Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 51 (MP)

Lahari Singh v. Narden Coal Fields Ltd.

2012-01-12

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs : (i) Record relating to the grant of employment to the Land Loosers may be called from the respondents. (ii) After perusal of the same employment may be given to the petitioners or their wards. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the land in question of the petitioners was acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (A and D) Act, 1957 (in short “Coal Bearing Act”). The grievance of the petitioners is that although compensation has been paid but employment has not been given which is part of condition if the land is acquired. In support of his contention learned counsel has invited my attention to the policy of the WCL and particularly by paying heed to clause 1 of the said policy. Thus, it has been prayed that since the petitioners have purchased the land from Rajvendra Singh and Yadvendra Singh and thus land has been acquired, therefore, the employment should have been given to them in terms of said policy. 3. However, Shri Dilip Parihar, learned counsel assisted by Shri Greeshm Jain, Advocate submitted that this petition is nothing but by playing a trick the petitioners are trying to obtain the employment by indirect manner. Learned counsel by inviting my attention to paras 2 and 3 of the return has submitted that admittedly the notice under section 4 of Coal Bearing Act was issued on 20.11.1978 and further notices under sections 7 and 9 of the said Act were issued on 18.4.1980 and 4.2.1982 respectively. According to learned counsel after having notified the aforesaid notifications under sections 4, 7 and 9 of the Coal Bearing Act on 20.11.1978, 18.4.1980 and 4.2.1982, on 20.3.1982 the land measuring 0.43 acre was purchased jointly by petitioners from Rajvendra Singhand Yadvendra Singh. Thus, according to learned counsel the condition embodied in the policy to provide employment is applicable to those persons only whose three acres of un-irrigated and two acres of irrigated land have been acquired. Since the petitioners’ land 0.43 acre has been acquired, therefore, they do not have any right to obtain employment under the said policy. Hence, this petition be dismissed. 4. Since the petitioners’ land 0.43 acre has been acquired, therefore, they do not have any right to obtain employment under the said policy. Hence, this petition be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. At the first blush the contention of learned counsel for petitioners appears to be quite attractive that under clause 1 of the aforesaid policy the petitioners are entitled to obtain the employment but on deeper scrutiny it is found to be devoid of any substance. It is luminously clear like a noon day that employment can be given to only those persons whose three acres of un-irrigated and two acres of irrigated land has been acquired. Since, admittedly the petitioners have bought the land in question area 0.43 acres only which is much less than the area entitling them to obtain the employment, therefore, they are not entitled for any employment. 6. Apart from what I have held hereinabove, the hidden idea to purchase the land is apparent and it can be gathered that in order to grab the employment it has been purchased on 20.3.1982 from Rajvendra Singh and Yadvendra Singh. Admittedly the sale-deed is after the issuance of notifications under sections 4, 7 and 9 of the Coal Bearing Act. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the grant of writ under this Article is a discretionary relief and it should not be extended to a person who has not come with clean hands. According to me, the petitioners are trying to play a trick to obtain employment because the notices under sections 4, 7 and 9 of the Coal Bearing Act were issued much prior to the date when petitioners purchased land having meager area of 0.43 acre hence it can be inferred that in order to obtain the employment, the land was purchased by them. To me, looking to the conduct of the petitioners, they do not deserve for the discretionary relief since they have not come with clean hands. 7. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. .........