petitioner alleges that his mother represented to the authorities for the grant of an appointment. None having been granted he has now approached this court through the present writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner''s land having been acquired, he has a right to be given a job in accordance with the terms of the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector reliance has also been placed on the decision of a Division Bench in Deepak Kumar v. Indian Oil Corporation and Anr. (C.W.P. No. 1208 of 1996), wherein it was held that the land having been acquired, the petitioner had a right to be considered for appointment.

The respondent-Corporation contests the petitioner''s claim. Firstly, it maintains that in view of the dismissal of the suit and the earlier writ petition, the petitioner has no right to reagitate the matter secondly, it has also been averred that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector had no jurisdiction to incorporate a condition that the clam of a member of a family shall be considered for employment.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Admittedly, the land belonging to the petitioner''s mother was acquired. She was paid the compensation. Still, she had filed a civil suit for getting a job for her son, the petitioner. This suit was unconditionally withdrawn. Thereafter, she had filed a writ petition Even, the writ petition was dismissed. She was claiming the relief as is now sought by the petitioner. The cause of action was, thus the same. There is no fresh cause of action. Since, the relief claimed in the initial suit, Civil Writ Petition 9597 of 1996 and the present petition is the same, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation appears to be right in his contention that it is wholly incompetent.

It is not disputed that the posts under the Corporation are to be filled up in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution These posts cannot be exclusively reserved for persons whose land has been acquired. After all, those who have got compensation for the land are not in any way at a disadvantageous position as compared to others who have no land. Thus, they deserve no preferential treatment. In any case, no guidelines are shown to have been laid down. If the guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has to be a reality, the person who is at a disadvantageous position cannot be further made to suffer a handicap vis-a-vis the person who has got money as compensation for his land which had been acquired. The objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the Land Acquisition Collector had no jurisdiction to make such a stipulation in the award cannot be said to be wholly unfounded. In any event, in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution we find no ground to interfere.

Mr. Jindal has vehemently contended that the Bench while dismissing Civil Writ Petition 9597 of 1996 has specifically permitted the petitioner (the petitioner''s mother) to pursue her remedy with the authorities concerned. She had, consequently, pursued her remedy and it is only on the basis of the order dated 5.4.1997 that the petitioner had approached this court. Even this contention is untenable. It is true that after the dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 9.7.1996, the petitioner''s mother had got a notice served on the respondents through her counsel on 12.3.1997. A copy of this notice has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition. The respondent-Corporation having received the notice, had sent a reply vide letter dated 5.4.1997. The reply to the notice does not furnish any fresh cause of action.

Lastly, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar situation, a Division bench of this Court had upheld the claim of Deepak Kumar in Civil Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1996. It is true that Civil Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1996 had been allowed. However, it is the admitted position that neither Deepak Kumar nor his father who actually owned the land had filed any suit or writ petition which may have been dismissed. That being so, the petitioner''s case is not at par with that of Deepak Kumar. Still further, it appears that the respondent-Corporation had not raised the objection that the observations of the Land Acquisition Collector were not legally enforceable.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above we find no merit in this writ petition which is, consequently, dismissed. No costs.