Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 478 (ALL)

Govind Prasad Nishad v. State of U. P.

2025-03-11

AJAY BHANOT

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Shri Shreyas Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. R. Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Triloki Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to appointment in lieu of the acquisition of his land by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. The matter is being agitated for more than three decades. This Court deems it appropriate to bring the controversy to a terminus at this stage and decide the issue on merits. 3. The petitioner's claim is made on the footing that a green card was issued on 31.07.1989 by the District Magistrate and Vice Chairman of Gorakhpur Development Authority recording that Smt. Atwari Devi and her family members are entitled for employment in the Gorakhpur Development Authority. 4. The respondent Gorakhpur Development Authority has asserted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has made a claim for employment in the Gorakhpur Development Authority on the basis of Government Order dated 21.09.1981. By means of the aforesaid Government Order, the State Government had decided to grant employment to land owners whose lands had been acquired for commercial purposes. The affidavit categorically states that there was no independent policy or separate scheme of the Development Authority apart from the Government Order for giving employment to land owners in lieu of acquisition of their lands. The said averments in the counter affidavit have not been specifically refuted by the petitioner. The denial in the rejoinder affidavit is bald and is accordingly rejected. 5. The said Government Order dated 21.09.1981 was declared invalid by the Full Bench of this Court in Ravindra Kumar vs District Magistrate And Ors reported at 2005(2)AWC1650 by holding thus: "20. It is a general rule that appointments in the public services should be made by inviting applications through open advertisement and strictly on merit so that every citizen should get equal opportunity in the matter of appointment. This rule should be adhered to in the matter of any public employment or appointment. It is a general rule that appointments in the public services should be made by inviting applications through open advertisement and strictly on merit so that every citizen should get equal opportunity in the matter of appointment. This rule should be adhered to in the matter of any public employment or appointment. Neither the State Government nor its instrumentality nor any public authority can deviate from this common rule of appointment and if any other procedure or mode is adopted, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which ensures and guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any office or of any other employment under the State. However, some exceptions to the general rule for public employment or appointment is also recognized which is commonly known as appointment on compassionate ground which is evolved purely on humanitarian ground and in the interest of justice. This rule was made to meet certain contingencies and to give appointment to a dependant of an employee dying-in-harness to prevent his family from destitution. 21. The Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code and provides the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation as per market value of the person whose land is acquired. In addition to that market value of the land interest @ 12% is also given from the date of publication of the Notification vide Section 23(1-A). Besides that, a sum of 30% on such market value is also paid as solatium for distress and for inconvenience or difficulties caused to the person on account of compulsory acquisition of the land vide Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation (a) 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as an amount of solatium, which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioner respondent cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment. 22. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act under which the Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued. Whatever compensation has to be given for acquisition of the land is provided under the Land Acquisition Act itself which is a self-contained Code. Any G.O. providing for any further benefit not mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such GO. would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as already mentioned above. 23. That apart, in our opinion, the aforesaid G.O. is wholly unworkable. The record shows mat the petitioner had onlv 12 biswas and ten biswansi land in his share which was acquired. Thus only about half a bigha of the petitioner's land was acquired in the present case. If the Circular dated 28.12.1974 is given a literal interpretation it would mean that if even one square yard land of a person is acquired one of his family members would have to be given employment. This would be wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. 24. The number of jobs available in this country is very limited and jobs cannot be given in this manner violating Article 16 of the Constitution. 25. In view of the above we answer the questions referred to us as follows : 1. The Government Orders/Circulars providing employment to one member of a family of a person whose land has been acquired (over and above the compensation awarded under the law) are invalid. 2. The acquiring body for whose benefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order/Circular. 3. No writ can be issued directing the acquiring body to consider the claim in accordance with the aforesaid Order/Government Circular." 6. The following facts have been established before this Court after exchange of pleadings. 7. 2. The acquiring body for whose benefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order/Circular. 3. No writ can be issued directing the acquiring body to consider the claim in accordance with the aforesaid Order/Government Circular." 6. The following facts have been established before this Court after exchange of pleadings. 7. The State Government by order dated 21.09.1981 provided that members of the family whose land had been acquired would be entitled to employment in the concerned department. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. The Gorakhpur Development Authority issued a green card to the petitioner assuring him such employment clearly in pursuance of Government Order dated 21.09.1981. There is no separate or independent policy which was being implemented by the Gorakhpur Development Authority for land owners whose land have been acquired. The green card cannot vest rights in the petitioner beyond the Government Order dated 21.09.1981. The Government Order dated 21.09.1981 has been quashed by the learned Full Bench of this Court in Ravindra Kumar (supra) 8. No lawful authority has been shown to be vested in the Gorakhpur Development Authority to create an independent policy for grant of employment to land owners beyond the terms of the Government Order dated 21.09.1981 has been shown to the Court. 9. In this wake the prayer made by the petitioner to mandamus the Respondent no. 2 Gorakhpur Development Authority to grant employment to the petitioner in pursuance of the said Green Card (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) cannot be granted, inasmuch as, the same would be in the teeth of the judgement of Full Bench in Ravindra Kumar (supra) . A mandamus cannot be issued to compel State authorities to act in contravention of law. Judicial discipline and rule of law forbids the Court to do so. 10. In wake of the preceding discussion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.