Decided on October 12,2006

Sitan Devi Appellant
STATE Respondents


- (1.) PETITIONER No.l is seeking appointment for petitioner No.2 in terms of SRO 181 of 1988 on the ground that the Public Health Engineering department, Udhampur took over one kanal of land belonging to the petitioner No.l for construction of water reservoir for providing water supply to the inhabitants of the area. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.l was given assurance that her daughter i.e. petitioner No.2 will be appointed in terms of aforementioned SRO. It is stated that despite the land having been taken over by respondents which is more than 50% of the land owned by petitioner No.l, the respondents did not give appointment to the petitioner No.2. The further case of the petitioners is that earlier a writ petition was filed by them being SWP No. 168/02 which was disposed of vide judgment passed by this court on 12th Feb 02, with the following directions: - "In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of decision given in LPA No. 309/1996. They would take a decision within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order and also in LPA 309 of 1996 is made available to the State authorities by the petitioner. The claims of the petitioner for compensation be also considered... "
(2.) IN pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this court, the case of the petitioners was considered but the same was rejected by impugned order dt. 25th of July 02.
(3.) ON notice, respondents filed objections in which it has been pleaded that the land measuring 4 -1/2 marlas at village Chanunta belonging to the petitioner No.l was used for the construction of water reservoir in the year 1987 -88. It is stated that the department was ready to pay compensation to the petitioners but no assurance/promise was made to provide appointment as daily wager to petitioner No.2. It is further pleaded that the process for assessment of compensation has been initiated in pursuance of order passed by this court in writ petition 168/02 and respondents have also considered the claim of the petitioner No.2 for appointment in terms of aforementioned SRO but the same has been rejected. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the respondents have infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners not only under Article 19(l)(f) of the Constitution of India but also under Article 31 thereof. Admittedly, the respondents have taken the land of petitioner No.l for the construction of water reservoir. Respondents have pleaded that the land measuring 4 -1/2 marlas has been taken over whereas the assertion of the petitioners is that one kanal of land has been taken over by the respondents in the year 1987 -88 for the construction of water reservoir for supplying water to the villagers. The assertion of the respondents is factually incorrect. In the impugned order it has been observed as under: - "That a report from revenue agency was called which indicated that only 1 kanal land of petitioner is under reservoir. However, as per report of AEE PHE Sub Divn. Chenani only four and a half marla land stands possessed by the Department for construction of reservoir and petitioner/his family are left with more than 19 kanals of land... " ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.