Smt. Anju And Ors. vs National Thermal Power ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 730 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The petitioners in this case claim to be ex-agriculturists and residents of Village Jajru in the Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad in the State of Haryana. They claim that they were agriculturists by profession and that different pieces of their agricultural land has been acquired by the state of Haryana under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioners, this land was acquired in the year 1996 for construction of a thermal power station by the respondent herein. It is submitted that as a result of this acquisition of land, the petitioners lost their employment. In recognition of their plight, officers of the respondent assured the petitioners that at least one member of the family whose land has been acquired, shall be adjusted in service with the respondent on permanent basis. Such an appointment was given to land owners at Village Neemka of Tehsil Ballabgarh in District Faridabad. The land was earlier acquired by the respondent while no such appointment was made in respect of the land owners of Village Jajru. The petitioners have contended that they made a representation in this behalf on 4th April, 1999 to the National Thermal Power Corporation, respondent herein.

2. The petitioners have placed reliance on a letter dated 14th September, 1989 to submit that it was the policy of the government while acquiring agricultural land for the respondent, to provide a job to atleast one member of the family whose land is acquired. Alleging that the power station at Ballabhgarh became fully operative in 2003, yet the respondent has failed to abide by the assurances to the petitioners or heed their representation. Consequently, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the following prayers:

(i) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondent Corporation to provide suitable regular job to the Petitioners or their kith and kins, as per their qualifications and other details, either in the Thermal Power Station at Ballabgarh or at any other Thermal Power Stations in India;

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction holding, inter alia, that non-action of the Respondent Corporation for absorbing or providing to the Petitioners or their kith and kins a suitable regular job is quite illegal, malafide, coupled with colourable exercise of bureaucratic power and, thus, is quite violative of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39 & 41 of the Constitution of India, and to hold further that the Respondent Corporation is bound to provide the said job under the principal of promissory estoppal;

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondent Corporation to fill up all the vacancies lying vacant through out India and to consider the Petitioners or their kith & kins at the first instance and, that too, on the priority basis;

(iv) Admit the petition with costs;

(v) Pass such other and further order(s) and/or direction(s) as may be deemed just, fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioners have also contended that the head office of the respondent is at Delhi and that the settlement between the petitioners and the respondent took place at Delhi when a large delegation of the land owners had reached the office of the respondent at Delhi.

4. The petitioners have also relied upon the policy to give such employment wheresoever land is acquired for it by the respondent. It has been stated that in the past, the respondent had acquired land in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh and in Rajasthan and had given employment to one member of each family whose land had been acquired.

5. The respondent has opposed the writ petition on the ground that no such assurance was given by or on its behalf to the petitioners. It is further contended that the requirement of the village was considered in conjunction with the representatives of the villages. In this behalf, minutes of the meeting held on 8th June, 1999 were recorded wherein it was agreed by the Sarpanch of Village Jajru that there was plenty of self-employment and income generating schemes in existence in Haryana and, therefore, no requirement of employment needed to be considered. In fact community development projects were required to be undertaken by the respondent which have been undertaken.

6. It is further submitted that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a complete code whereby the rights of a person whose land is acquired, have been adequately protected. All the petitioners or their family members have received adequate compensation which includes solarium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There was never any objection or protest in respect thereof and for this reason, the present writ petition is without any merit.

7. Placing reliance on the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 225 entitled Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. and High Court of Calcutta in 2001 (1) LACC 228 entitled Seikh Aminuddin and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors., it is contended that the petitioners have no legal rights whatsoever to compel the respondent to give employment to the persons whose land is acquired. It is contended that such employment on a special basis is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and ought not to be permitted.

8. An objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction is also taken. It is submitted that the land is located in Haryana. All steps for acquisition were taken by authorities in Haryana and the petitioners are land owners at Haryana. Therefore, no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The writ petition in this Court is without jurisdiction.

9. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the available record, I find that the petitioners have contended that the assurance was given by the National Thermal Power Corporation at Delhi when the delegation of the land owners of the village Jajru met the officers at Delhi. It is contended that they were assured that one member of each family would be given employment at Delhi and consequently, this writ petition has been filed seeking enforcement of the settlement which was arrived at Delhi. It is the petitioner's case that the orders regarding the engagement of the workers of the land owners have to be issued from Delhi.

10. While examining the plea of want of territorial jurisdiction, it is well settled that the petition and the documents enclosed therewith alone are to be examined assuming, for the purposes of consideration of this objection, that averments made are correct. In this view of the matter, in view of the specific assertions of the petitioners that the head office of the respondent is located at Delhi and their contention that the assurances and settlement had been arrived at Delhi, I am of the view that the part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and as such, in view of the assertions of the petitioners, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the petition.

