Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 735 (JHR)

Basudev Rawani v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited

2018-04-03

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in lieu of acquisition of his land in parity with the similarly situated persons. 2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents-authorities in order to construct a Township acquired lands of village Karmatand and Dhokra. It has been submitted that the land of the petitioner was acquired not under any R &R policy/land loser policy rather as a special case. It has further been averred that several rounds of discussions were made between the officials and land-losers and in meeting dated 04.01.2008, the Deputy General Manager, Land Acquisition, BCCL duly acknowledged the fact that as an exceptional case, 26 additional employments have been sanctioned by the Ministry of Coal and Coal India. In the said meeting it was duly acknowledged that previously there was no formula for providing employment and the same was done even in case of 4 decimals of acquisition of land. It has further been submitted that vide Award No. 38, respondents-authorities have acquired 1.47 acres of land, out of which 49 decimal of land belongs to the family of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that land-losers having lesser area of land have been provided employment but the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 24.06.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6446 of 2010 with analogous cases, the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that lands in question were acquired vide L.A. Case No. 11/85-86 and now about three decades have elapsed; hence on the ground of delay itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. So far Award No. 38 is concerned, it was prepared in the name of (1).Sonaram Rawani, (2).Raju Rawani and (3) Fagu Rawani all sons of Nakul Rawani of village Karmatand and all the three awardees, jointlhy nominated one Sonaram Rawani, who is presently working under the respondents. So far Award No. 38 is concerned, it was prepared in the name of (1).Sonaram Rawani, (2).Raju Rawani and (3) Fagu Rawani all sons of Nakul Rawani of village Karmatand and all the three awardees, jointlhy nominated one Sonaram Rawani, who is presently working under the respondents. So far petitioner-Basudev Rawani is concerned, he is not the lineal dependent of the awardees, hence, he is not entitled to get any employment. Learned counsel for the respondents however raised no serious objection if writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 24.06.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6446 of 2010 with analogous cases. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the materials available on record, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file fresh representation annexing all relevant documents in support of his claim before respondent no. 3- General Manager, Bastacolla Area, within a period of four weeks from receipt of this order, who upon receipt thereof shall consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of relevant records available with him and decide his claim finally, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months thereafter.