JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
Page 0235
1. Heard.
2. Petitioner claims to be Secretary of Land Losers Committee. He has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal, Limited ( BCCL) for implementing the rehabilitation package of the Government of India and the offer Page 0236 made by BCCL vide Circular dated 19th October, 1990 ( Annexure-4/1) and for a direction to act pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure-18).
3. Mr. Mazumdar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted as follows. That 37.49 acres of land were acquired under L.A. Case No. 67/1986-87 and 1/87-88 of village Amjhar displacing 87 families. The Supreme Court, passed an order on 13.12.1995 in CMP Case No. 16331 of 1982 in the case of Lal Chand Mahto v. Coal India Limited and Ors. (Annexure-10). In paragraph 4, it was said that simultaneously with taking possession, employment to the head of the family consisting of parents and minor children, was to be given. Thus each family should be given employment.
Further there has been discrimination inasmuch as the other land losers having less than two acres of land were given one employment whereas the land losers under the said acquisition cases having less than two acres of land were not given one employment and as such more employments were given with regard to other villages in comparison to the lands acquired, under the said land acquisition cases.
4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents/BCCL, submitted as follows. The said order of Supreme Court was an interim order passed on the petition for vacating stay and was passed in different situation, prevailing at that time. Moreover, keeping in view all relevant aspects, including the directives of the Central Government, a rehabilitation package was offered by BCCL to the land losers under Circular dated 19.10.1990 (Annexure-4/1). He further submitted that by letter dated 21/28.4.1992 (Annexure-7), and again by letter dated 3.4.12.1992 (Annexure-14) petitioner was informed that his case was examined and 18 employments were sanctioned only after getting the vacant possession of the entire land in one go as a package deal and the agreed names of 18 persons be furnished. This was refused by the petitioner. Petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, who made certain recommendations, which are not binding on BCCL.
He further submitted that in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition on 25.1.1999 it was specifically stated that physical possession of the lands in question has not been delivered to BCCL inspite of payment of compensation as far back as in the year 1991.
On the question of discrimination, Mr. Mehta submitted that different package deals had to be done with the land losers keeping in view different prevailing situations and therefore petitioner cannot claim discrimination. Moreover, from the document relied by the petitioner to allege discrimination, it appears that on the pressure of a political party-JMM, the deal was finalized.
Mr. Mehta relied on the Division Bench Judgment reported in 2004 (4) JCR 526 (Jhr) Steel Authority of India Limited v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto and analogous cases and the judgment dated 2.2.2006, passed in WPS No. 5445 of 2005. He therefore submitted that petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.
5. Mr. Mazumdar admitted that compensation had been received. He further admitted that out of the members of land losers committee, only two persons had land more than two acres and the rest had land less than two acres.
6. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, as per the scheme, one employment was to be provided against acquisition of two acres of land. Page 0237 Admittedly, except two persons all others had less than two acres of land, but even then against acquisition of 37.94 acres, 18 employments were offered. This offer was made by sanctioning 18 posts as far back as in the year 1992 but petitioner refused such offer.
Moreover, there is a dispute whether the acquired lands have actually been delivered to the BCCL or not.
7. The relevant portions of the said judgment of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto and analogous cases, (supra) reads as follows.
Therefore, the Government cannot be obliged to go on keeping alive the claim of every “Tom, Dick and Harry” for appointment nor can the Government or the Authority be called upon to answer a charge that they are playing “ducks and drakes” with the Orders of the High Court because the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of its livelihood cannot be stretched to such an extent that they are obliged to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. This Court draws inspiration for the aforementioned proposition from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. Sail reported in “1995 Supp. (2) SCC 225 at 229, ( para-6). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Rourkella steel Plant and while taking the aforementioned view, have gone to the extent of saying, that even if the Government or the Steel Plant would not have offered any employment to any person, it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. On the contrary, their Lordships have said that acceptance of demand for employment would run counter to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
…I wish to add that if such offers of appointment are made while acquiring land for a project due to local conditions, extreme care should be taken to keep it within bounds. This form of requirement is against the Constitutional scheme of appointment and the rule of equal opportunity. During the hearing we were informed that only 6,000 posts on land losers head was available, but already about 15,000 have been employed under that head. This is certainly impermissible. It is submitted that it was due to external pressures and orders of Court that this happened. This only indicates that Courts should be cautious in making observations and directions and should not lose sight of the scope and limited ambit of the scheme. Nor can the Government or the authorities be compelled to succumb to outside and improper pressures. The figure given also gives a warning that such schemes should not be introduced without appropriate thought and without imposing strict limitations on it. The observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment quoted by my learned brother should always be kept in mind.
8. The grounds on which learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the said cases on facts, cannot be accepted.
9. In the result this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.