Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1238 (JHR)

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Nath Tewari

2013-11-18

D.N.PATEL, R.BANUMATHI

body2013
ORDER 1. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is the order of learned single Judge dated 26th April, 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 5089 of 2005, whereby, the learned single Judge has directed the appellant-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to pay the admitted compensation to the respondents and also to provide employment to the land losers/ dependants of the land losers, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the total land, as mentioned in the Agreement. 2. The appellant-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has entered into an agreement with the respondents for use of the land/ extracting the coal in respect of Plot Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118, measuring areas of 0.40 Decimals, 0.15 Decimals, 0.51 Decimals, 0.19 Decimals, 3.00 Acres and 0.81 Decimals respectively, put together 5.06 Acres. According to the appellant, initially steps were taken for acquiring the land, in question, and in this regard a proposal for procurement of land was also initiated vide Reference dated 18th September, 1992, but, the General Manager advised the Agent/Manager to make an agreement with the land owners. Thereafter, according to the appellant, the land of the respondents was used only for extracting the coal and the said land was not acquired. According to the appellant, there was no clause made in the agreement to provide employment to the land losers. It is further submitted that since the land was only used for extracting the coal, referring to the guidelines dated 1.1.1985 the appellant declined to provide employment to the respondents, stating that the employment will not be considered for ownership of used land and since the land of the respondents has neither been acquired nor purchased, the respondents are not eligible to be considered for employment. 3. Being aggrieved by not providing employment and also not paying the compensation amount, the respondent herein filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5089 of 2005. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge held that the land has been utilized by the appellant and the appellant has extracted coal from two of the plots, in question. The learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order dated 21st /22nd January, 2003, directed the appellant to pay the respondents the admitted compensation and also to provide employment to the land losers/ dependants of the land losers. 4. The learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order dated 21st /22nd January, 2003, directed the appellant to pay the respondents the admitted compensation and also to provide employment to the land losers/ dependants of the land losers. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per clause 10 of the guidelines (Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit), the employment will not be considered for ownership if the land was only used and since the land of the respondents was only used and was not acquired, the respondents are not eligible to get employment from the appellant-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It is also submitted that the learned single Judge did not consider this fact in right perspective and was also not right in directing the appellant to provide employment to the respondents. 5. We have heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Referring to the guidelines, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even though the land of the respondents has not been acquired, but, the land has been used by the appellant and 20,000 Metric Tonne coals have been extracted from the said land. Learned counsel further submitted that since the land is situated in Santhal Parganas, as per Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, there is bar in respect of any transaction or acquisition of the land and in that view of the matter, the appellant-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has adopted a method by entering into an agreement and taking signature of the land losers and, thus, the appellant cannot shirk its responsibility of providing employment to the land losers. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per general policy of the appellant, the appellant is to provide employment to the land losers. 6. We have considered the arguments, advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as also the respondents. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that part of the land, in question, has been used by the appellant and the appellant is said to have extracted about 20,000 Metric Tonne coal from the land of the respondents. We have considered the arguments, advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as also the respondents. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that part of the land, in question, has been used by the appellant and the appellant is said to have extracted about 20,000 Metric Tonne coal from the land of the respondents. By perusal of the guidelines, pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is seen that up to 31st December, 1984 for every one Acre of land acquired the appellant was to provide one employment and in modification of the said guidelines after 1st January, 1985, for two Acres of land acquired, the appellant is to provide one employment. In this case, even though the appellant contends that the land was only used, but, the fact remains that coal has been extracted from the land of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after some time, the land of the respondents has been abandoned. When we put a question to the learned counsel for the appellant about extraction of coal, learned counsel for the appellant only submitted that the land was not used by the appellant. We are not convinced with this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land was not used and the coal was not extracted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per Section 20 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, since there is a bar relating to any transaction or transfer or assignment of any land falling within Santhal Parganas, therefore, the appellant has entered into an agreement for putting the land to use. In such view of the matter, the appellant is not justified in contending that taking possession of the land was only pursuant to the agreement and, therefore, the appellant- Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is not bound to provide employment. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of State of U.P. & ors. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of State of U.P. & ors. v. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd., as reported in (1996)6 SCC 22 , submitted that for a dispute relating to terms of private contract, the proper course would be to reference to arbitration or institution of suit and not writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and if at all the respondents are aggrieved, they ought to have preferred a suit. 10. The respondents are seeking employment, based on the general policy of the appellant. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that similarly placed persons, whose land, adjacent to the land, in question, having been acquired by the appellant, have been provided employment, but, only respondents were not provided with the employment. When the writ petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus to provide employment, the appellant, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, is not right in contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. In any event, we, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the view that even in contractual matters, the writ petition can be entertained and, thus, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. The learned single Judge has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly allowed the writ petition, directing the appellant to pay the admitted compensation as also to provide employment. It is pertinent to note that the land was taken in possession of the appellant in the year, 1992, about 20,000 Metric Tonne coal was extracted from the said land, but, till date the respondents have not yet been paid the compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents have not come forward to take the amount of compensation. When we put a question to the learned counsel for the appellant about the amount of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant has only submitted that there is no difficulty in ascertaining the amount of compensation, payable to the respondents. 13. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 26th April, 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 5089 of 2005 is upheld. 13. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 26th April, 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 5089 of 2005 is upheld. The appellant-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Is directed to ascertain the amount of compensation and to pay the same along with the interest of 6% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant is also directed to provide opportunity of employment to the dependants of the land losers within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. LPA dismissed.