Karnataka High Court

Shaikh Moula Sab vs The Managing Directgor And Ors on 7 April, 2022

Bench: E.S.Indiresh

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     KALABURAGI BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

        WRIT PETITION NO.223778 OF 2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHAIKH MOULA SAB
S/O ABDUL KAREEM SAB
AGE 48 YEARS
OCC:BUSINESS
R/O H.NO.261, B LINE
SHAKTI NAGAR
NEW D YADALAPUR-584170
TALUKA AND DISTRICT RAICHUR.
                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

       1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
          KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
          SHAKTI BHAVAN
          RACE COURSE ROAD
          BENGALURU-560 009.

       2. THE DIRECTOR
          HUMAN RESOURCES
          KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
          SHAKTI BHAVAN
          RACE COURSE ROAD
          BENGALURU-560 009.

       3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
          HUMAN RESOURCES
          KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
                                      2




          SHAKTI BHAVAN
          RACE COURSE ROAD
          BENGALURU-560 009.

     4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
        KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
        RAICHUR THERMAL POWER STATION
        SHAKTI NAGAR-584170
        TALUKA AND DISTRICT RAICHUR-584101.

     5. THE DEPUTY MANAGER (HRD)
        KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
        RAICHUR THERMAL POWER STATION
        SHAKTI NAGAR-584170
        TALUKA AND DISTRICT RAICHUR-584101.

                                                        ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VENKATESH C MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 5)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A APPROPRIATE
ORDER/S, DIRECTION/S IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26TH APRIL, 2016
BEARING NO.A/2P1A/LL/518 REFERRED TO ANNEXURE-T PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.5, REJECTING APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER
FOR FAILING TO CONSIDER FOR APPOINTMENT AS HELPER IN VIEW
OF ACQUISITION OF PETITIONER'S HOUSING PROPERTY BEARING
H.NO.217, SITUATED AT VILLAGE YADLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT,
RAICHUR REFERRED TO ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.,

     IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

In this Writ Petition, petitioner has challenged the

endorsement dated 26th April, 2016 (Annexure-T) issued by the

respondent-Corporation, rejecting the application made by the

petitioner seeking appointment in terms of the Scheme for

providing employment under land-loser quota.

2. The petitioner has stated that the property bearing

house No.217 situated at Yadlapur village has been acquired by

the respondent-Corporation for setting up of Raichur Thermal

Power Station and in this regard compensation has been paid to

Abdul Kareem Sab S/o Kasim Sab on 06 th September, 1988 and

it is further stated that prior to acquisition of the said housing

property bearing No.217, name of the owner has been shown as

Moula S/o Abdul Kareem Sab and therefore, the said property

was divided into three portions and further one portion was

divided into three persons viz. (1) Abdul Kareem S/o Kasim Sab;

(2) Yusuf Sab S/o Kasim Sab; and (3) Maheboob Sab S/o Kasim

Sab and compensation has been given to all the three persons.

It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner herein

being the son of Abdul Karim Sab, he is entitled for employment

with the respondent-Corporation in terms of the Scheme of the

respondent-Corporation under land-losers quota. Therefore, the

petitioner has made representation to the respondent-

Corporation and same was not considered and as such, the

father of the petitioner has filed Writ Petitions No.102301-305 of

2013 before this Court and this Court by order dated 24 th

November, 2015, disposed of the Writ Petitions with a direction

to the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation in

accordance with law. The respondent-Corporation, considering

the representation made by the petitioner, by impugned order

dated 26th April, 2016, rejected the application and being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this Writ

Petition.

3. I have heard Sri Raja Venkatappa Naik, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Venkatesh C.

Mallabadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

Corporation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the Scheme of the respondent-Corporation would

provide for employment to the children of the land-losers and

therefore, the respondent-Corporation be directed to consider

the case of the petitioner for employment purpose. He further

submitted that the respondent-Corporation has not given

reasons for rejection of the application made by the petitioner

and as such, he referred to Annexure-B to the Writ Petition and

submitted that the name of the petitioner was considered for

employment, however, same was rejected on flimsy ground and

as such he insisted for issuing direction to the respondent-

Corporation.

5. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submitted that

the petitioner is not a family member of the land-loser and as

such, he places reliance on the Scheme of the respondent-

Corporation providing employment to the land-losers as per

Annexure-R5 and argued that the said employment could be

made only for livelihood and in the case on hand, the petitioner

has not established that the petitioner deserves employment

under the said Scheme and accordingly sought for dismissal of

the Writ Petition.

6. In the light of the aforementioned submission made

by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on

examination of Annexure-E would substantiate the fact that the

father of the petitioner was paid compensation by the Assistant

Commissioner, Raichur on 03rd October, 1998. Name of the

petitioner find place in the short list of the names of the

candidates made by the respondent-Corporation as per

Annexure-E. Though the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Corporation, places reliance on the scheme providing

employment under the land-loser quota as per Annexure-R5,

however, on perusal of the material produced by the petitioner

would indicate that no employment has been given to the family

members of the petitioner pursuant to the acquisition

proceedings. However, Sri Venkatesh C. Mallabadi, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submitted that

the respondent-Corporation has provided employment for two

family members of the petitioner. In the backdrop of these

aspects, I have carefully considered the Scheme produced by

respondent-Corporation at Annexure-R5, wherein Explanation

(2) proviso to of sub-rule (iii) of amended Rule 9 reads as under:

"(2) "members of the family" in relation to a project displaced person means the family of the project displaced person consisting of such person and his or her spouse, sons, unmarried daughters, brothers and sisters residing with him and dependent on him for their livelihood."

7. Perusal of the aforementioned clause would indicate

that employment under the landloser quota would be given for

their livelihood despite payment of compensation and providing

incentive site to the land-losers. The scope of providing

employment is for their livelihood. In the case on hand, the land

belonging to the petitioner, even according to the petitioner, was

acquired on 23rd August, 1983 (Annexure- R1) under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent-Corporation

rejected the claim of the petitioner on 26th April, 2016 as per

Annexure-T. The fact that Writ Petition is filed in the year 2020

itself would show that the petitioner is not facing any financial

problem to lead a normal life. The object of providing