Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar And 57 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6696 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar And 57 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Ramendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioners have claimed employment in the respondent Greater Noida Development Authority on the ground that their land was acquired for the benefit of authority. Various Government Orders have been relied upon in support of such contention.
Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the Greater Noida authority submits that initial government orders issued in that regard stood superseded by the subsequent Government Order which has been noticed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs.District Magistrate and others,reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC. The Full Bench has been pleased to observe as under in para nos. 21 to 26:-
"21. The Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code and provides the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation as per market value of the person whose land is acquired. In addition to that market value of the land interest @ 12% is also given from the date of publication of the Notification vide Section 23(1-A). Besides that, a sum of 30% on such market value is also paid as solatium for distress and for inconvenience or difficulties caused to the person on account of compulsory acquisition of the land vide Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation (a) 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as an amount of solatium, which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioner respondent cannot claim appoifor grant ofntment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment.
22. 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.
23. That apart, in our opinion, the aforesaid G.O. is wholly unworkable. The record shows mat the petitioner had onlv 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.
24. The number of jobs available in this country is very limited and jobs cannot be given in this manner violating Article 16 of the Constitution.
25. In view of the above we answer the questions referred to us as follows :
1. The Government Orders/Circulars providing employment to one member of a family of a person whose land has been acquired (over and above the compensation awarded under the law) are invalid.
2. The acquiring body for whose benefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order/Circular.
3. No writ can be issued directing the acquiring body to consider the claim in accordance with the aforesaid Order/Government Circular.
26. For the reasons given above there is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed."
Having examined the Full Bench judgment this Court finds substance in the objection of Ms. Anjali Upadhyay that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief inasmuch as acquisition proceedings were under a self contained code which provided for the remedy in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. No provision in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 exists which permits grant of employment in lieu of compulsory acquisition. Even otherwise law has been explained by the Full Bench in Ravindra Kumar (supra).
Writ petition therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
n.u.
