Himachal Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 May, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5256/2020 Decided on: 01.05.2023 .
Amit Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ......Respondents
............................................................................................. Coram The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner
For the respondents
r :
: toMr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Petitioner's case is that the land belonging to his family was acquired for the construction of Sawara Kuddu Hydro Electric Project (HEP) in the year 2008. Pursuant to the said acquisition, he/his family was left with land less than 5 bighas. His case was, accordingly, required to be considered by the respondents for granting him regular employment in the project in question, as per Clauses 3.2.3(a) and 6 of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan (R&R Plan in short).
Respondents No.3 and 4 rejected the case of the petitioner for regular employment vide order dated 28.06.2020 (Annexure P/8), hence, the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2023 20:41:22 :::CIS 2petitioner has instituted the present petition for the grant of substantive following reliefs:-
.
"(i) That the impugned communication dated 29.06.2020 contained in Annexure P-8 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regular employment in the Project has been rejected may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to implement the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan vide Annexure P-1 by giving regular employment as per the Clauses of R&R Plan.
(iii) That in the alternative, the respondent Corporation may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regular employment in the respondent Corporation under the R&R Plan."
2. Clause 3.2.3(a) of the R&R Plan reads as under:-
"3.2.3 (a) Main Project Affected family Rendered Landless The Main PAF rendered landless means that family whose whole agricultural land is acquired for the project or in whose case balance agriculture land left after acquisition is less than 5 bighas. For this purpose agriculture land held by project area by all such persons and their family members shall be taken into account. Person losing land on acquisition of building and land appurtenant there to shall not be treated as landless Project Affected Family. The landless PAF shall be duly certified by the Deputy Commissioner of concerned area.. To arrive at balance land, with a family, land hold by them outside the project affected area will also be considered. The definition of landless family will be as given by Govt. of H.P. this may therefore vary if the definition is changed by Govt. of H.P. The definition as applicable on the date of section 4 notification will be made applicable."
Clause 6 of R&R Plan speaks about providing employment to one member of each Project Affected Family in the following manner:-
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2023 20:41:22 :::CIS 3" One member of each Project Affected Family rendered landless will be provided employment by the Project Authority in the category of skilled/semiskilled/unskilled workmen. It would be ensured that land .
oustees eligible for employment as mentioned above are given chance first amongst them. However, persons who are allotted shops shall not be eligible for benefit of employment and vice versa. The following criteria will be adhered to by the Deputy Commissioner concerned for providing of preference while sponsoring the names for employment to the Project Authority. I. Affected families whose entire land has been acquired. ii. Affected families who have become landless on account of acquisition of land by the project.
Iii. Other affected families.
Within these categories preference will be given on the basis of quantum of land acquired. Those who lose more land will come first."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the certificate of land holding was issued to the petitioner on 8.11.2019 by the Tehsildar Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. In terms of this certificate, petitioner's family was reflected to be owner in possession of 0-25-39 hectares land in Mohal Patsari and Matasa, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. According to learned counsel, after acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner and his family members, he was left with less than 5 bighas of land and thus was entitled for the benefits of employment under the R&R Plan. Attention was also invited to the certificate issued by respondents No.3 and 4, wherein the family of Sh.
Kesru Ram (petitioner's grandfather) was reflected as Project Affected Family. He was also assigned a particular identity number as such.
::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2023 20:41:22 :::CIS 4Learned counsel on the basis of above documents submitted that the petitioner satisfied the criteria laid down in R&R Plan for employment .
with respondents No.3 and 4, hence, rejection of his case by the said respondents vide impugned order dated 28.06.2020 was not in consonance with law.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 contended that 5 legal heirs of Sh. Kesru Ram, (petitioner's grand father) certified as his legal heirs, have already been granted following monetary benefits:-
" 1) Vulnerable Grant= Rs.85,000/-
2) R&R Grant-25300
3) ITI Scheme= Electrician Trade for the Academic Session
2018-19-20 (Two year fees and 1000/- Scholarship per month)
4) Scholarship Rs.4200 for Academic Session 2019-20.
5) Medical Reimbursement= 1190"
It was further pleaded that concerned Deputy
Commissioner had to verify the families as landless. In terms of the R&R Plan, the Deputy Commissioner had accordingly verified the families as landless vide letter dated 19.9.2012. In that verification list, name of Sh. Kesru Ram (petitioner's grand father) was not included, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered as belonging to landless family. It was further submitted that the petitioner is otherwise working with respondents No.3 and 4 as Data Entry Operator through outsource agency viz. NIELIT. It has also been submitted in the reply that the ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2023 20:41:22 :::CIS 5 Government of Himachal Pradesh had formulated R&R Plan to recruit/afford appointments on outsource basis. Respondents No.3 and .
4 have already given employment on outsource basis to the petitioner through NIELIT. However, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 could not demonstrate any such provisions in the R&R Plan permitting recruitment at their end through outsource basis agency. Be that as it may.
5. The fact remains that stand of respondents No.3 and 4 in essence is based upon "verified list" of landless family provided to them by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein name of the petitioner/petitioner's family did not figure. Reply of respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is absolutely silent about inclusion of name of the petitioner or his family members in the verified list of landless family/project affected family. This reply only states that "petitioner was not issued landless certificate by the revenue agency but in fact certificate of the land holding has been issued by the Tehsildar Jubbal on 8.11.2019" in favour of the petitioner showing 00-25-39 hectares land in the ownership and possession of the family of the applicant in Mohal Patsari & Matasa of Tehsil Jubbal."
The certificate issued by the Tehsildar Jubbal on 8.11.2019 in favour of the petitioner has neither been discarded nor owned by respondent No.2 in its reply. What is the extent of land of the petitioner or his family that was acquired for the project in question is ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2023 20:41:22 :::CIS 6 not forthcoming from the replies filed by all the respondents. No submission has been advanced in respect of the extent of land .
belonging to the petitioner/petitioner's grand father that was acquired for the project. Whether name of petitioner's grand father/his family members was included in the list of Project Affected Families entitled for employment, is also not forthcoming from the replies. Hence in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate, in case, respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to re-examine the entire matter afresh.
Accordingly, in view of above, notwithstanding the impugned order dated 28.06.2020 (Annexure P/8), the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to examine and decide the case of petitioner afresh with respect to the grievance raised by him in the instant petition in accordance with law and applicable rules/guidelines/instructions/ concerned R&R Plan within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so taken shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st May, 2023 (Rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2023 20:41:22 :::CIS