Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 889 (JHR)

Md. Muslim Ansari v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2003-07-24

TAPEN SEN

body2003
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have made a prayer that they be granted employment under the policy relating to displaced persons/land oustees. They have also made a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the concerned respondents to pay higher compensation to them for the acquisition of their land to the extent of 6.31 acres at the prevailing market rate. 3. So far as the question of grant of compensation at the present market value is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the respondents have calculated the same in such a manner that it comes to approximately Rs. 10/- per decimal. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the compensation awarded is approximately Rs. 15 to 16/- per decimal, which was the rate prevalent at that Lime. 5. Considering the fact that the land in question were acquired in the year 1965, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief insofar as enhancement of compensation is concerned, but taking into consideration that the aforementioned amount appears to be on the lower side, grants liberty to the petitioners to file an application for enhancement before the appropriate authority within two weeks from today. 6. Let it further be recorded that this Court has not made any expressions in relation to the merit of the claims save and except to the effect that it appears to be on lower side. In the event, the petitioners file an application as indicated above, the appropriate authority will pass orders in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observations made herein. 7. So far as the question of employment is concerned, it appears that for acquisition made in the same year, i.e., in the year 1965 and for the area lying adjacent to the lands of the petitioners, employments have been given to four persons named In paragraph 16 of the writ application, namely, Rahamatullah Ansari, Milad Hussain, Abdul Rajjak and Elahi Mian. 8. In reply to the aforementioned paragraph, the respondents have stated at paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit that these people were given employment as a special case. Mr. 8. In reply to the aforementioned paragraph, the respondents have stated at paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit that these people were given employment as a special case. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that employment to these persons were given pursuant to the orders passed in CWJC No. 1922 of 1993(R), i.e., order dated 22.7.1993. Further, upon perusal of the aforementioned order, it appears that a Division Bench of the then Ranchi Bench disposed off the writ application directing the respondents to consider and dispose off the representation filed by those petitioners, i.e., Rahmatullah Ansari and others. Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contention of Mr. Delip Jerath that those persons have been provided employment and have been given compensation at the present market value and not at Rs. 10/-, Rs. 15/-or Rs. 16/- per decimal. 9. It is the admitted case of the parties that the lands of the petitioners were, in fact, acquired. However, for purposes of employment, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot straightaway proceed to pass an order directing the respondents to grant employment because that has to be dealt with at the threshold by the respondents themselves because they are the authorities competent to issue letters of appointment. However, what cannot be lost sight of is that the petitioners are land oustees and compensation to them was offered for the first time in the year 1997 as is evident from Annexure 2 series. The land was itself acquired in the year 1965. There is no explanation coming forth from the side of the respondents as to what the respondents were doing right from 1965 to 1997 in the matter relating to grant of employment. In that view of the matter, the delay should not come in the way of the petitioners and the respondents cannot be allowed to create a class within a class and/or act in a manner which ultimately amounts to discrimination amongst people similarly situated. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to take Into consideration the case of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible but not beyond a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and they must act reasonably and with all fairness ensuring that there is no discrimination. 10. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to take Into consideration the case of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible but not beyond a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and they must act reasonably and with all fairness ensuring that there is no discrimination. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stand disposed off. 11. After the aforementioned order was dictated, Mr. Delip Jerath submitted that since the petitioners have not withdrawn any amount because of the paltry compensation that was decided to be paid, the petitioners may, without prejudice to their right to claim higher amount, be allowed to withdraw the said amount to meet immediate exigencies. Mr. Jerath is absolutely justified in making the aforementioned submissions and therefore liberty to that extent is granted. Petition disposed off.