Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 13 (CHH)

Abhishek Dwivedi v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd.

2011-01-17

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to give the employment to the Petitioner in the office of Respondent No 2 and 3 as per the New Rehabilitation Scheme, 2007 issued by the State Government. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner and his father owned an agricultural land situated in village-Keshmarda, Patwari Halka No. 1/2, Revenue cirde-Bodla, Tahsll-Kawardha under Khasra No. -189/2 and 189/3 admeasuring 1.02 hectares. The aforesaid land of the Petitioner was acquired under acquisition proceedings drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act of Respondent company. Even though the land of the Petitioner was acquired and the possession was taken, the Petitioner has neither been provided any compensation which is payable to him under the law nor has been provided employment under the rehabilitation policy promulgated by the State Government. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the land of the Petitioner was acquired for Respondent / company but the Petitioner is not aware of the award passed in the acquisition proceedings until the same was disclosed by the Respondents in their return. He submits that even if the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in the year 2002 and culminated in passing of award on 30/08/03, the Petitioner would be entitled to employment in view of rehabilitation policy which has now been promulgated by the State Government in the year 2007, placed on record as Annexure P/4. Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that as the rehabilitation policy is a benevolent scheme of the Government, even if the land was acquired prior to promulgation of the policy, the Petitioner's claim for employment is liable to be considered and the Petitioner is entitled to appropriate employment. He submits that the acquisition proceedings will not come to an end until proper compensation as payable under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act is actually paid to the Petitioner and as the compensation amount till date has not been paid to the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings have finally come to an end and therefore, the policy of the year 2007 would be applicable in the matter of grant of employment. He submits that all the conditions stipulated in the policy of 2007 (Annexure P/4) are fulfilled by the Petitioner and even though the Petitioner gave notice to Respondents, no employment was given nor any compensation has been paid to him. 4. On the other, hand, submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent No. l and 2 is that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in two daily news papers on 26/11/2002 and the acquisition proceedings were drawn and an award was finally passed by the Collector on 30/08/03. He submits that as the award makes provisions for payment of compensation, the Petitioner's grievance regarding non-payment of compensation is not correct. He further submits that the Petitioner has not made any such prayer and only made prayer that he should be provided employment. Learned Counsel for the Respondent then contended that the rehabilitation scheme of the year 2007 which contained provision for providing employment to those whose land were acquired is only prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively in respect of the acquisition proceedings which were earlier concluded upon passing of award. His further submission is that the policy itself clearly states that the same will not apply in respect of case where award was already passed prior to coming into force of the policy. He further submits that after passing of award, the Respondent/company deposited the entire compensation of Rs. 87,11,035/- and has thereafter taken possession of the land also in the year 2005 and started mining operation. 5. Learned State counsel submits that as far as claim for employment is concerned, the Petitioner is not entitled to the same. 6. The only relief prayed in the petition is for issuance of mandamus for providing employment to the Petitioner as per Rehabilitation Policy of the year 2007. From the averments made by the Petitioner in his petition, it is the case of the Petitioner himself that though the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1999, the same was not concluded and therefore, notification initiating acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 2002. From the award which has been placed on record by Respondent No. l and 2, it is revealed that the same was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kawardha on 30/08/03. From the award which has been placed on record by Respondent No. l and 2, it is revealed that the same was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kawardha on 30/08/03. It is not in dispute that the land owned by the Petitioner was also acquired under the acquisition proceedings in respect of which the award dated 30/08/03 has been passed. 7. The Petitioner has placed on record the rehabilitation policy promulgated by the State of Chhattisgarh and published in Chhattisgarh Rajpatra (Asadharan) on 23/2/07, by which the rehabilitation scheme of 2007 dated 23/2/07 has been published. Para 1.2.1 of the policy very categorically states that the same would be applicable from the date of publication in respect of all those projects where the land acquisition proceedings are not finalised and award is not passed. This would clearly mean without any ambiguity that the policy is intended to apply only prospectively in respect of those acquisition proceedings where the award has not been passed. Admittedly, the award in the present case has been passed way back on 30/08/03. The policy came into existence in the year 2007. In the absence of the policy being retrospective, the claim of the Petitioner is untenable in law. Provision for employment upon acquisition of land is not statutory obligation under the Land Acquisition Act but could be claimed only under a policy of the Government. The claim for employment dehorse the policy is not enforceable under the law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no writ of mandamus can be issued to Respondents to provide employment to the Petitioner. It is not a case of the Petitioner, either pleaded in the petition or otherwise demonstrated from any other policy in force and prevalent at the time of passing award that the Petitioner was entitled to employment. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in respect of prayer which has been made by the Petitioner in the petition. 8. However, before parting with the case, it is observed that if the Petitioner has not been paid compensation as per award, the Petitioner may approach Respondent No. 4 with the said grievance, who shall consider the same. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.