Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1904 (PAT)

Ram Bujhan Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-12-14

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. The petitioners challenge Annexure-1 series by which their appointments as made in the year 1989 have been terminated in the year 2003 that is after fourteen years. They submit that the ground given for termination is not at all germane to the issue and on a total misconception both with regard to fact and law such an order had been passed. 2. This case was earlier heard and by judgment and order dated 23.11.2004, the action taken was set aside solely on the ground that the State cannot act in such a manner after such a long time. There was no adjudication as to the factual or legal aspect of the matter. State, being aggrieved, preferred Letters Patent Appeal unsuccessfully and then they appealed to the Apex Court. Apex Court, by its judg- ment and order dated 13th July, 2007 in Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2007 set aside the judgment of this Court both by the Single Judge and by the Letters Patent Court and directed for fresh hearing and disposal by reasoned judgment upon consideration by all the contentions made by the parties. It is under those circumstances that the matter has now been placed before this Court for final disposal. 3. When the matter was taken up upon rehearing, this Court directed some papers to be filed by the State to see what was the policy and how the policy was evolved because that became a crucial point for determination. State has produced the same. Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ application is being dis- posed of at this stage itself. 4. In the State of Bihar, there is a river "Koshi". The word "Koshi" itself is a derivative which means "cursed". It is so because of the perennial problem of the river changing its course and causing vast devastation, a problem which has not been even today successfully tackled. Nature takes its toll every year. Considering this aspect of the matter from time to time, various steps were taken to meet various contingencies. For historical awareness, I may mention that long before independ- ence when the Zamindari system was prevalent because the raiyats as a consequence of devastation were unable to pay their rents, they were evicted. They lost their lands. The provincial legislation stepped in made enactments restoring lands and lands rights to them. For historical awareness, I may mention that long before independ- ence when the Zamindari system was prevalent because the raiyats as a consequence of devastation were unable to pay their rents, they were evicted. They lost their lands. The provincial legislation stepped in made enactments restoring lands and lands rights to them. This was one of the measures taken. After independence, Government decided to channelise/ reign mother nature. Vast canal systems were designed. Embankments created. For this large number of persons were displaced as a matter of course of the land acquisition proceedings. A policy decision was taken to rehabilitate these displaced persons who were displaced as a consequence of their lands being acquired for the Koshi Project. These persons were termed as "displaced persons" but this was not the only cat- egory of displaced persons for Government resolutions would show, and it is not disputed that Government after full deliberation, decided that people living in between two embankments whose lands, houses and properties are regularly ravaged by floods would also be treated as "displaced persons". Almost every year without fail once the monsoon sets in, water from Himalayas flow through Koshi river and overflows embankments. For major part of the year, properties are inundated leaving no survival opportunity to the people therein. 5. These people, though they get back their lands for part of the year at times and at times after several years, they are also treated as "displaced persons". Neither in the pleadings nor at the Bar has there been a dispute in this regard. Thus, it would be seen there are two categories of displaced persons. One whose lands have been acquired for the Koshi Project and the second whose lands lie between embankments of Koshi river and Koshi Project. Both have been given certain privileges in matter of employment. One of the same was that a small percentage of Government jobs in the area were reserved for them. This is again not in dispute. 6. Petitioners, under the aforesaid scheme, applied. State had formed a High- Powered Committee to supervise this dis- pensation. The Committee enquired into their status and, as noted above following the procedure, appointment letters were issued in the year 1989. Petitioners sub- mitted various papers, certificate showing that they were displaced persons. This is again not in dispute. 6. Petitioners, under the aforesaid scheme, applied. State had formed a High- Powered Committee to supervise this dis- pensation. The Committee enquired into their status and, as noted above following the procedure, appointment letters were issued in the year 1989. Petitioners sub- mitted various papers, certificate showing that they were displaced persons. Their positive case is as also the appointment letters would show that they were treated as displaced persons for residing between two embankments. None of them claim to be displaced person as a consequence of their land being acquired for the Koshi Project. They worked as such without de- mur or blemish. And then having worked for over a decade, enquiries started all over again. All old matters were reopened and ultimately by order as contained in Annexure-1 series dated on or about 28.5.2003 by orders of the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, the petition- ers have been dismissed. It is the validity of this order that is under challenge. 7. A reference to the impugned order would show that it has considered the facts in detail but regrettably in the wrong perspective and in the wrong direction. The entire order proceeds on the face that firstly this rehabilitation by providing em- ployment was available only to displaced persons who were displaced as a conse- quence of lands being acquired for Koshi Project and secondly holding that none of the petitioners could produce any records to show that their lands had been acquired and they had got compensation or their names were in the award. This is even though it is found in the order that they had lands between the Koshi embankments but this was though not relevant. 8. In my view, this matter is simple and straightway. Petitioners never professed to be displaced persons as a matter of their lands being acquired. They were al- ways claiming and they had been held and they had been given the jobs treating them to be displaced persons by virtue of their lands between the embankments which, as indicated above, is indisputably one of the categories of displaced persons. In my view, the respondents lost sight of the two categories who were entitled to the same or similar treatment. This important aspect having been lost sight of ended in the erroneous decision as passed. In my view, the respondents lost sight of the two categories who were entitled to the same or similar treatment. This important aspect having been lost sight of ended in the erroneous decision as passed. This, of course, is apart from the fact that petitioners never misrepresented their position before the authorities. It is not of their misrepresentation that they were given the jobs. They represented to be displaced persons being persons between two embankments and considering the same, they were employed. It is not the case of the State that any records in respect of these petitioners show that they had sought the employment on the ground of being displaced persons as a consequence of their land being acquired but it appears to be stand of the State that it is only those persons whose lands were acquired could get this dispensation which, as indicated above, was wrong. 9. Therefore, in my view, on both counts, the action of the respondents can- not be upheld. The order of dismissal are vitiated both on fact and as a matter of law and is quashed as such. The writ petition is allowed. 10. The petitioners, if they are out of job, would be reinstated with full back wages within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.