Telangana High Court

Sirsani Shankar Rao And 6 Otrs. vs A.P.Power Generation Corp. Ltd., ... on 10 July, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

                                    1



        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                  WRIT PETITION No.24968 of 2008

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring

the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners under

"Land Oustee Quota" in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 on

par with the other Land Oustees by considering the petitioners

representations dated 26.08.2008, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently

direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners under "Land Oustee

Quota" in terms of the G.O.Ms.no.98 dated 15.04.1986 on par with

other land oustees by considering the petitioners representation dated

26.08.2008.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; and Ms. V. Umadevi,

learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments in the

writ affidavit is that the petitioners belong to Perika, BC (B) community,

and the lands belonging to the petitioners, that were in the name of

their grandfathers, were acquired by the Special Tahsildar, Land

Acquisition in the year 1965 for the purpose of construction of

Kothagudem Thermal Power station, Palocha, Khammam District; that

a meagre amount of compensation at the rat of Rs.250/- to 275/- per

acre was paid, as evidenced under Form-C and Form-CC; that the

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 contemplating

policy guidelines for providing employment to the extent of not more

than 50% of the vacancies of categories equivalent to Junior Assistants

or Typists and the cadres below arising in Major and Medium Irrigation

and Power projects with the displaced persons or their dependents duly

following rule of reservation; that the petitioners grandfathers and

fathers were illiterates as such they could not make representations for

appointing them under Land Oustee quota in terms of the said G.O.;

that the petitioners were informed that even the persons who made

applications within the time were also not provided any employment till

recently; that recently the respondent shave provided employment for

about 60 land losers whose lands were also acquired in 1966 and 1986

for KTPs pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

06.11.2006 in SLP(Civil) No.14038/2004, 21301 and 21302/2004; that

the Hon'ble High Court disposed of similar W.P.No.22579 of 2005

directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioners on par with

the guidelines issued by the apex court in the judgment dated

06.11.2006 passed in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 14038/2004;

that the dependents of the land losers have come to an understanding

that one of the dependent made an application for employment under

land oustee quota dn other members would give no objections for the

same; that all the petitioners made individual representations dated

26.08.2008 to the respondents requesting for providing employment

under land oustee quota on par with candidates in SLP (Civil)

No.14038/2004 and SLP (Civil) No.21301, 21302 of 2004 by enclosing

all relevant documents; that the respondents have acknowledged the

petitioners representations on 28, 27/8/2008 respectively; that the

respondents have not passed any orders on the petitioners

representations so far and they were not provided employment under

the land oustee quota on par with SPL candidates; that the action of

respondents in not providing employment under land oustee quota to

the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the

Government has acquired the land for construction of Dam and the

dependents of displaced persons were provided employment under

G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 till recently and the petitioners

representations were not acted upon by the respondent authorities and

that the petitioners are similarly placed with the petitioners in SLP

No.14038/2004, 21301 and 21302/2004 dated 06.11.2006, and

therefore prays to direct the respondents to consider the

representations of the petitioners for employment.

5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. The sum

and substance of the counter affidavit is that the lands in Survey

Nos.113, 114, 138, 143, 139, 146, 144 and 115 to the extent of

Ac.25.08 guntas for the purpose of 'C' Zone Soil Quarry No.3 for

construction of Dam located in the village limits of yanambail,

Buegampahad Taluq, was acquired from the grandfathers of the

petitioners; that the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 contemplates only

son/daughter/spouse of the displaced persons, wherein there is no

earning member in the family, for employment and that too when an

application for such employment is filed with the District Collector

within one year of displacement; and the petitioners are grandsons of

the displaced persons and therefore cannot claim parity with respect to

the persons eligible under the said G.O., and further the orders passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.14038/2004, 21301 and

21302/2004 dated 06.11.2006 were considered in accordance with the

provisions stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 and the

petitioners cannot claim to be treated on par with the petitioners in the

said SLPs.

5. Learned Government Pleader made submissions on the lines of

counter affidavit and contends that the petitioners are grandsons of the

displaced persons in the year 1965 whose lands were acquired for

public purpose for construction of Dam, and the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated

15.04.1986 contemplates provision of employment to the

son/daughter/spouse of the displaced person and therefore the

petitioners are not eligible to be considered for employment under the

said G.O., and further the orders the SLP No.14038/2004, 21301 and

21302/2004 dated 06.11.2006 were considered and the petitioners

cannot seek parity with the petitioners therein in the said SLPs.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and perusing the

material on record, it is not in dispute that the lands of the

grandfathers of the petitioners were acquired by the Special Tahsildar,

Land Acquisition for public purpose, and the dependents of the

displaced persons were provided with employment under G.O.Ms.No.98

dated 15.04.1986. However, it is the specific stand of the respondent

authorities that the said G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 contemplates

provision of employment for the son/daughter/spouse of the displaced

person whereas the petitioners herein are the grandsons of the

displaced persons and therefore the petitioners are not eligible.

7. It may be noted that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit

read as under:

"5. In reply to the averments made in para 5 it is submitted that the petitioners are grandsons of the displaces persons and G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 contemplates only son/daughter/spouse of displaced person for employment, that too when an application for such an employment is filed with the District Collector within one year from the date of displacement. The petitioners in the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLPNo.14038/2004, 21301 and 21302/2004 dated 06.11.2006, were considered in accordance with the provision stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. The petitioners in the writ petition cannot claim to be treated on par with the petitioners in the said SLPs.

6. In reply to the averments in para 6, it is submitted that the land was acquired by the special Tahsildar and land acquisition officer, Kothagudem Thermal Scheme and Kinnerasani project, Palocha vide

Rc.No.B-56/1966 dated 29.04.1966 from the grandfathers of the petitioners for the purpose of constructing earth dam located in the village limits of Yanambali, BuegampahadTaluq. As per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, the displaced person or his/her dependents such as son/daughter/spouse, wherein there is no earning member in the family shall file an application for employment with the District Collector within one year from the date of actual displacement will be considered for employment under land oustee quota. The petitioners grandfathers who paid compensation as per existing market value and now the petitioners cannot claim that the amounts paid to their grandfathers were small amounts. The petitioners failed to make out any case for considering their request for appointment and they deserve no consideration."

8. It may further be noted that paragraph 3(ii) and 3(iii) of

G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986,

read as under:

"3. Government have carefully examined the proposal in consultation with A.P. Public Service Commission to provide jobs to the displaced persons of the Project or their dependents on regular basis to keep such appointments outside the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and to reserve certain categories of posts in the projects for the displaced persons to ensure their appointment.

           (i)     ......
           (ii)    The candidates eligible for appointment under this

scheme shall be the displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family.\

(iii) Applications for appointment from the eligible candidates shall be made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one year from the date of actual displacement of their family. Preference shall be given with reference to the date of displacement and to those applicants whose house and lands are acquired against those whose land or house only is acquired. The District Collectors shall

draw up a list of such applications and forward the same to the project authorities for appointment."

9. In view of the eligibility criteria enumerated in the G.O.Ms.No.98

dated 15.04.1986, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the persons

considered for employment under the said G.O., as admittedly the

petitioners are grandchildren of the displaced persons. Further, in SLP

Nos.14038/2004, 21301 and 21302/2004 dated 06.11.2006, the

petitioners therein were considered in accordance with the provisions

contained in the G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, and therefore there is

no illegality in the impugned action of the respondent authorities in not

considering the representations of the petitioners for employment under

G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 or not treating the petitioners on par

with those in SLP No.14038/2004, 21301 and 21302/2004 dated

06.11.2006, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.