ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In the instant application the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to provide employment to his daughter in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents and in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties at the time of acquisition of land. 3. The admitted facts are that the Government acquired certain land of the petitioner for the purpose of the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short BCCL). At the time of acquisition of land, it was agreed into, inter alia, that employment should be provided to the land loosers. The contention of the petitioner is that till date employment has not been provided although compensation has already been paid. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that a policy decision has been taken by the Coal India Ltd., holding company of M/s. BCCL that henceforth no employment shall be provided to any individual for acquisition of his land. It is further stated that respondents have acquired only 0.35 acres of land and even as per the earlier policy decision one employment could be provided against the acquisition of two acres of land belonging to any individual. It is stated that petitioner had offered further land to the extent of 0.63-1/2 acres but the said land was not in continuity. Respondents declined to acquire the said land. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-BCCL. 5. As noticed above, as per earlier policy decision and the agreement employment was agreed to be provided against the acquisition of two acres of land of any individual. Respondents have taken a fresh policy not to provide employment for various reasons. 6. It is well settled that acquisition of land by the Government under the Act for setting up large Steel Plant resulting in displacement of land owners is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Government is not bound to provide employment to any person so displaced much less to provide employment or to ensure preferential treatment in employment to each adult member of displaced family. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, and Ors. (1995) II Suppl. SCC 225. 7. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, and Ors. (1995) II Suppl. SCC 225. 7. In the instant case, as noticed above, only a small piece of land of the petitioner measuring 0.36 acres of land was acquired and compensation for the said land has already been paid to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the decision taken by the respondents not to provide any further employment cannot be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly, dismissed.