Orissa High Court
Bipin Minz @ Oram vs Erigaspher Ekka & Another on 10 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RSA No.317 of 2010
Bipin Minz @ Oram .... Appellant
Mr.Niranjan Singh
-versus-
Erigaspher Ekka & Another .... Respondents
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
10.11.2021
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. The Appellant, by filing this Second Appeal under
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code')
has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2010 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Rourkela in R.F.A.
No.28 of 2008.
By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court, while
dismissing the Appeal filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant, has
confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 and
11.12.2005 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Rourkela in C.S. No.129 of 2007.
3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid
confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been
referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.
// 2 //
4. The case of the Plaintiff, in short, is that some
properties in the name of his grandfather, namely, Mahali @
Marcus Oram in Mouza-Telendihi (earlier it was
Kukudamunda) had been acquired by the State for the purpose
of establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant in the year 1959.
Compensation for the said acquired land had been paid.
Although there was a condition for such acquisition of the land
that job would be provided to the family of the land losers as
per the scheme floated for the purpose, none of the members of
the family of the Plaintiff was ever given any employment. It
is alleged that Defendant No.2, without acting in terms of the
said stipulation, instead of giving employment to the members
of the family of the Plaintiff, gave employment to Defendant
No.1, who impersonated himself to be the successor of the
land losers and produced certain forged documents. The
Plaintiff filed the Suit and prayed for the following reliefs:
"i) declaration of service of the defendant no.1
under the defendant no.2 company as null and
void;
ii) direction to the defendant no.2 company to
provide the plaintiff a service under it on
compassionate ground as the plaintiff is a member
of displaced person; and
iii) cost of the suit and any other or further
relief/relief which the plaintiff is entitled."
5. The Defendant No.2 questioned the maintainability of
the Suit as barred by limitation. Non-joinder of necessary party
such as Additional District Magistrate, Rourkela has also said
// 3 //
to be fatal consequence. It is stated that the scheme of
employment after the acquisition of the land is not valid that to
the claim of employment to the third generation of the family
members of the displaced persons is a State one. It is their case
that the name of the Defendant No.1 had been sponsored by
the Employment Exchange for the post of semi-skilled worker
and then holding an interview, he had been selected.
Accordingly, it is said that it was not an employment to the
family members of the displaced person and Defendant No.1
was no chosen or appointed for that reason.
6. The Trial Court, on the above rival pleadings having
framed nine issues has dismissed the Suit by answering the
finding on all those issues against the Plaintiff.
7. The unsuccessful Plaintiff having moved the First
Appellate court by filing an Appeal under section 96 of the
Code has also failed. Hence, this Appeal.
8. I have heard Mr.Niranjin Singh, learned counsel for the
Appellant and gone through the judgment passed by the Courts
belows.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Plaintiff submits that
here the views taken by the courts below are not proper. It is
submitted that the Courts below have erred in law holding that
the Appellant has no civil right as he is not a local displaced
person and when he has also not proved employment of
Respondent No.1 to be illegal or that the Respondent No.2
// 4 //
have acted illegally. He, therefore, submits that the above is
the substantial questions of law which arises in this Appeal for
being answered.
10. Going to address the submission of the learned counsel
for the Appellant, it is seen that the land as to have been owned
by the grandfather of the Appellant being acquired is not in
dispute. Necessary compensation had been paid and possession
of the acquired land had been delivered to the Respondent
No.2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that during the relevant time
of acquisition of land in question, the condition to provide the
employment to the members of the displaced person, has not
been complied with by the Defendant No.2. The Courts below,
on scrutiny of evidence let in by the parties, have concurrently
found that by not providing employment to the Plaintiff, no
such violation of the condition as to the acquisition of land is
made out. It has been said by the Plaintiff that illegally the
Defendant No1 had been given an employment, it is however
seen to be on the basis of the fact that his name had been
sponsored by the local Employment Exchange and after he
successfully passed in the interview. Both the Courts have
arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that
the Defendant No.1 has got the employment under the scheme
floated for the purpose of acquisition of land in question and
that Defendant No.1 by producing some forged documents, has
obtained the said employment. Some materials though are
there to conclude that the Defendant No.1 is not the successor
of the grandfather of the Plaintiff, whose land had been
// 5 //
acquired, it is difficult to say that getting such employment, he
availed of the benefit of the scheme. In the case in hand, the
Courts below having found that the Defendant No.2, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be directed to
provide employment of the successors of the displaced persons
who has received due compensation. Having said all these
above, the Courts below since had dismissed the Suit of the
Plaintiff as laid in and for the reliefs claimed, this Counts finds
that the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant,
there arises the substantial question of law for being answered
the appeal cannot be countenanced with.
11. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order is
for costs.
(D.Dash)
Judge
Basu
