Jharkhand High Court
Govind Turi vs Union Of India Through South ... on 2 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4937 of 2013
--------
1.Govind Turi, son of Late Naru Turi,
2.Bajrang Kumar, son of Sri Govind Turi,
both are resident of village Telmecho, Shiv Colony, P.O.
Ram Nagar Garh, P.S. Mahuda, District-Dhanbad-
Jharkhand. .... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.Union of India through South Eastern Railway, 11,
Gardenreach Road, Kolkata -700043, P.O and P.S. Garden
Reach, Kolkata -43 (West Bengal).
2.Additional General Manager, South Eastern Railway, 11,
Garden Reach Road, Kolkata -700043.
3.Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway,
Adra, P.O. Adra, P.S. Adra, District - Purulia (West Bengal).
4.State of Bihar, Patna.
5.District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, P.O.
Dhanbad, P.S. and District - Dhanbad.
6.State of Jharkhand. ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents :Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No. 13/Dated 2nd December, 2021
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for quashing order dated 18.02.2013
whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected;
and for direction upon the respondents to reconsider the
matter of appointment of petitioner no. 2 whose lands have
been acquired by the respondent-Railway for laying Railway
Track.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the agricultural
land of the writ petitioners was acquired for the purpose of
laying railway track and for the aforesaid purpose, L.A.
Case No. 08 of 1980-81 was filed before the District Land
Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, in which, notice was issued
to the writ petitioners stating therein that 09.68 acres of
land is going to be acquired for the purpose of railway track
and if they have any objection, they may file objection over
their claim.
It is the case of the petitioners that several villagers
including the writ petitioners raised objection for laying of
railway track on their land as a result the higher
authorities of respondents-railways assured them to
provide employment against the land acquired. But, when
for a long period of time no action was taken on the
assurance given by the respondents-authorities of Railway,
several representation was submitted by writ petitioners
before the competent authority and lastly they submitted
representation on 17.10.2012 but no action was taken,
which led the writ petitioner to approach this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No. 612 of 2012, which was disposed of vide
order dated 30.07.2012 giving liberty to the writ petitioner
to file representation before the Divisional Railway
Manager, South Eastern Railway, Adra who shall consider
the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with
law.
With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petitioner filed
representation before the authority concerned, which was
disposed of and communicated to the petitioner vide letter
dated 18.02.2013, which is impugned in the instant writ
petition.
3. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha,
learned counsel for the respondents-Railways.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the case of the petitioner is governed by Railway
Board's Circular/Letter dated 16.07.2010 which speaks
about providing employment in lieu of land acquired but
the respondents-authorities without taking into
consideration the fact that large chunk of agricultural land
of the petitioners has been acquired, rejected the claim of
the writ petitioners of providing employment in lieu of land
acquired.
5. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondents-Railways has submitted that the respondent-
authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioners has
considered the circular dated 16.07.2010. He further
submitted that since the land of the petitioner was acquired
in the year 1980-81 and circular of Railway Board has
come on 16.07.2010, claim of the petitioner cannot be
entertained after lapse of more than three decades.
6. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the
parties at length and considering the pleadings made in the
affidavits and documents available on record, is of the view
that since the land of the petitioner has been acquired in
the year 1980-81 and petitioner is relying circular dated
16.07.2010, i.e. issued after three decades of acquisition of
land, for getting employment in lieu of land acquired, it
cannot be given its retrospective application, if otherwise
the rule/circular provides. Herein, admittedly it is not the
case of the writ petitioners that the said circular of the
Railway Board has been given its retrospective application
that too retrospective application with three decades.
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment
rendered in P. Mahendran & Ors v. State of Karnataka
& Ors, [(1990) 1 SCC 411], in particular paragraph 5,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"5.It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or
statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by
necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.
Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing
the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to
be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is
fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed
as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or
necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective
effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rules of
1987 do not contain any express provision giving the
amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein
showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the rule with
retrospective effect. Since the amending Rules were not
retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those
candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment
on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process
of selection had already commenced when the amending
Rules came into force, the amended Rules could not affect the
existing rights of those candidates who were being considered
for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications
prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover
construction of amending Rules should be made in a
reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those
who have no control over the subject matter."
7. Considering the aforesaid settled position of law,
this Court is of the view that since the circular has come
into effect on 16.07.2010 whereas the land was acquired in
the year 1980-81, the circular dated 16.07.2010 cannot be
given its retrospective application to consider the case of
the writ petitioners to provide employment.
8. In view the discussions made herein above, this
Court is of view that the writ petitioners have failed to make
out a case for interference.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Alankar/-
