Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 925 (JHR)

Baldeo Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-25

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing office order dated 06.11.2008 whereby respondent no. 7 has refused the claim of the petitioners for employment under ''Land Loser Scheme'' and further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to give employment to the petitioners against acquisitions of land, both raiyati and Gair Mazurwa, as mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ application, measuring an area of 20 acres in consonance with guidelines contained in letter dated 21.06.2002. 2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that Government of India vide SO No. 2081 dated 30.06.1981 acquired the land measuring 3070 acres approximately including the lands of petitioners of village Rahawan and Pachmo, but, in lieu thereof when no employment was offered to them, they moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2807 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.06.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the authority. With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioners approached the concerned authority, who passed the impugned order dated 06.11.2008, on the ground that the petitioners/claimants have failed to produce the required documents under the land loser scheme for employment. 3. Heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hardeo Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents - CCL and Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.C to learned G.P. I for the respondents - State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the impugned order was passed, the petitioners have again submitted representation annexing the compensation case records regarding the payment of compensation for acquisition of raiyati lands of petitioners measuring 11.79 acres and also copy of Register II of Gairmzarua land of village Rahawan, but, till date no order has been passed thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated with vehemence that in the counter affidavit dated 15th February, 2011 filed in W.P. (S) No. 515 of 2010, the respondents have admitted that decision was taken for payment of cash compensation in lieu of compensation, but, now the respondents have come up with a new plea that land of the petitioners do not come in the Utility Zone only to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner. 5. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that land of the petitioners were acquired under two different notifications; one vide SO No. 1754 dated 15.05.1996 wherein 0.765 acres of petitioners'' land were acquired, which is insufficient for considering any claim for employment and another vide SO No. 2082 dated 30.06.1981, which is beyond the utility zone of five years; as such no employment can be offered. It has further been submitted that so far 10 acres of lands, as stated by the petitioners themselves that it is Gairmazarua land, it is the State Government who has to give its status. 6. Replying the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents - CCL, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not claiming employment for the acquisition made vide SO No. 1754 dated 15.05.1996 rather they have confined their claim only to SO No. 2082 dated 30.06.1981. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - State submitted that no record is available with the respondents - State for verification Gair Mazurwa lands in question, however, assures that if any application would be sent for verification that would be verified and would be sent to the authority at an earliest. 8. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties at length, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ application with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation annexing all relevant documents in support of this claim before respondent no. 7 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, who upon receipt thereof shall pass appropriate order in accordance with relevant rules/circulars/schemes floated by the respondents-company within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is hoped that while deciding the representation of the petitioners the respondents shall ignore the ground of flimsy hyper technicalities. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.