Hira Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 800 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                       AFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   Judgment reserved on : 31/01/2023
                  Judgment delivered on : 08/02/2023
                           WA No. 160 of 2021
       Hira Lal S/o Shri Gokul Aged About 25 Years R/o Village
        Jarahajel, Revenue Circle Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                   ---- Appellant/Petitioner
                                     Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
      Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal
      Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   2. Collector Korba, Chhattisgarh District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
   3. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Katghora, District Korba
      Chhattisgarh.
   4. South Eastern Coalfieds Limited Through The Chairman-Cum-
      Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat
      Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
   5. Director Personnel, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat
      Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
   6. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
      Kusmunda Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                          ---- Respondents

For Appellant                    :         Mr. Uttam Pandey and Mr. B.P.
                                           Rao, Advocates.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3       :         Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No. 4 to 6       :         Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge

C A V JUDGMENT Per Rajani Dubey, J

01. The appellant/writ petitioner in this writ appeal is challenging the

order dated 6.1.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS

No.721/2016 whereby the writ petition filed against the order dated

15/16.1.2015 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of the appellant for

employment, has been dismissed.

02. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that his father, namely,

Shri Gokul owned a small piece of land bearing Khasra No.4/2 <, area

0.13 acres at Village-Jarahajel, P.C. No.35/20, Tahsil-Katghora, Distt.

Korba, which was acquired by the respondents/SECL in the year 1983

and due compensation under the acquisition proceedings was paid to

the land owner. In 2013, the appellant submitted an application for the

first time to the respondents seeking employment against the land

which was acquired in 1983. The said application was duly processed

and after due consideration of the documents submitted by the

appellant, vide impugned order dated 15/16-1.2015 (Annexure P/1),

the respondents rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that

since on the date of acquisition, he was not born, he was not

dependent on the original owner on the date of acquisition and

therefore, he could not have been provided employment. Against the

said order, the appellant filed writ petition i.e. WPS No.721/2016, which

was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 6.1.2021. Hence this

appeal.

03. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the

information obtained by the appellant under the Right to Information

Act, 2005, the respondents/SECL have, in fact, during the intervening

period, provided employment to around 11 persons who were also

born subsequent to the acquisition proceedings and therefore, on the

ground of parity, the appellant's claim ought to have been allowed by

the respondents. The appellant has raised his legitimate claim under

the relevant policy of the State Government but the learned Single

Judge failed to appreciate the claim of the appellant and thus, erred in

passing the impugned order.

04. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the

original land owner, because of his ignorance and illiteracy, could not

avail the benefit of employment at the time of acquisition and it is only

after the son (appellant) was born, on his attaining the age of majority,

the claim for employment was made and therefore, the respondents

should not be permitted to take advantage of such situation of

ignorance and illiteracy. Since it is a question of survival of the

appellant and his dependents, the respondents should have taken a

more pragmatic approach while considering the claim of the appellant

for employment. In a similar case i.e. WPS No.6363/2011, parties

being Gopal Krishna Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & others, the

Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.8.2016 directed the

respondents to consider and grant employment to the petitioner in lieu

of acquisition of land belonging to the petitioner's family. The said

judgment was affirmed in Writ Appeal No.559/2016 vide judgment

dated 26.10.2018 and further, SLP (Civil) No.3717/2019 was also

dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.2.2019.

For all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and

the respondents/SECL be directed to provide employment to the

appellant as per his eligibility.

05. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/SECL

submits that this is a case where acquisition of land took place on

27.4.1983 and all the admissible dues, payment of compensation etc.

were timely given to the person or at least, there is no dispute/claim to

that effect. After a considerable period of time in the year 2013, the

appellant raised claim for employment for the first time. Since on the

date of acquisition of land, the appellant was not even born, he could

not have been brought within the ambit of being dependent on the

income of the land acquired by the respondents and therefore, he

would not be entitled for employment in terms of guidelines and circular

dated 22.12.1984 prevalent at the relevant point of time. It is further

submitted that even under the R & R Policy, 1991, the appellant would

not fall within the ambit of displaced family as it defines and envisages

only those persons directly dependent upon the owner of the said

property at the time of acquisition, meaning thereby, all those persons

who were alive at the time of acquisition proceedings and not those

who were born much subsequent to the acquisition, would be entitled

for grant of employment.

