ORDER : This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the respondent to provide employment to the petitioner against the acquisition of his land as per the agreement dated 02nd April, 1997 in lieu of the land having been acquired falling under Khata No.8 Plot No.421, 437, 441, 456. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that one memorandum of undertaking was singed in between M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and owners of the land for acquisition of land for mining purpose in lieu of employment to be given to the land users and compensation as per the terms of the agreement for which the respondent management has agreed to provide appointment to 9 persons whose names have been referred under Annexure-1 dated 02.04.1997 but when it has not been extended, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that 9 persons altogether were to be provided appointment as per the agreement of compromise under Annexure-1 but only 5 persons have been appointed leaving behind the petitioner which is absolutely improper and incorrect on the part of the respondent management for the reasons that the land of the petitioner has also been acquired and therefore he is also entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the compromise agreement as contained under Annexure-1. 4. The petitioner has taken plea that one Khagendra Nath Mahto who is not the lineal of the title holder but provided with appointment and therefore the petitioner who is also not related with the title holder ought to have been provided appointment in the same way as has been adopted in the case of Khagendra Nath Mahto but by not doing so, the respondent management has committed illegality. 5. Per contra the respondents management has taken plea that the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment in view of the fact that in the compromise agreement, there is no reference of the name of the petitioner since the said agreement contains the name of 9 persons who have been nominated for their appointment and as per the extent of acquisition of land and who have been found to be eligible, have been provided with the appointment. The petitioner has not been given appointment for the reason that he is not lineal to the original title holder. The petitioner has not been given appointment for the reason that he is not lineal to the original title holder. It has been stated that Khagendra Nath Mahto is also lineal to the title holder since the name of his mother-in-law namely, Laxmi Devi is appearing in the list appended to Annexure-1 and therefore the contention raised by the petitioner that Khagendra Nath Mahto is intruder is not correct. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after hearing them at length and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the agreement has been arrived in between the Bakranath Mahto, the original title holder with the Bharat Coking Coal Limited for acquisition of land pertaining to Khata No.8 Plot No.456, comprising area of 11.70 acres in Mauza Parghabad, Revenue Thana No.160 Circle District Dhanbad which is also a subject matter of land acquisition record No.27/95-96 by which proposal has been given for acquisition of land to the extent of 16.30 acres. In terms of the aforesaid agreement, both the parties have arrived into a contract to provide appointment to 9 persons who will be nominated by the Bakranath Mahto and other title holders by way of affidavit whose number will not exceed to 9 and thereafter they will not make any claim to give appointment to any of their legal heirs. 7. It is further evident from the material available on record that one Ram Prasad Mahto, Thakur Das Rawani, Santosh Kumar Rawani and Namrata Mahto have been provided with the appointment along with one Khagendra Nath Mahto who is the dissident of Faguni Mahto and therefore he has also been provided with the appointment. 8. It is evident that Ram Prasad Mahto, Khagendra Nath Mahto, Thakur Das Rawani and Santosh Kumar Rawani have been provided with the appointment against the total land pertaining to 5.20 acres while one Sri Namrata Mahto has been provided appointment against the total land of 5.95 acres, altogether total comes to 11.15 acres, rest 55 decimal has been left out and therefore no appointment has been given against the rest of the land since it was less than 1.30 acres of land. 9. 9. It is further evident that Namrata Mahto has been provide with an appointment against the total land of 5.95 acres for the reason that no other candidates have been found to be eligible to get appointment. 10. It is in the light of this settled position the factual aspect which has been raised by the petitioner needs to be appreciated by this Court. 11. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of land pertaining to Plot No.421 and therefore he is also entitled to be provided with the appointment but the question is that the petitioner is insisting for issuance of a direction upon the respondent management to provide appointment in terms of the agreement as contained under Annexure-1. 12. This Court after going across the contention of the Annexure-1 has found that the same is pertaining to providing appointment to 9 persons against the total acquisition of land of 11.90 acres pertaining to the acquisition of land falling under Khata No.8 in Plot No.456 and admittedly the petitioner is the owner of Plot No. 421 which is not the subject matter of the aforesaid agreement and therefore the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the agreement dated 02.04.1997 as contained under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 13. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Khagendra Nath Mahto has been provided with the appointment who is also not the lineal of the original title holder the same is not correct as would be evident from the affidavit filed by the respondent management on 07.11.2017 which has not been responded to by the petitioner wherein specific stand has been taken that Khagendra Nath Mahto is the husband of Laxmi Devi who is the lineal dissident of Faguni Mahto one of the land owner, was included in the list of nominees for providing employment and she was married at that time with Khagendra Nath Mahto and thus was provided with employment and therefore after considering the aforesaid stand the contention raised by the petitioner that Khagendra Nath Mahto is not related in any way to the land owner pertaining to Plot No.456 and hence the arguments advanced by the petitioner in this regard is not fit to be accepted and therefore it is rejected. 