Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 916 (JHR)

Dindayal Pandit v. Eastern Coalfields Limited

2015-08-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
JUDGMENT RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give employment to the petitioner according to the policy of the respondents and to pay adequate compensation on account of acquisition of land of the father of the petitioner in the year 1983 for the purposes of Rajmahal Project. 2. The father of the petitioner, namely, late Mahendra Pandit was the owner of the land situated in Mouza Tetaria under Khata No. 26, Plot No. 255P, totaling an area of 2 acres 31 decimals, which was acquired by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL) under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (hereafter to be referred as the Act). Pursuant to the acquisition, M/s. ECL had taken possession of the lands belonging to the father of the petitioner as well as the other lands for setting up a project in Rajmahal Area. It is the case of the petitioner that his name was recommended for employment under the land looser scheme but subsequently one of the brothers of the petitioner, namely, Dina Nath Pandit was provided with employment ignoring the case of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that neither the petitioner was provided with compensation nor employment was given to him. 3. Heard Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2.3 acres of lands of the father of the petitioner were acquired under the Act apart from the lands of other villagers and although recommendation was made to provide employment to the petitioner, instead his brother, namely, Dina Nath Pandit has been given employment ignoring the case of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the compensation amount on account of acquisition of land has not been paid and several representations have been preferred before the authorities concerned, but till date the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent M/s. ECL on the other hand has submitted that a total 68 acres and 17 decimals of lands were acquired under Ghatsimra Mouza, Tetaria Village. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent M/s. ECL on the other hand has submitted that a total 68 acres and 17 decimals of lands were acquired under Ghatsimra Mouza, Tetaria Village. It has also been submitted that pursuant to the meeting of land owners on 23.12.1991 it was decided between the villagers to formulate a package deal for providing employment to 45 persons and also for providing admission of 10 persons to I.T.I. Lalmatia against total lands which were acquired. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the package deal the father of the petitioner was also a signatory and he recommended the name of his another son Dina Nath Pandit for the purpose of providing him with employment in the respondent company. He further submits with respect to compensation that in terms of the mandatory provisions of the said Act, compensation had already been deposited before the district administration and it is for the district administration to disburse the compensation amount to the legitimate persons. 6. The dispute as it seems is with respect to securing of employment between two brothers on account of acquisition of the lands belonging to their father. The chart which has been appended to the counter affidavit prepared pursuant to the package deal of the villagers reflects the name of the brother of the petitioner, namely, Dina Nath Pandit and in the resolution it appears that the father of the petitioner was also a signatory. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of employment. So far as the compensation is concerned, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the amount of compensation has already been deposited before the district administration prior to acquisition of the land and if the father of the petitioner has not collected the compensation amount it is always open to the petitioner to claim compensation amount under due process of law. 7. In view of the discussions made herein above, I do not find it a fit case for interference. Accordingly this writ being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.