ORDER : Seeking employment in lieu of 3.66 ½ acres land which was acquired by the respondent-BCCL, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the land comprised in Khata Nos.103-104 under different plots within Mauza Bela Khonda admeasuring 3.66 ½ acres was registered in the name of Ramu Tiwary. For the above land, the vendee was paid sale value of approximately Rs.23,000/-. The said Ramu Tiwary is the father of the petitioner no.1 and grand-father of petitioner nos.2 and 3. A letter dated 15.05.1978 was issued by the General Manager, Mahuda Area No.2, where under the said Ramu Tiwary was informed that for each one acre irrigated land (pond and Dhani) one employment shall be given and for each two acres land (other than Dhani land) one employment under M/s B.C.C.L shall be offered. It was indicated that compensation shall be paid in terms of B.C.C.L notifications. An agreement dated 04.04.1980 was executed between M/s B.C.C.L and Ramu Tiwary. In the said agreement, Ramu Tiwary has been described as “land looser”. This agreement is in tune with letter dated 15.05.1978. Honouring the commitment under letter dated 15.05.1978, one employment was given to the son of Ramu Tiwary namely, Satish Chandra Tiwary who was appointed as Badli worker on 21.12.1978. It appears that, not being satisfied, representations were made for honouring the agreement dated 04.04.1980. One of the representations in the form of letter dated 11.04.1985 by a Member of Parliament has been brought on record. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union and the issue was discussed in a meeting held on 03.02.1992 between the representatives of the Union and the officers of M/s B.C.C. Limited, vide item no.26. This was followed by another meeting held on 15.04.1992 and also on 03.09.1997. Still, nothing happened thereafter. It appears that there was a discussion between the management and the Union on 04.02.2006, in pursuance of which the competent authority constituted a review committee vide order dated 03.05.2007. A report of the review committee has been brought on record vide Annexure-5. This report gives details of the land belonging to Ramu Tiwary; tank-0.51 acre and kanali-3.15½ acres. When the employments as promised were not offered, compelled, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring the present writ-petition. 3. Mr. A report of the review committee has been brought on record vide Annexure-5. This report gives details of the land belonging to Ramu Tiwary; tank-0.51 acre and kanali-3.15½ acres. When the employments as promised were not offered, compelled, the petitioners have approached this Court by preferring the present writ-petition. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of the indifferent attitude and negligence of the respondents the land looser has been deprived of benefit in the shape of employment under M/s B.C.C.L, for which an agreement was executed on 04.04.1980. It is contended that on account of delay on the part of the respondents in not honouring their own commitment, a right accrued in the land looser which was admitted by the respondents, the petitioners cannot be denied employment under M/s B.C.C.L. 4. Per contra, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent-B.C.C.L contends that the agreement dated 04.04.1980 was executed contrary to the policy of M/s B.C.C.L. The said agreement was executed by a person not authorized to make commitments which are reflected in the said agreement. It is further contended that at the relevant point in time there was no policy for offering employment to the alleged land losers and, in fact, taking a lenient view the respondent-B.C.C.L has already offered two employments to the son of the land looser-Ramu Tiwary. The learned counsel has also referred to decision in “Butu Prasad Kumbhar & Ors. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.” 1995 (Supp.) 2 SCC 225 to fortify his contention that a land loser has no right in law to claim employment in lieu of acquisition of his land. 5. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the claim raised by the land loser which is reflected in letter dated 11.04.1985 and discussed in several meetings between the management and the Union was not conclusively decided by the respondents. There is no communication from the respondent-B.C.C.L declining the claim of the land looser. The matter has dragged for long 40 years and, for the first time, the respondents have disclosed their stand in the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding. There is no communication from the respondent-B.C.C.L declining the claim of the land looser. The matter has dragged for long 40 years and, for the first time, the respondents have disclosed their stand in the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding. In the context of the plea that at the relevant time there was no policy of M/s B.C.C.L to offer an employment to the land loosers, suffice would be to record that the respondent's own stand is that not one but two employments were offered to Ramu Tiwary; though the employment given to Janardan Tiwary in lieu of 3.66 ½ acres land belonging to his father was terminated. This is the specific case pleaded by the respondents that the said Janardan Tiwary was offered employment in honour of their commitment. 6. However, this plea is contradicted when one reads the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.857 of 1993(R) which was filed by the management of M/s B.C.C.L challenging the award dated 29.09.1992, whereby order of termination of the said Janardan Tiwary was set-aside and he was directed reinstatement in service with back-wages. Paragraph no.3 of the said order reads: “the main allegation levelled against the workman was that he entered into the employment as Underground Loader on 23.05.1981 declaring himself to be the son of one Shri Aklu Gope, Ex-Loader of the colliery who was not his real father and this workman gave a wrong statement to the management”. Evidently, the said Janardan Tiwary has not secured employment in lieu of land belonging to his father which was acquired by M/s B.C.C.L. 7. It has not been brought on record that the petitioners or Shri Ramu Tiwary were informed that they cannot claim employment on the basis of agreement dated 04.04.1980 and letter dated 15.05.1978. All along the matter was discussed for long 20 years and the “land looser” was kept waiting for a decision by the respondent-M/s B.C.C.L. 8. Mr. Mahesh Tewari the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that claim of the petitioners is for grant of three employments in lieu of 3.66½ acres land. In support of his contention he refers to letter dated 10.12.1981 vide Annexure-3/B. Be that as it may, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were not eligible for employment when agreement dated 04.04.1980 was executed. In support of his contention he refers to letter dated 10.12.1981 vide Annexure-3/B. Be that as it may, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were not eligible for employment when agreement dated 04.04.1980 was executed. At best, the petitioner no.1 could have laid a claim for appointment in lieu of the land acquired by M/s B.C.C.L. This has not been brought on record that in the year 1978 or 1980 there was any other male member eligible for employment. Normally, execution of the terms of an agreement cannot a wait long 40 year, but, in the circumstances, which establish default on the part of the respondents, claim of the petitioners would not extinguish. Neither the letter dated 15.05.1978 nor the agreement dated 04.04.1980 was cancelled at any point in time. In fact, commitments under these documents have been honoured by M/s B.C.C.L, by offering appointments to the land looser. The materials brought on record do not reflect that there was delay or laches on the part of the land looser who in the year 1981 itself had laid a claim for three employments in lieu of the land acquired by the respondent-M/s B.C.C.L. On the contrary, delay on the part of respondent-M/s B.C.C.L writ large on the face of the records. The plea taken by the respondent-M/s B.C.C.L that there was no policy for offering employment to the land loosers pales into insignificance, once it is found that the respondents themselves have offered employment not only to the land looser in the instant case, but to thousand others also. M/s B.C.C.L has, as a matter of fact, formulated a Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy which was implemented with effect from August, 2000. 9. From the stand of respondent-B.C.C.L, it is apparent that the respondents admit offering two employments to the land looser namely, Ramu Tiwary, though one employment offered to Janardan Prasad @ Janardan Prasad Tiwary has been found not in lieu of the land acquired. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the respondent-B.C.C.L must offer one employment to the petitioners. 10. As a consequence of the above discussions, it is held that the respondents have illegally denied one employment to the land looser namely, Ramu Tiwary, which now shall be offered to one of the petitioners, who among themselves decide to whom it shall go. 11. The writ-petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.