14. 14. Further contention raised by the petitioner that even though the petitioner is not related with the original land holder, the writ Court may pass an order on the basis of nomination made by the original title holder namely Bakranath Mahto and also on the ground that in the compromise agreement there is no reference that only the lineal dissident would be provided with the appointment but this argument is also not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the New Act of the year 2013 known as The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is mainly for the purpose to provide compensation as per the provision of the Act, 1894 and to provide appointment in the case of any policy decision made by the State Government as per the establishment for whose favour the land is being acquired, likewise on the basis of the new provision of act i.e. Act of 2013 the provision has been made for rehabilitation of the land users. The purpose is that if the land is being acquired being the means of livelihood, the land user must be provided with compensation and appointment subject to policy decision but in the any case it cannot be said to be alternative mode of appointment. Further it is settled that if the policy decision made by the establishment which is acquiring the land for any purpose whatsoever the terms mentioned therein will be binding upon the parties. 16. In the instant case, the terms and conditions of the agreement is that they would be providing appointment to 9 persons and accordingly the names of the 9 persons have been mentioned in the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 02.04.1997 as would be evident from the agreement as contained under Anneuxre-1 to the writ petition, from its perusal, it is evident that name of the petitioner is nowhere mentioned rather he is not in any way related with any of the land owners whose lands have been acquired which is the subject matter of the agreement dated 02.04.1997. 17. 17. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has made much emphasis upon the agreement as contained under Annexure-1 which is a bilateral contract although the writ court is not supposed to go into the execution of the terms and conditions agreements but the petitioner has tried to make out a case of hostile discrimination and therefore this Court has heard the matter on merits and found that it is a case of reasonable classification for the reason that the petitioner is nowhere related with the original title holder and the instance of one Khagendra Nath Mahto as has been raised who also happens to be son-in-law of one of the land users namely Faguni Mahto whose name has been mentioned in the list appended to the writ petition and as such if the petitioner has not been provided with an appointment, then it cannot be said that he is subjected to hostile discrimination. 18. This Court after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the view that he is insisting upon this Court to direct the respondent management to provide appointment by way of nomination made by the original title holder on the ground that nothing has been referred that only the lineal of the land owners would be provided with the appointment, when the emphasis is being given on the terms and conditions of the agreement the same is to be strictly binding upon the parties and when the respondent management has provided appointment on the basis of the list appended to Annexure-1 then it cannot be said that there is any deviation from the terms and conditions of the agreement. 19. Further the contention of the petitioner is to re-write the terms of the contract since admittedly the name of the petitioner is not appended in the agreement as contained under Annexure-1 dated 02.04.1997 rather it has been stated therein that the 9 persons whose names have been appended to Anneuxre-1 would be provided with the appointment. 20. 19. Further the contention of the petitioner is to re-write the terms of the contract since admittedly the name of the petitioner is not appended in the agreement as contained under Annexure-1 dated 02.04.1997 rather it has been stated therein that the 9 persons whose names have been appended to Anneuxre-1 would be provided with the appointment. 20. Now the petitioner is insisting upon this Court to include his name by issuing a direction upon the State authorities sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the same is not permissible since it is the settled position of law that the agreement is to be acted upon without any alteration and further the High Court cannot re-write the terms of the contract, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11 & 12 it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or re-write the contract between the parties. 21. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 174 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to observe that “after the completion of the contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms except by mutual consent”. 22. It is further settled that if the contract between the parties is in the realm of the private law, not being a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter of agitation by a Civil Court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. Vrs. That is a matter of agitation by a Civil Court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. Vrs. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 293 , herein, in the instant case, the agreement as contained in Annexure-1 is totally in the private realm having not been statutory and therefore the application itself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not held to be maintainable. 23. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the relief which has been sought for by the petitioner is not fit to be accepted. 24. If the relief which has been sought for by the petitioner would be extended, it will lead to allowing the alternative mode of appointment to be given on the nomination made by the original title holder in favour of the intruder which is not the intent and spirit of the land acquisition acts. 25. In view of the aforesaid reasons and in the considered view of this Court that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.