Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 334 (PAT)

Ajay Jha v. Union of India

2021-04-13

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. 2. The petitioner has challenged in the present writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order dated 26.07.2017 issued by the Dy. CE/Con/G/Hq, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, whereby his claim for appointment in Railways on the ground of acquisition of land belonging to him for a Railway Project has been rejected. 3. It is the petitioner's case as stated in the writ application that a piece of land, belonging to the petitioner in Mouza Sikandarpur, PS Bounsi, Thana No. 438, appertaing to Khata No. 171 (Old) Khesra No. 2164 (Old) admeasuring 0.35 decimal had been acquired for construction of Mandar Hill to Rampur Halt Railway Line. Acquisition of the said land, according to the petitioner, has taken away his livelihood. According to him, the respondents had assured the villagers that one person of each of the families displaced consequent upon the said acquisition of land will be provided job in the railway in addition to the suitable compensation awarded to them. It is also his case that even Minister of the State for Railways Government of India had made an announcement to the effect that one person of each the families whose land has been acquired by the said Project shall be provided employment in the Railway. The petitioner has relied on news items published in local daily in the year 2000-02 in support of this averment. 4. It is peculiar to note that the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ application as to when his land was acquired. 5. He has then relied on a correspondence made by an organization in the name of 'Railway Prabhavit Kisan Mzadoor Sangthan' dated 24.05.2002 (Annexure-3), whereby a representation was made to the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata for providing employment to one of the members of each of the families displaced because of acquisition of land. 6. He has relied a Division Bench order dated 06.12.2012 of this Court passed in LPA No. 1850 of 2012, whereby, the respondents concerned were directed to provide employment to one member of each of the displaced families which were displaced because of land in the aforesaid purpose in terms of the scheme framed in 1989. 6. He has relied a Division Bench order dated 06.12.2012 of this Court passed in LPA No. 1850 of 2012, whereby, the respondents concerned were directed to provide employment to one member of each of the displaced families which were displaced because of land in the aforesaid purpose in terms of the scheme framed in 1989. The said Division Bench decision of this Court dated 06.12.2012 has attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No. 11970 of 2013. 7. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ application, giving rise to CWJC No. 4411 of 2017, raising a grievance that despite specific policy for providing job to a member of a displaced family consequent upon acquisition of land, the petitioner, was not being extended such benefits. 8. The writ application filed by the petitioner was disposed of by an order dated 28.06.2017 with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) (Respondent No.3) within two weeks. The Respondent No.5 was, in turn, directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within four months, keeping in mind the said scheme of 1989. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed his representation, which has been disposed of by the impugned order. Following is the reason assigned by Respondent No.5 for rejecting the petitioner's claim :- "2. The land of the applicant was acquired during the period of 2004-05 and therefore, the case comes within purview of Railway Board's Circular issued under RBE No. 279/89. In the said circular, Railway Board had issued he consolidated clarificatory directives on the basis of Board's previous order no. E(NG)/II/82/rci/95, dated 01.1.83, 09.6.83, 22.3.85 and 11.2.88. 3. As per Para 2.1 of the Railway Board's letter dtd. 01.01.83 (Annexure-1) has given the provision to the individual concerned should have been displaced himself or he should be the son/daughter/wife of a person displaced from land on account of acquisition of the land by the Railway for the Project. 4. In this case the Railway has acquired only strip of land through State Govt. and the land loser is not displaced due to land acquisition as certified by DLAO/Banka vide letter dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure-2). 5. Further, as per para 2.3 of the Board's letter dt. 01.01.83 the dispensation is limited to recruitment within a period of two years after the acquisition of land. 6. and the land loser is not displaced due to land acquisition as certified by DLAO/Banka vide letter dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure-2). 5. Further, as per para 2.3 of the Board's letter dt. 01.01.83 the dispensation is limited to recruitment within a period of two years after the acquisition of land. 6. In this case the land in question was acquired in the year 2004-05 and you have not submitted any application for appointment in Railways. Therefore, the request for engagement in Railways on land acquisition ground cannot be accepted as the same will be in violation of existing Railway Boards Rules." 9. As has been noted above, the petitioner has not disclosed in the writ application as to when the land belonging to him was acquired. It is mentioned, however, in the impugned order that petitioner's land was acquired during the period of 2004-05. Reference has been made in the letter to an order of Railway Board dated 01.01.1983, which according to the impugned order, stipulates that the dispensation is limited to recruitment within a period of two years after the acquisition of land. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner did not submit any application for appointment in Railways after acquisition of land in 2004-05. There is no averment in the writ application that the petitioner had made any application/representation for appointment before the competent authority and the first representation, which he made was in the light of the liberty granted by this Court in the order dated 28.06.2017 passed in CWJC No. 4411 of 2017. The petitioner has not disputed in the writ application any of the facts recorded in the impugned order, which are the bases for rejection of his claim. The petitioner's reliance on representation made by some Organization in 2002 is wholly misconceived for the present purpose as it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner's land was acquired in 2004-05. In any case, petitioner was required to make an application/representation within stipulated time, which he did not do. 10. The petitioner's reliance on representation made by some Organization in 2002 is wholly misconceived for the present purpose as it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner's land was acquired in 2004-05. In any case, petitioner was required to make an application/representation within stipulated time, which he did not do. 10. Since the petitioner has not disputed the fact mentioned in the impugned order that submission of application within two years of acquisition was stipulated in the scheme and was one of the conditions for grant of employment in favour of one of family members of a displaced family, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Secondly, it has been stated in the impugned order that land loser in the said case was not displaced because of land acquisition, as certified by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Banka. The petitioner has relied on a certificate issued by the Circle Officer dated 04.01.2002, wherein it has been certified that after acquisition of land in question, there was no land left in the name of the petitioner. No credence can be given to the said certificate, in the background of the fact that in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the petitioner's land was acquired in the year 2004-05. The petitioner has not stated in the writ application as to when his land was acquired nor has he disputed this aspect. If his land was acquired in the year 2004-05, there was no occasion for the Circle Officer to have issued a certificate in 2002 to the effect that the petitioner was left with no land after acquisition of land in question. The petitioner appears to have deliberately withheld the information in the writ application as to the period of acquisition of land in question. 12. For the reasons aforesaid and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 06.12.2012 passed in LPA No. 1850 of 2012 (Pradeep Kumar Pandey and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) has no application. There is absolutely no merit in the application. 13. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.