Jharkhand High Court
Arun Choudhary vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Having ... on 2 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4257 of 2005
Arun Choudhary, Son of Prahlad Choudhary, Ex-Miner/Loader,
Govindpur Area, B.C.C.L. Resident of Village-Kessurgarh, P.O.
Nudkhurkee, Police Station-Baghmara, Dist.-Dhanbad
(Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its Office at Koyla Bhawan,
Dhanbad through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Chief General Manager (Washiry Division) Koyla Bhawan,
B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager, Bolck II Area, Koyla Bhawan, B.C.C.L.,
Dhanbad.
4. The Personnel Manager (Land Estate) Block II Area, Koyla
Bhawan, B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
5. The Regional Personnel Manager, Block II Area, Koyla Bhawan,
B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
6. The General Manager, Govindpur Area, Koyla Bhawan, B.C.C.L.,
Dhanbad.
7. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Ranchi.
8. District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
Through Video Conferencing
28/02.03.2022
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.-6.
3. Heard Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.7 and 8.
4. The present writ petition has been filed for the following
reliefs: -
"for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions seeking quashing of order dated
4.11.2003 Memo NO. 587 passed by General Manager,
Govindpur Area B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, whereby and
whereunder the petitioner who was granted employment
in 1994 under Land Losser Scheme has been removed
from service by the impugned order on the ground that
the concerned land has not been handed over to B.C.C.L.
though it is to common knowledge that B.C.C.L. has
carried out extensive mining activities on the said for
more than 9 years;
AND
For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions commanding upon Respondents to
forthwith reinstate the petitioner back in Services all
consequential benefit thereto;
AND
For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions doing conscionable justice to the
petitioner for facts and circumstances of this case."
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
granted appointment on temporary basis vide order dated 10.01.1994
as contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition as underground
miner/loader with a condition that he will help in shifting of the
Kessugarh village and will hand over the vacant possession of
house/land to Block II Area and if the physical possession of the
vacant Land is not given for mining operation within the stipulated
time, the Services of the petitioner along with others would be
dispensed with.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the physical
possession of the entire property was given to the respondents, in
which, they have also undertaken mining activities and the petitioner
had also submitted an affidavit to this effect to the respondent-
B.C.C.L. The learned counsel submits that on the one hand, the
respondents have taken possession of the land of the petitioner and
carried out extensive mining operation and on false and frivolous
ground terminated the services of petitioner vide order dated
04.11.2003 by stating that in spite of lapse of 9 years 0.615 acre out of
Khata No. 65 Plot Nos. 854, 932, 936, 937 and 938 and 970 has not
been handed over to B.C.C.L. The learned counsel submits that the
details of the property of the petitioner which was taken over by the
respondents has been mentioned at paragraph-5 of the writ petition,
wherein it has been mentioned that the father of the petitioner was the
owner of 1.30 ½ acres of land from Mouza No. 84 Khata No. 365
Village Kessurgarh P.S. Baghmara, Dist-Dhanbad bearing Plot No.
932, 936. 937, 26, 836, 850, 853, 259, 369, 303, 304, 821, 94 and 831
which was originally recorded in the name of the grandfather of the
petitioner late Indiralal Choudhary. The learned counsel submits that
the termination of services of the petitioner on frivolous ground is not
sustainable and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
B.C.C.L., on the other hand, has referred to the counter-affidavit to
submit that the employment was a conditional employment and the
actual physical possession of the land was not handed over to them
and consequently, the provisional employment was withdrawn by
virtue of the impugned letter dated 04.11.2003. It has also been
mentioned in the counter-affidavit that 112.61 acres of land was
acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide L.A. Case No. 28/83-
84, but the actual physical possession was not handed over and only
paper possession was given by the District Land Acquisition,
Dhanbad, in 1991 although compensation amount of 61.64 lakhs was
paid to the District Land Acquisition Officer. In July 1993, efforts
were made by the respondents to extend the Railway siding at
Kessugarh village, which was vehemently opposed by the villagers
and consequently, a meeting was held on 24.08.1993 and it was
agreed that at the initial stage, 22 provisional employments be
provided to the Youth who would take all steps to ensure that the
entire village already acquired through land acquisition proceeding
including the houses standing thereon would be removed/vacated, and
it was also agreed that once the entire village is vacated, 108
employments would be provided against 108 houses and 56
employments would be provided against 112.61 acres of land and total
employment to be provided was 164 including 22 provisional
employment. Thereafter, the petitioner and others were provided
employment and the petitioner was one of those 22 beneficiaries, but
none of 22 villagers fulfil the condition of their employment, namely,
handing over the vacant possession of land and consequently, the
impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel submits that
there is disputed question of facts involved in this writ petition which
cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and therefore, no relief can
be granted to the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that all
22 employments were withdrawn and the remaining employment were
not given on account of non-fulfillment of the condition of
employment.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent-B.C.C.L. has referred to
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5
SCC 616 (Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others) para 18
to 21 as well as the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 562
(Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam & Others) para 26 to submit
that it is well-settled that the High Court while exercising its extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India does not adjudicate hotly disputed question of facts.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that highly disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case
with regard to the handing over of the physical possession of land
which was admittedly a condition of employment of the petitioner.
According to the petitioner the land was handed over to B.C.C.L., but
the respondent-B.C.C.L. has vehemently disputed handing over of
physical possession of the land.
11. Considering the aforesaid dispute in connection with title and
handing over of the land by the petitioner to the respondent-B.C.C.L.
such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and accordingly,
no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the present
writ petition is hereby dismissed.
12. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty
may be granted to the petitioner to move before the competent court of
law for the purposes of adjudication of dispute.
13. In view of the aforesaid submissions, liberty is reserved with
the petitioner to get the dispute adjudicated through a competent court
of civil jurisdiction or any other remedy available to the parties and
dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice either parties.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed as not
pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
