Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 624 (JHR)

Karan Murmu v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-03-01

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and wherunder direction has been sought for to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of employment under the land looser scheme. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land pertaining to Khata no.13, Khesra Nos.485, 484, 486, 487, 488, 491, 493, 506 and 511, total an area comprises of 2.50 decimals has been acquired by the State Government on the basis of the requirement of the Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jadugora but no compensation or employment has been provided, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent-UCIL has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit since no document showing title over the land has been annexed and therefore they have not been enlisted in the list of land looser and in view thereof no compensation has been paid and as such no question of providing appointment arose. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going across the rival submissions as well as materials available on record it is evident that the petitioners have claimed appointment on the ground of land looser on account of acquisition of land in question. 5. The petitioner has filed the writ petition on the strength of a certificate issued by the village head dated 21.12.2017 showing therein that they are the original title land holder to the land in question. 6. But according to the view of this Court, the certificate issued by the village head cannot be said to be substantial proof of title over the land. 7. The petitioners, save and except Annexure-2 have not filed any other document, therefore the tile of the petitioners is itself in dispute and for this reason the petitioners have not been enlisted in the list of land looser and have not been paid compensation. 8. In view thereof, there is no question of issuing any positive direction in favour of the petitioners by directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. In view thereof and in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find no reason to pass positive direction in favour of the petitioner. 9. In view thereof and in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court find no reason to pass positive direction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.