Katra v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

1. SRI DIWANKAR PRASAD, s/o Late Cauri Shankar Pd. 2. Sri Awadhesh Prasad, s/o Late Gauri Shankar Pd. Both are resident of Katra Bazar, P.s. Malsalami, District Patna 3. Sri Ramjiwan Mahto, s/o Late Jhaman Mahto 4. Sri Ramautar Yadav, s/o Late Phagu Yadav, Both 3 and 4 are resident of village Rakabganj, P.S. Malsalami, District Patna 5. Vinay Kumar, S/o Late Rajendra Mahto 6. Arun Pd. Mehta, s/o Late Rajendra Mahto 7. Binod Kumar, S/o late Rajendra Mahto 5 to 7 are resident of village Abdul Rahmanpur (Katra Bazar), P.S. Malsalami, District Patna 8. Smt. Deopati Devi, W/o Sri Shrawan Kumar, Resident of Kachi Dargah, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna 9. Sri Shyam Baby Yadav, s/o Late Ram Lakhan Gope, resident of Rakabganj, P.s. Malsalami, District Patna Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Patna 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Patna 4. Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna … Respondents 1 5. Chief Engineer, Construction II, Eastern Railway, Kolkata 6. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Railway Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna 7. Deputy General Manager, Eastern Railway, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata … Respondents 2nd set st set ----------- 5.

30.4.2009 Heard Mrs. Sheela Sharma, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, counsel for the Railways as well as the State. In both the writ applications the 3 petitioners have made a prayer for a direction to the respondents 1st set to forward the name of the petitioners to the respondents 2nd set, the railway authorities for their appointment in railway service on the ground that the lands have been acquired for construction of the railway over-bridge and its approach road at Didarganj, Patna. Mrs. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that once the land of the petitioners was acquired for the purpose of railways they became entitled for being employed by way of part of package of compensation. In this context she has also referred to an order of this Court dated

13.5.1999 C.W.J.C.No. (Satyendra Kumar & ors. vs. the Union of India & ors.). On the other hand, counsel for the Railways with reference to his counter affidavit has disputed the said claim of the petitioners on the basis that first of all there is no policy in the Railways for appointment of each and every land looser. Counsel also submits that the land has been acquired for construction of over-bridge and 4 approach road by the National Highways Authority and therefore, the Railways will have no liability for offering jobs to land holders. He finally submits that the facts of the case referred to by the counsel for the petitioners, Satyendra Kumar & ors. (supra) were totally different wherein the Railways having acquired the land for the purpose of constructing a railway godown at Fatuha had themselves agreed that apart from the monetary compensation they will also offer employment for such displaced person. This Court on perusal of the materials on record would find that the petitioners statutory right, inasmuch provisions Land Acquisition Act under which the land of the petitioners were acquired do not provide for giving employment by way of compensation. That would leave the petitioners only to confine their case foe employment only if there is a policy of the Railways. Admittedly no such policy the Railways has been brought on record of this case. The precedent which has been relied by them is being seriously controverted by the counsel 5 for the Railways on the ground that the Railway makes a distinction in offering employment to the land ousters for its own purpose vis-(cid:224)-vis for general purposes. In such a situation when the basic facts are in dispute and there is nothing for this Court to hold that the petitioners as a matter of fact are entitled for employment no mandamus can be issued by this Court even by following the order of this Court

13.5.1999 C.W.J.C.No. 3274/1999. From the aforementioned order it would in fact appear that when the Railways had themselves conceded before this Court with regard to the claim of the petitioners, this Court had merely disposed of the writ application by recording such submission of the Railways. The plea of discrimination between the set of persons whose land was acquired for construction of godown of Railways vis- (cid:224)-vis the petitioners whose land is said to be acquired for construction of Highway or approach road cannot be equated and therefore, it will be still open for the petitioners satisfy railway 6 authorities that their case stands on same footing as that of Satyendra Kumar & ors. (supra) for whom a direction was issued on

13.5.1999 in C.W.J.C.No. 3274/1999. That being so, both the writ applications are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the railway authorities by filing a fresh representation and in the event such a representation is filed the same will be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of its filed alongwith a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/