11. The respondent is stated to be public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the activities of the power generation. Its power stations are located at different parts of the country. It is pointed out that being a public corporation, it has its own procedure for recruitment as per its recruitment rules. The normal recruitment procedure entails issuance of an advertisement in newspapers, informing the existence of vacancies and inviting applications from the public at large. After a thorough scrutiny by way of written test and interviews, candidates are selected and offered appointment with the respondent. In these circumstances, there cannot be any dispute that employment by the respondent would be in the nature of public employment. Opportunities for such appointments are significantly low in number in comparison to the large number of the unemployed youths in this country. Therefore, grant of public employment on the ground that the land of a person or his family has been acquired for a public purpose, would amount to grant of preferential treatment in the matter of public employment which would be contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

12. The only justification which has been advanced by the petitioners in respect of the legality of such preferential treatment, is based on the plea that the land owners are agriculturists and that apart from the land being taken away, they are being deprived of their livelihood.

13. It appears that at the instance of the respondent, the state of Haryana acquired land at Village Jajru for the public purpose of construction of 400 mw Faridabad gas based power project with ultimate capacity of 1200 mw. Pursuant to a notification dated 16th August, 1995 invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is pointed out that the compensation payable for the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for unlevelled land and Rs. 2,50,000/- for levelled land and Award No. 6-F (NTPC) dated 18th September, 1996 was announced by the DRO-cum-Land Acquisition Collector. Other benefits available under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as interest, solarium etc. had also been awarded.

14. Pursuant to this award, the land owners received compensation without any objection or demur. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the petitioners and the land owners had not received compensation envisaged by law for their land.

15. It is noteworthy that the respondent has acted in conjunction with the representatives of the village. A meeting was held on 8th June, 1999 between the representatives from the district administration, representatives from the village and the National Thermal Power Corporation. The minutes of the meeting have been placed before this Court. The senior level government officials including the District Commissioner, SDMs, Deputy Director, Executive Engineers, B.D.P.O. etc of the areas represented the administration. Mr. Takram, Sarpanch of the Village Neemka represented his village while the Village Jajru was represented by Mr. Kishan Singh, Sarpanch. In this meeting, it was decided thus:

NTPC explained the R&R policy of the company including the draft Remedial Action Plan (RAF) for Faridabad. Efforts made by NTPC towards R&R measures in the affected were appreciated by the District Administration.

The District Authorities, however, intimated that there are already a plenty of Self Employment/Income Schemes existing in state of Haryana, and as such there was no need for NTPC to consider their own income Generating Schemes as it would lead to duplicity and confusion. The District Authorities further intimated that NTPC should confine itself to community development measures in the areas where State Government/District Administration do not any scheme/funds and where the community development measures are essentially required for the affected village community. The above views were appreciated and agreed by the VDAC.

3. The District Authorities intimated that NTPC should put more emphasis on basic aspects of community life such as education, public health, environment sanitation, drinking water, peripheral village roads and such mesures so as to satisfy community needs and aspirations of PAPs. In order to achieve these objectives, the following actions were agreed in the VDAC.

(a) Renovation of the school buildings in all the four affected villages viz. Neemka, Mujhedi, Jhajhru and Sili-construction of boundary walls, expansion of classrooms, toilets (for both boys and girls separately), provision of hand pumps for drinking water. Special mention was accorded for village Sihi where no community development measures have been undertaken so far and it was agreed to take up the renovation of School, Sihi.

(b) Expending installation of bore-wells in all the four villages to remove the drinking water problems in the affected villages. It was however clarified that the running and maintenance of the bore-wells would be the sole responsibility of the village panchayats only, for which the village sarpanchs agreed.

(c) Construction of peripheral village roads in the affected villages for easy access of the villagers.

(d) Construction of appropriate drains in the affected villages to avoid unwanted water logging and to ensure proper environmental measures.

(e) Renovation of veterinary hospital building etc. in the affected villages for proper care of village cattle.

(f) Construction of community rooms in all the affected villages for proper running of "Aanganwadis" of these institutions are very effective in development of children.

(g) Construction of "Shamshan Ghats" of appropriate sizes in all the affected villages.

(h) Extension and modernization of the existing play ground in village Neemka so as to enable the children of the affected villagers to utilize the same for enhancement of rural sports.

(i) Creation of the library facilities in the village "Bal Bhavans" School so that the children could effectively utilize the resources for their overall growth and development.

(j) Active participation by NTPC in organizing...measures like eye camps, handicap camps, family planning camps, medical check ups of village children and healthy baby competitions and rural sports at village/district level etc.

16. The minutes of this meeting are duly signed by the Sarpanch of Village Jajru. No protest was lodged. It is, therefore, noteworthy that the National Thermal Power Corporation considered all the requirements of the community and arrived at a conclusion that no scheme of employment was necessary in respect of the families whose land was acquired by the State of Haryana, which included Village Jajru. Community development projects for the benefit of the villages were agreed to be undertaken.

17. It is necessary at this stage to notice that the State of Haryana had also entered into an agreement with the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. This agreement dated 22nd December, 1995 has been placed before the court which contains a covenant between the parties setting out the terms on which N.T.P.C. would make the power available to the State of Haryana. This agreement also does not contain any assurance or settlement or commitment to provide employment to the residents of the Village Jajru.

