Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1664 (RAJ)

Gopal Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-19

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The case is listed in the 'Orders' category, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and decided today. 2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the writ petition are that for establishment of a Thermal Power Project in Rajasthan by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the land acquisition proceedings were undertaken in village Barsinghsar, District Bikaner and the acquisition of 10,953 Bighas of land was made. After the land acquisition proceedings, the award was passed and all those persons including the petitioner whose lands were acquired, were granted compensation. In the same process, a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement was also entered between the representatives of the persons whose lands were acquired, the Officers of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and State officials. As per Para 9 of this MOU/Agreement, it was decided that at least one member of the family from each Khata of the land will be provided employment with respondent nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner being one of the Khatedars was entitled for one person to be employed from his family. The petitioner being the Khatedar of Khasra No. 85 was awarded the compensation as his name reflects in the Revenue Record as Khatedar Tenant of Khasra No. 85. The petitioner approached the competent authorities of the State Government and the Sub Divisional Officer, Bikaner while recommending his case to the District Collector, Bikaner mentioned that the petitioner is holding a separate Khata and is entitled for being considered for grant of employment of one member of his family. While recommending the case of the petitioner, the learned SDO mentioned that it is not possible to increase the number of Khatas. On the same lines, vide letter dated 03.10.2012, the District Collector had written to the respondent no. 4 for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of employment to one member of his family. In these circumstances, when the petitioner was not granted employment by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has 51 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 85 for which a separate award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3 and 4, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has 51 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 85 for which a separate award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He further submits that as per the Revenue Records also, the petitioner was shown as Khatedari Tenant of Khasra No. 85. He submits that since there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties for extending the benefit of employment to at least one person from family of one Khatedar but the petitioner is being denied the benefit of the same illegally and arbitrarily. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner along with the other similarly situated persons who have been extended the benefit of Para 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties and placed on record as Annexure-R3/1. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner are in conformity with the Revenue Records and they have already taken up the case of the petitioner with the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for extending the benefit of grant of employment to one person from the family as a Khatedar Tenant of the land which was acquired in this case. 5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is an afterthought as the petitioner appeared with the Co-Khatedar in the selection process and having failed there, had just chosen to file this writ petition for grant of relief in this case. He further submits that since the petitioner failed to secure the requisite marks for getting selected in the selection process along with the Co-Khatedar, he has preferred this writ petition. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed with cost. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed with cost. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. The compensation to all the Khatedars of the lands which was acquired has been paid by the respondents and it is not disputed that the petitioner being a Khatedar of Khasra No. 85 has also been awarded compensation after due adjudication and treating him to be a Khatedar Tenant of the land of which the acquisition was made. Since a separate award was made in his case and the entries with respect to the Khatedari Tenants shows the petitioner's Khasra number as a separate Khata, therefore, he is entitled to get one person of his family to be considered for grant of appointment by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in line with Para 9 of the MOU. For the sake of convenience Para 9 of the MOU is reproduced as under:- us;osyh dksjiksjs'ku esa jkstxkj nsus ds lacaèk esa & cjflaglj ifj;kstuk esa Hkwfeghu gksus okys ifjokjksa esa ls çfr [kkrk esa ls de ls de ,d O;fDr dks jkstxkj nsus gsrq ifj;kstuk vfèkdkjh fu;ekuqlkj rF; blds fy, vkosnu i= çkIr dj fy, x, gSA vkSj 427 vkosnu i= çkIr gqos gSA ifj;kstuk {ks= esa orZeku es 174 [kkrs ls lHkh la;qä [kkrs gS vkSj dqy [kkrsnkjksa dh la[;k 662 gSA ftykèkh'k egksn; us Hkwfe vokfIr ls çHkkfor lHkh ifjokjksa ds jkstxkj vkosnu i= iw.kZr;k çkIr tujy eSustj jktŒ çkstsDV ,u ,y lh dks fHktokus ds funsZ'k fn,A 8. It is also noted that the learned SDO and the District Collector vide letters dated 03.07.2012 and 03.10.2012 have taken up the matter for favourable consideration of the petitioner for the grant of employment in pursuance of the Memorandum of Understanding, conclusively goes to show that in pursuance of MOU, one member of family of the petitioner is entitled to be considered for grant of employment. It is noted that the total number of Khatedars should have been reflected as 175 but for some error on the part of State respondents only 174 Khatedars were shown for the grant of benefit of the employment from respondent nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on this technical mistake. 9. It is noted that the total number of Khatedars should have been reflected as 175 but for some error on the part of State respondents only 174 Khatedars were shown for the grant of benefit of the employment from respondent nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on this technical mistake. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on similar lines to other similarly situated persons in pursuance of the Para 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding and if found suitable, an order of employment on suitable post should be issued in his favour. 10. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.