Reliance has been placed on decisions in the matter of South

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Prem Kumar Sharma and others, AIR

2006 SC 2727; Sanjeev Kumar Singh and another Vs. Union of

India and others, AIR 2015 Chhattisgarh 139; Butu Prasad

Kumbhar and others Vs. Steel Authority of India and others, 1995

AIR SCW 2388; Tek Chand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2018

(NOC) 900 (M.P.) and Sunand Prasad Sao Vs. State of Jharkhand

and others, 2014 (4) AJR 322.

06. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the

impugned order.

07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

08. Learned Single Judge in para 11 of the impugned order

observed as under:

"11. The petitioner has not been able to show any plausible explanation or document to show that right from 1983 onwards there has been a claim made by the petitioner or his ancestors for employment. The only document available with a pleading seeking employment is that of the year 2013 i.e. about 30 years after the acquisition proceedings. Nowhere has the petitioner pleaded in his writ petition that at the time of acquisition there was a claim made by the ancestors of the petitioner seeking employment and which was under active consideration and which has subsequently been substituted by the present petitioner, neither does the pleading to the writ petition show that the claim for employment against the land being acquired could be kept alive for a considerable period of time and could be claimed by even those persons who are born to the land owner at a later stage."

In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the acquisition

proceedings took place in the year 1983 and at that time, the appellant

was not born. It is also admitted by both the parties that at the time of

acquisition, there was no such policy in existence. The

respondents/SECL filed approved Uniform Guidelines for Employment

to Land Owners (Annexure R-4/1) which was forwarded to all the

General Managers of the coalfields through letter dated 22nd

December, 1984 for implementation. Thus, it is clear from these

documents that these guidelines were also not in existence at the time

of acquisition of land in the year 1983. As per Annexure P/4, a scheme

was regulated in the year 1991 to rehabilitate and resettle the families

who got displaced on account of acquisition of land. Para 3 of this

scheme reads as under:

"3. Employment facility :-

A. Any one person of every such family in the affected area whose more than 1/3rd of the residential land and agricultural land has been acquired will be eligible to get employment facility from SECL on first priority.

B. Any one member of every family, whose non- irrigated land of more than three acres and irrigated land of more than two acres has been acquired, will be provided employment facility by SECL on the basis of second preference.

C. Any one member of such family, whose entire agricultural land / or residential land has been acquired, will be provided employment by SECL on the basis of third priority.

D. Any one member of such family whose 2/3rd agricultural land has been acquired, will be provided employment by SECL on the basis of availability.

E. Landless displaced persons of the concerned area, whose livelihood has had a substantial impact, will be trained through self- employment scheme. South Eastern Coal Folds will assess the need for training of persons from displaced families with the help of the State Government and arrangements for providing training to those persons will be made by SECL."

09. The learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner has

not been able to offer any plausible explanation or produce any

document to show that right from 1983 onwards there has been a claim

made by him or his ancestors for employment in lieu of acquisition of

land. In the writ petition, the appellant filed a copy of affidavit of his

father dated 18.2.2011 and in para 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated

that at the time of acquisition of the said land he was in employment,

therefore, form for employment was not submitted in SECL and his

elder son Santosh was also in employment, so form for his

employment was also not submitted. As soon as his son Heeralal

Yadav became major and completed his education, nomination form

for his employment has been submitted and this is the reason for

delay. Thus, in view of the above, it is clear that at the time of

acquisition of land and at the time of implementation of the guidelines,

the appellant's ancestors did not apply for employment and for the first

time in the year 2013, the appellant applied for employment i.e. about

30 years after acquisition proceedings.

10. In the matter of Butu Prasad Kumbhar (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held in para 6 as under:

"6. The constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to have any substance. In Olga Tellis (AIR 1986 SC 180) (supra) it was observed by this Court that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far- reaching and the deprivation of the right to livelihood without following the procedure established by law was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen. Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not

deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It is established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the Plant. We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of Article 21. The claim of the petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment or the future generation is ensured of a preferential claim it would be arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching Article 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit as explained by this Court. Truly speaking it is just the otherwise. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article

14."

11. So far as the case of Gopal Krishna (supra), relied upon by the

appellant is concerned, in that case offer of appointment in SECL was

made to the petitioner's father in lieu of acquisition of his land but he

nominated his son (petitioner) for obtaining employment. However, the

facts of the present case are entirely different and therefore, the

aforesaid case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case and as

such, it is of no help to the appellant.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Butu Prasad Kumbhar (supra), we are of the opinion that the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on valid grounds. We

find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned

Single Judge. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal being without any

substance is hereby dismissed.

               Sd/                                                   Sd/
       (Arup Kumar Goswami)                                    (Rajani Dubey)
             Chief Justice                                          Judge


Khan