Jharkhand High Court
Sanjit Kumar Ojha vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited ... on 3 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 504 of 2022
Sanjit Kumar Ojha, aged about 40 years, s/o late Subhas Chandra Ojha, r/o
village-Chirudih (Pandar Kanali), PO-Kusunda, PS-Putki, District-Dhanbad
........Petitioner/ Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited represented through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Koyala Bhawan, PO-Koyala Nagar, PS & District-
Dhanbad
2. The General Manager (Estate), M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, PO-Koyala
Nagar, PS & District-Dhanbad
3. The General Manager, Sijua Area, M/s BCCL, PO-Sijua, PS-Putki,
District-Dhanbad
4. Assistant Manager (Estate) Sijua Area, M/s BCCL, PO-Sijua, PS-Putki,
District-Dhanbad
5. The Project Officer, Sijua Colliery, M/s BCCL, PO-Sijua, PS-Putki,
District-Dhanbad ..............Respondents
--------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For M/s BCCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
---------------
ORDER
rd
3 August 2023
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant
undertakes to supply deficit Court fee during course of the day.
2. Alleging inaction and discrimination on the part of M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Limited (in short, "BCCL"), Sanjit Kumar Ojha approached
the writ Court for employment in lieu of acquisition of his ancestral raiyati
lands.
3. Now he is aggrieved by the order dated 27th July 2022 by which
W.P(C) No.1139 of 2020 has been dismissed.
4. The writ Court has taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Baljeet Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Others v. State of
U.P and Others" (2019) SCC OnLine 1004 to hold that the claim raised by
the writ petitioner was stale.
5. The writ Court has held as under:
".....................................
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that at the time of
acquisition of land vide L.A. Case No. 72/1983-84, it seems that
petitioner was infant or he has not taken birth and he has raised
issue with regard to employment after approximately 37 years in
the year 2020, as such, being a stale matter, this Court cannot grant
such writ.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
6. This is a matter of record that in L.A Case No.72 of 1983-84,
the BCCL acquired 51.18 acres land. The appellant claims that the lands
belonging to him and his co-sharers total extent of which was 2.04 acres
were acquired by the BCCL but employment, as promised, was not given to
him. The appellant has referred to the recommendations dated 2nd May 2016
and 20th September 2018 to fortify his stand that he was entitled for
employment under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the Coal India
Limited.
7. On the other hand, the BCCL has disputed the claim on the
ground that only 48 decimals land belonging to the appellant was acquired
and even his claim that his co-sharers agreed for employment to him by
adding their lands in 48 decimals land was not established and he failed to
produce "No Objection Certificate" from his co-sharers. Although this stand
of the BCCL has been controverted by the appellant, we do not see any
reason for entertaining the present Letters Patent Appeal for the following
reason.
8. At the time when acquisition under L.A Case No.72 of 1983-84
had started the appellant was a minor aged about 5 years - his date of birth
is 20th June 1978. Now this is a well-settled proposition that the persons
eligible for employment on the date of acquisition could only have raised a
claim for employment. Secondly, a claim for employment in lieu of
acquisition of land for which compensation has been paid does not create a
vested right for employment and, that too, after lapse of long years.
9. In "Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. Steel Authority of India Ltd."
1995 Supp (2) SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"6. The constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not
appear to have any substance. In Olga Tellis [(1985) 3 SCC 545] 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 was 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 other way. Acceptance of such a demand
would be against Article 14."
10. In our opinion, the writ Court has rightly refused to entertain
W.P(C) No.1139 of 2020 on the ground that the appellant who was an infant
has raised a claim for employment about 37 years after acquisition of the
subject lands.
11. While so, we do not find any ground to interfere in this matter
and, accordingly, L.P.A No.504 of 2022 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 3rd August 2023
sudhir/N.A.F.R.
