JUDGMENT By Court - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The petitioner by way of the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the Respondents to provide job/compensation in lieu of acquisition of land of the petitioner in the year 1990-91 by concerned Respondents during process of excavation of coal in notified area as also in view of the settlement between Management and Smt. Parwati Devi, sister-in-law of the petitioner in the year 1992. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired by the Respondent-Company for mining activities and accordingly, the petitioner and the other family members have given consent for the said acquisition. It is the case of the petitioner that an agreement was executed, whereby the employment was offered in lieu of acquisition of land. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Smt. Parwati Devi, sister-in-law of the present petitioner has been offered employment but on account of non-fulfilling of medical fitness requirements, she could not be given appointment. It is further submitted that the present petitioner was offered employment in lieu of Smt. Parwati Devi but at that time, since the petitioner was minor, it was agreed that upon attaining the majority, the petitioner will be given the job in the Respondent-Company, but subsequent thereto, the Company did not offer employment to the petitioner, though it was agreed between the Company and the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that all requisite documents, required by the Respondent-Company have been supplied. However, the petitioner has not been offered employment by the Respondent-Company, therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. As against that, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Company while referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-Company, submitted that the sister-in-law of the present petitioner was offered employment under the Scheme but subsequently, it was found that the requirement of the Scheme formulated by the Company was not fulfilled and therefore, it was not possible for the Respondent-Company to offer employment to the sister-in-law of the petitioner as well as to the present petitioner. 7. 7. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent-Company, out of 3.22 acres of tenancy land plot nos. 1054, 1057 and 1059, the total area 0.75 & half acres used for mining purposes and the rest area, i.e. 2.46 & half acres are still in possession of tenants of heirs of Khata No. 31 and they are doing cultivation and therefore, the question of displacement of tenants does not arise. 8. As against that, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have already surrendered the land in question and in fact, they are not doing any cultivation on the land in question. These are the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to produce relevant materials, as required by the Respondent-Company in pursurance to the fulfillment of conditions of the Policy formulated by the Respondent-Company for getting employment as displaced persons. For that purpose, the petitioner is required to produce the consent letter/undertaking of other co-owners, as required by the Respondent-Company for the purpose of surrendering the land in question, so that upon scrutiny/examination of such document, the benefit under the Scheme can be extended by the Respondent-Company to the petitioner. For this purpose, the petitioner may approach the Respondent-Company by way of submitting representation along with supporting documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation supported by the required materials, the Respondent-Company shall take a decision within four weeks thereafter. 9. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition and also relied upon the documents produced in the present petition while making representation before the Respondent-Company and in turn, the Respondent-Company shall consider all the relevant materials for the purpose of taking decision for giving the benefit of employment under the Scheme. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.