Jharkhand High Court
Moti Pramanik & Ors vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 12 July, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2017 AJR 613, (2017) 4 JCR 591 (JHA)
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 681 of 2010
1. Moti Pramanik
2. Shashi Pramanik
3. Gobind Pramanik
All sons of Late Gobardhan Pramanik, all residents of
Chhotakharika, P.O. & P.S.Kendwadih, DistrictDhanbad
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, represented through its
ChairmancumManaging Director, Koyla Bhawan, P.O.Koyla
Nagar, DistrictDhanbad
2. The Director (Personnel), M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Koyla Bhawan, P.O.Koyla Nagar, DistrictDhanbad
3. The Chief General Manager, Area No. VI, M/s Bharat Coking
Coal Limited, P.O.Kusunda, DistrictDhanbad
4. The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Area No. 6, M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, P.O.Kusunda, DistrictDhanbad
5. The Project Officer, Gandudih Khas Kusunda, M/s Bharat
Coking Coal Limited, P.O.Kusunda, DistrictDhanbad
6. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner,
Dhanbad, P.O. & DistrictDhanbad
7. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, District
Dhanbad ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, JC to GPI
For Respondent Nos.15: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
Order No. 05 Dated: 12.07.2017
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the order contained in Ref.No.BCCL/Kus.Area/09/1684 dated
31.12.2009, whereby the respondent no. 3 though admitted that 8 employments were to be provided in lieu of acquisition of 17.64 acres of land under landlooser scheme, yet the claim of the petitioners for employment on acquisition of 4.21 acres of land 2 has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 4.21 acres of land of Mouza Chhota Kharikabad, Thana No. 54 under Khata No. 4 at different plots being 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 435, 439 absolutely belonged to Gobardhan Napit who exercised all his right, title, interest and possession over the said land peacefully. A land acquisition proceeding was initiated for acquisition of total 17.64 acres of land of mouza Chhota Kharikabad for mining purposes and the respondent no. 2 proposed the raiyats of the land to provide a package employment and in lieu of aforesaid acquisition, total 8 employments were to be given. The father of the petitioners Gobardhan Napit @ Pramanik was also issued notice in the aforesaid L.A. Case and accordingly, he appeared in the aforesaid proceeding alongwith the documents and award had been passed in his favour for payment of compensation. The respondents in view of their own policy decision provided employment to the dependants of raiyats whose, even meagre portion of land, had been acquired in the same case. Although, the petitioners' 4.21 acres of land had been acquired but no employment was given to them under Rehabilitation of Landlooser Scheme of respondents. The petitioners submitted representation on 30.07.2007 to the respondent no. 3 and requested to provide employment in lieu of acquisition of 4.21 acres of land in view of their landlooser rehabilitation scheme which provided that one employment shall be given against acquisition of 2 acres of land as well as there had been a package deal of 8 employment by the respondents against total 17.64 acres of land in which respondentBharat Coking Coal Limited (in short to be referred as "BCCL") had given 7 employments and one employment which was to be given to the petitioners were kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason. Aggrieved by the action of the respondentBCCL, the petitioners preferred the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3495 of 2008 before 3 this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.11.2009 with a direction to the respondentBCCL to decide the representation of the petitioners expeditiously by reasoned order preferably within a period of four weeks. However, the representation filed by the petitioners was rejected under the signature of the Chief General Manager, BCCL, Kusunda Area, Dhanbad contained in Ref.No.BCCL/Kus.Area/09/1684 dated 31.12.2009. The said letter is under challenge in the present writ petition. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that admittedly, out of 17.64 acres of land, 8 employments were to be provided by the management of the BCCL, but only 7 employments have been given to the nominees of the landloosers. Though the petitioners are the sons of the landloosers namely, Gobardhan Napit, yet they have not been given any employment. The learned counsel further submits that at least, one employment should have been given by the management of BCCL to the nominee of the petitioners. So far as the delay caused in not giving employment is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Prakash Munda Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited" reported in 2017 (2) JLJR 506 and submits that the authorities cannot derive any advantage on their own failure to act on time in deciding the claim of an aggrieved person.
4. No counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondentBCCL. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentBCCL submits that on completion of the process of acquisition of the concerned land, the delivery of possession of the acquired land was already effected w.e.f. 27.01.1982, but the petitioners made the representation before the respondentBCCL in the year 2007, which is evident from the representation annexed as Annexure3 to the writ petition and, therefore, considering the huge delay committed on their part, no 4 further employment can be given to their nominee as the said scheme has already been closed much before.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and considering the documents placed on record, it appears that the land measuring 17.64 acres in different plots of mouza Chhota Kharikabad, Thana No. 54 including 4.21 acres belonging to Shri Gobardhan Napit (father of the petitioners) were acquired for BCCL by the erstwhile State of Bihar vide Land Acquisition Case No. 75 of 198081/Project Case No. 71 of 198182 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The delivery of possession of the acquired land was also effected w.e.f. 27.01.1982. The compensation against the said acquisition was paid to the awardees on 11.02.1986 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad. During the year 1989, 8 employments were sanctioned against the acquisition of 17.64 acres of land. As per the norms of the company, the employments were to be offered to the titleholders of the land or their lineal descendants. In view of the said norms of the BCCL, 7 employments were released to the titleholders/lineal descendants of the land. However, one employment against acquisition of land of Shri Gobardhan Napit (father of the petitioners) could not be released as one Bijay Bhandari who was nominated by Shri Gobardhan Napit was not found to be in the lineage of titleholder of the land i.e., Shri Gobardhan Napit. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that subsequently against the same land, 7 more employments were provided by the BCCL under the Special Landloosers Scheme. Moreover, out of 17.64 acres of land, 1.49 acres of land was of BCCL and, hence, the claim for employment stood only in respect of 16.15 acres of land and against the said 16.15 acres of land, 14 employments have already been released by the BCCL. It has further been observed in the impugned order that after lapse of so many years, the petitioners' claim for employment is not tenable.
56. On perusal of the impugned order dated 31.12.2009, I find that the respondent no. 3 the Chief General Manager, BCCL, Kusunda Area has duly considered the representation of the petitioner and thereby reached a conclusion that no further employment can be given in lieu of the acquisition of the land of Shri Gobardhan Napit. It is important to notice that in the year 1989 itself, Shri Gobardhan Napit was offered an employment by the BCCL and in response to the said offer, Shri Gobardhan Napit nominated one Bijay Bhandari for the purpose of employment who after enquiry was not found to be in the lineage of Shri Gobardhan Napit and, therefore, no employment was given to said Bijay Bhandari in terms with the norms of the BCCL. Considering the fact that the offer was already made by the BCCL to the titleholder of the land i.e., Shri Gobardhan Napit, but he failed to nominate the right person for the purpose of employment in BCCL and as such, after lapse of several years, the claim for further employment to be given to the lineal descendant of Shri Gobardhan Napit is not tenable. The judgment in the case of "Prakash Munda" (supra) has been rendered on a complete different factual context. In the present case, it cannot be said that there has been any lapse on the part of the respondentBCCL in not providing the employment to the nominee of the petitioners, rather the offer for employment was already made, as has been discussed hereinabove, to Shri Gobardhan Napit in the year 1989 itself. Thus, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
7. Consequently, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 3.
8. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.