18. In these circumstances, I find merit in the explanation given by the respondent as to the reason why employment packages had been in existence in other projects. The respondent/NTPC have explained that such projects take into consideration the requirements of the community and appropriate packages and schemes have been evolved at different places. Furthermore, the scheme relied upon by the petitioners relates to other places and is of the year 1989. In the instant case, the land itself was acquired only in the year 1996 and after a detailed consideration, a consensus decision and scheme was worked out in the meeting dated 8th June, 1999 which has been noticed hereinabove.

19. The respondent has disputed that there was any settlement or assurance given by or on behalf of the National Thermal Corporation to the effect that employment would be given to a family member of the persons whose land has been acquired. There is no material placed before this Court other than an averment to this effect in the writ petition. It is admitted by the petitioner that no recruitment whatsoever has been effected by the respondent in Village Jajru. In these circumstances, in view of the minutes dated 8th June, 1999, duly signed by the Sarpanch of Village Jajru on behalf of the petitioners, I am of the view that no settlement or assurance was ever given by the respondent that they would grant employment to one member of the family whose land was acquired by the National Thermal Power Corporation.

20. It would be useful to consider the observations made by the High Court of Calcutta in the judgment reported at 2001 (1) LACC 228 entitled Seikh Aminuddin and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors. wherein the court held thus:

7. As aforesaid in the affidavit-in-opposition the dole in the form of preferential appointment was sought to be given to the land losers in order to avoid litigation. On the apprehended litigation to be initiated by someone, he cannot be treated as a separate class to circumvent Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and if such classification is made, the same is bad.

8. It may be that upon acquisition of the subject land the petitioners, if they were cultivators may have lost their employment opportunity and accordingly it may be argued, although no such argument was advanced before me, that they have lost their means of livelihood and accordingly the petitioners and persons similarly situate that of the petitioners may be classified as a separate class.

9. There cannot be any dispute that in this country public appointments are insignificantly few in comparison to unemployment. Because per chance land belonging to a person has not been acquired, he would not get a preferential treatment in the matter of public appointment but land belonging to his next door neighbour has been acquired, again per chance, for a public purpose and accordingly the next door neighbour would get a preferential treatment in the matter of getting a public appointment, would that be reasonable? Then again once a citizen has been deprived of his right to property upon following the procedure established by law, if he is treated as a class in the matter of getting public appointment, without the procedure so established by law providing for the same, the same would be nothing but a mechination to circumvent Articles Government both decided that each family of the land loser would be protected by giving employment to at least one member of such family in the said plant. The petitioners before the Supreme Court contended that each member of the family of the land loser must be given appointment and such claim was founded on Article 21 of the Constitution. While negativing the said claim, the Supreme Court observed "Even if the Government or the steel plant had not offered any employment to any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right." This observation was founded on the observation of the Supreme Court made in the self-same judgment to the effect "Even otherwise, the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to providing employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land." In other words, the Supreme Court said that if a citizen has been deprived of his right to land upon following the procedure established by law, the State acquires no obligation to ensure that such a citizen is employed.

11. In view of what has been held above, I hold that the promise made by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to give employment a member of the family of a land loser on the request of the Government of West Bengal being contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is illegal and accordingly unenforceable. The writ petition is thus dismissed.

21. In the judgment reported at (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 225 entitled Buta Prasad v. Steel Authority of India, the Apex Court was required to consider a contention raised by the residents of villages which formed part of Rourkela Steel Plant as to whether the respondents were bound to give employment to all the erstwhile residents and even their descendants and in any case to treat them preferentially for employment as they or their family members were displaced due to setting up of Rourkela Steel Plant even though they were given market value for their acquired land. The action of the respondent in not giving the employment was challenged based on violation of the residents rights under Article 21. In this behalf, the court held thus:

The constitution challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to have any substance. In Olga Tellis it was observed by this Court that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far-reaching and the 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 Plan was established for the growth of the country. It is one of the prestigious steel plants. It was established in public sector. The Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the 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 and 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 to 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 other way. Acceptance of such a demand would be against Article 14.

22. In view of the law laid down in these authoritative and binding judicial and precedents, the claim of the petitioners that the assurance had been made, even if it had been made, would require to be negatived.

23. So far as the assurance stated to have been made to the petitioners are concerned, the writ petition is bereft of any dates and particulars in respect thereof. The allegations in this regard, therefore, deserve to be disbelieved.

24. It is also to be noticed that the acquisition had taken place in the year 1996 and stands completed on announcement of the award. The land owners have been awarded compensation which has to be disbursed by the authorities with whom the respondent had deposited the same.

25. The writ petition has been filed almost nine years after the initiation of the acquisition process. Undoubtedly, it suffers from unexplained delay and laches and has to be rejected for this reason as well.

26. So far as the reliance is placed by the petitioners on schemes for employment which were earlier effected by the respondent, it has been pointed out that the letter dated 2nd March, 1989 relied upon by the petitioner relates to some acquisition effected from village Bhanakpur and Samaipur. In the instant case, in the meeting held, Village Jajru was represented by its Sarpanch and a development scheme was consensually evolved. It was represented that there was no requirement of any employment opportunities & hence none were envisaged. Other communications relied upon are similarly distinguishable.

27. In view of all the foregoing, I find no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.