Jharkhand High Court
Mangal Hembram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 March, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2423 of 2016
Mangal Hembram, son of Late Lakhan Hembram, resident of Village-
Sarjamda (Lupung Tola), P.O. & P.S.-Parsudih, District-East Singhbhum
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, East Singhbhum
5. The Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum
6. Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jadugora Mines, East
Singhbhum
7. General Manager (P), Uranium Corporation of India Limited,
Jadugora Mines, East Singhbhum ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sahil, JC to SC (L&C) For the Respondent-UCIL : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
-----
Order No. 04 Dated: 06.03.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2--the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in Mutation Revision Case No. 37/2011-12, whereby the said authority has upheld the order passed by the respondent no. 4 -- the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, East Singhbhum in Mutation Appeal No. 71/2009-10 setting-aside the order of the respondent no. 5 - the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur passing in Mutation Case No. 1359/2003-04 with respect to the land bearing Mauza-Turamdih, Thana No. 1181, Khata No. 13, Plot No. 326, measuring an area of 0.07½ acre. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Mutation Appeal No. 71/2009-10 with a further prayer to issue direction upon the respondent-Union Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the UCIL") to accept the petitioner's application so as to provide the benefit of employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (hereinafter referred to as "the R & R Policy") of the respondent-UCI.
2. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the garb of impugned orders passed by the 2 revenue authorities, the respondents have intended to jeopardise the claim of the petitioner for his employment under the R & R Policy of the respondent-UCIL.
3. Mr. M.B. Lal, the learned counsel for the respondent-UCIL, submits that the petitioner has not brought on record any material to substantiate the said apprehension. It is further submitted that if the petitioner falls under the category of land loser(s) and has received compensation in lieu of the acquisition of the land as well as if the R & R Policy permits rehabilitation of the displaced persons including the employment in terms with the said policy, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities would make no difference to the claim of the petitioner. Otherwise also, the outcome of the exercise in assailing the impugned orders of mutation passed in favour of the respondent-UCIL would have no consequence to the petitioner's claim.
4. The learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that a Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2281 of 2016 (Majhia Murmu Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.) has disposed of a similar writ petition granting liberty to the said writ petitioner to approach the respondent-UCIL claiming benefits under the R & R Policy.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-UCIL as well as the order passed by a Bench of this Court dated 17.04.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 2281 of 2016, I am of the view that the grievance raised by the petitioner against the mutation orders passed by the revenue authorities would merely be academic in nature. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the respondent-UCIL claiming benefits including the claim of employment under the R & R Policy of respondent-UCIL. It is open to the petitioner to establish his claim before the respondent-UCIL in terms with the R & R Policy.
6. The writ petition is disposed of aforesaid liberty and observation.
Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.)