Ramaua Devi vs Northern Coalfields Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 5231 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                           ON THE 11th OF APRIL, 2022

                     WRIT PETITION No. 3325 of 2007

        Between:-
        RAMAUA DEVI S/O LATE SHRI BANSHDHARI
        B A S O R VILL. NAUGAI TEH. SINGRAULI DIST.
        SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    .....PETITIONER
        (By Ms. Guncha Rasool, learned counsel)

        AND

1.      NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED OCCUPATION:
        TH. GENERAL MANAGER TEH. SINGRAULI DIST.
        SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      THE STAFF OFFICER [WORKS] AMLORI PROJECT
        DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH REVENUE
        DETT. BALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

4.      THE COLLECTOR /LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
        DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.      THE     SUB         DIVISIONAL      MAGISTRATE
        TAH.SINGRAULI        DISTT.  SIDHI.   (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
        (State by Shri Laven Arora, learned Panel Lawyer and respondent-NCL by
        Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel)

      This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein who is aggrieved by the rejection of her application for employment with respondent no.1 vide order dated 4.5.2006.

The brief facts of the case are as follows. The grandfather of the petitioner was the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.345, 346 and 349 situated at village Amjhar, Tahsil Singrauli, district Sidhi. After the death of the grandfather in the year 1996, a dispute arose between the brothers (father and uncle of the petitioner)

pertaining to the aforementioned lands. A suit was filed for the resolution of dispute and during its pendency in the year 1982, respondent no.4 acquired the land in question pursuant to section 4 notification in 1978. The petitioner has submitted that as per the policy decision, respondent was under an obligation to

provide employment to a member of the petitioner's family in the year 1982 but the same was not provided. However, in view of the pendency of the suit, the father of the petitioner was in continuous possession of the land.

Vide order dated 2.8.1988, this court allowed Second Appeal No.490/1983 filed by the father of the petitioner and this court held that the property in question was a joint Hindu property. The matter travelled to the Supreme Court whereby it was dismissed in the year 1992 and thereby it affirmed that the property bearing Khasra Nos.345, 346 and 349 belonged to the father of the petitioner.

After the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the petitioner approached respondent no.1 for considering her application for appointment in the establishment as per the policy decision taken by the respondents. However, the same was not done.

The father of the petitioner passed away on 7.1.2006 and, therefore, being the sole successor, the petitioner approached the authorities of respondent no.1 for employment as there was no alternate source of income for the petitioner's family. It was this application which was rejected by the impugned order dated 4.5.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure R/1 filed along with the return of respondent-NCL, which was a uniform guideline for employment to land losers dated December 1984. However, vide order dated 17.3.1986, the earlier uniform guidelines of 1984 were withdrawn and it was no longer necessary for the respondents to consider providing employment to any of the land losers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the said cancellation of the 1984 guidelines by the order of 1986, the respondents continued to communicate with the father of the petitioner. In order to substantiate the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the letter addressed to the father of the petitioner dated 20/21.07.1993 asking the petitioner's father to provide information with regard to the latest status of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner had no fundamental or legal right to sustain this petition as her demand was not based upon any statute, rules or binding policy investing the petitioner with a right for employment. In order to substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this court the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.829/2010 whereby, this court had held that " in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is graphically clear that a land oustee like the appellant has neither any legal or fundamental right

to claim appointment. In the absence of any legal right to claim appointment, in lieu of acquisition of land, no mandamus can be issued to respondents directing them to provide employment to the appellant." The Division Bench of this court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 JLJ 463 (Butu Prasad Kumbhar and others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others). That was a case where, for the construction of Rourkela Steel Plant an acquisition of about 20,000 acres of land was required. As there was an opposition and resistance from the prospective people who were going to be displaced, the State Government issued a statement that the displaced persons would be given alternate sites for farming and that they would be given jobs in the steel plant. That promise was belied. Thereafter, the steel plant entered into an agreement with the residents of one of the re-settlements colonies, namely, Jhirpani Resettlement Colony and thereafter it was agreed to give employment at the earliest to the displaced persons under the "T. N. Singh Formula". The petition filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court after 30 to 35 years after the acquisition and the facts reveal that it was second and third generation people who were seeking employment on the basis of descent. The Supreme Court held that there was no scheme for employing every displaced person and that 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 the acquisition of lands. It also held that where the Government or the steel plant have not offered any employment to any person, it cannot be held that it has resulted in violation of any fundamental right considering the poverty of the persons who were

displaced. Under the circumstances, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.7402/2008 (Ramanuj Pratap Singh and another v. Northern Coalfields Ltd.) where in a similar situation, this court had dismissed the writ petition stating that the policy to give employment to one of the dependents of the family whose land is acquired does not mean that a person who was not born at the time of acquisition of land is also eligible to get employment because, dependent does not mean a person who was not born at the relevant time. Here too, at the time of acquisition of land, the petitioner was not born. There is no policy existing at the time of its acquisition of providing employment to those whose lands have been acquired.

Under the circumstances, as the policy came much later in the year 2006 which provided that one person from the family of every displaced person from whom at least two acres of irrigated land and three acres of non-irrigated land were acquired, would be given employment with the respondent-company. However, the policy of 2006 cannot be applied retrospectively and as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she was not even born on the date on which the land was acquired and, as so stated by the learned counsel for the respondents. Besides, the land which fell into share of the father of the petitioner was .58 acres and even, for the sake of an argument, if the policy of 2006 was applied, the father of the petitioner was not eligible for employment with the respondent-company as a minimum of two acres of land ought to have been acquired for a dependent to be eligible for consideration.

Under the circumstances, in view of what has been argued, discussed and considered by this court herein above, the petition sans merit is dismissed.

ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ps

PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA 2022.04.12 16:30:15 +05'30'