Jharkhand High Court
Arun Choudhary vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Having ... on 25 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
------
LPA No. 627 of 2022
-------
Arun Choudhary, son of Prahlad Choudhary, Ex-Miner/Loader, Govindpur
Area, B.C.C.L., resident of village Kessurgarh, PO-Nudkhurkee, PS-
Baghmara, District Dhanbad ... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, PO & PS Koyla Bhawan,
District Dhanbad.
2. The Chief General Manager (Washery Division), Koyla Bhawan, B.C.C.L.
Dhanbad, PO & PS Koyla Bhawan, District Dhanbad.
3. The Personnel Manger (Land Estate), Block II Area, Koyla Bhawan,
B.C.C.L, Dhanbd, PO & PS Koyla Bhawan, District Dhanbad.
4. The Regional Personnel Manager, Block II Area, Koyala Bhawan,
B.C.C.L., Dhanbad, PO & PS Koyla Bhawan, District Dhanbad.
5. The General Manager, Govindpur Area, Koyala Bhawan, B.C.C.L.,
Dhanbad, PO & PS Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
6. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Land and Revenue Department,
Ranchi, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
7. District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, PO,PS and District Dhanbad.
8. The General Manager, Block II Area, Koyla Bhawan, B.C.C.L., Koyla
Bhawan, District Dhanbad. ... ... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi, Advocate
For the BCCL : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Dev, AC to SC (L &C)III
-------
JUDGMENT
25th January 2023
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The appellant who is the writ petitioner is aggrieved of the order
dated 2nd March 2022 passed in WP(S) No. 4257 of 2005.
2. By the order dated 2nd March 2022, the writ Court has dismissed
WP(S) No. 4257 of 2005 observing as under:
"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."
3. In the writ petition the appellant has made the following prayers:
"(1) 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 Looser 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 with all consequential
benefit thereto."
4. In support of the aforesaid prayers, the appellant has pleaded that
under the Land Losers Scheme he was granted appointment as underground
Miner/Loader on permanent basis by order dated 10 th January 1994, on the
condition that he would hand over vacant possession of his land/house to
Block-II area. As per his own pleadings, the appellant admits that a further
condition was attached to his temporary appointment that if the physical
possession of the vacant land is not given for mining operation within the
stipulated time, his services shall be dispensed with. However, the appellant
has pleaded that the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, 'BCCL') has
taken possession of the land and carried out extensive mining operations. In
its counter-affidavit, the BCCL has set up a plea that the conditional
appointment granted to the appellant was withdrawn by letter dated 4th
November 2003 in terms of the conditions of his employment. The BCCL has
further pleaded that about 112.61 acres of lands were acquired in Land
Acquisition Case No. 28/83-84 but actual physical possession was not given
by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad.
5. While so, with reference to the judgments in "Radhey Shyam &
Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors." (2009) 5 SCC 616 and "Shubhas Jain v.
Rajeshwari Shivam & Others" 2021 SCC OnLine SC 562, the BCCL raised a
fundamental issue in law on powers and jurisdiction of the writ Court to
entertain the writ petition.
6. As noticed above, the stand of the BCCL has been accepted by
the writ Court and we also do not find any ground to differ with the writ
Court's order dated 2nd March 2022 and, accordingly, LPA No. 627 of 2022 is
dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated:25th January 2023
Soumya/Nibha-NAFR
