The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 289 of 2022 1. Bigan Ganjhu, 40 years aged about son of Bhulan Ganjhu. 2. Nagwa Ganjhu, aged about 70 years, son of Larewa Ganjhu, Both are residents of Village Dembua, P.O. and P.S. Piparwar, District Chatra, Jharkhand … Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Land Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Chief General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, North Karnpura Area, Dakra, P.O. and P.S. Dakra, District Chatra, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … Respondents/Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. --------- SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --------- For the Appellant: For Resp. Nos.1-3: For Resp. No.4: Mr. Binay Kumar Sahay, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A.-III 08/Dated: 19.07.2023 --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Decision
ORDER 1) The petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 6300 of 2009 have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.03.2022 dismissing their prayer for giving appropriate direction to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 for giving appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme upon acquisition of land belonging to their families, to two other persons who happen to be the dependents of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 2) The writ petition was filed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay compensation and appointments for the -2- petitioners as well as other family members forthwith under the Land Losers Scheme prevailing in lieu of acquisition of ancestral land of the petitioners by the respondents as per the notification dated 26.05.1990 published in Part-II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India and further prayed for relief or reliefs which the petitioners may be found to be entitled in law. 3) The facts of the case are not in dispute at this stage. The petitioners and other residents of Village Dembua under the Police Station Piparwar of District Chatra lost their lands measuring an area of 232 acres 38 decimals and as per their policy, for every acquisition of 02 acres of land one person should be granted employment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in addition to the compensation they are entitled to. It is apparent from the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants that an agreement was entered into between the villagers as well as the Central Coalfields Limited on 27.08.2008 wherein it was agreed that for every two acres of land one person of the family was to be given employment and accordingly, total 116 persons belonging to the families who had lost their lands were given employment. It is further borne out from page no. 13 of the said supplementary affidavit that the villagers nominated 08 persons to enter into a dialogue with the CCL for identifying the persons who are to be given employment under the Scheme. Those 08 persons entered into negotiation and identified 116 persons to be employed under the Scheme. Accordingly, employment has already been given to those 116 persons. Out of the said 116 persons, 07 persons belonged to the petitioners’ families. Petitioner No.1 himself has been given employment. 4) At that time, there were only 07 eligible members (excluding the -3- minors) were available in the families of the petitioners to be appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. However, later on, on lapse of time and on attaining majority, the petitioners claimed that since they have lost more than 19 acres of land, they should have been given 09 appointments instead of 07 appointments and, therefore, the writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held that the facts of the case lead to a conclusion that it is not in dispute that so far as the grievance of the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the same has already been redressed during pendency of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has further held that the records of the case show that the family members of the petitioners and many other persons have entered into agreement with the respondents- Company and they have deputed several persons to represent them and as per their joint decision, agreement was entered into amongst the parties. In terms of such agreement, 07 employments have been given to the family members of the petitioners. It is further not in dispute that the respondents-Company has acted as per the agreement. The learned Single Judge has also further held that it is also not in dispute that the other parties have also acted pursuant to the agreement and the matter has been set at rest long back. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge has also observed that there is no challenge to the agreement at all, rather the agreement has been acted upon by the parties. Holding that, the learned Single Judge has further observed that being faced with the aforesaid situation, it was of the considered view that no further direction is required to -4- be passed in this case for giving any further employment to any of the family members of the petitioners and consequently, no relief can be granted. 5) After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioners themselves have been a party to the agreement between the CCL and the villagers and in pursuant to such agreement, 08 persons were deputed to negotiate and in such negotiation, 116 persons were identified as being major as well as eligible for employment and they have been granted employment. It is unfortunate that at that time the families of the petitioners had only 07 eligible persons and they have been granted employment. However, that would not clothe the petitioners with any right of reopening the settled rehabilitation assistance and the scope of the agreement cannot be expanded at present to include persons who become eligible on attaining the age of majority. In such a situation, the settlement would never come to its logical conclusion and it will be a process in perpetuity. We find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 6) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. 7) There shall be no orders as to costs. 8) Urgent certified copies as per rules. N.A.F.R. Manoj/MM (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.)