- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Sri Virendra Singh holding brief of Sri Rajendra Chaubey, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. N. Srivastava, Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri S. K. Rai Counsel for Union of India-respondent No. 1.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for the reliefs in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner in the project of the respondents on a suitable post as per agreement dated 25-7-1982 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all the facilities as enumerated in agreement dated 25-7-1982. The petitioner claims himself to be the son of land looser whose land on plot Nos. 1165 having an area of 1-5-0 hectare and 5-Gha having an area of 1-18-0 had been acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas Act, 1957 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for the project of respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, since his land falls in the State of Uttar Pradesh, as such, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as part of cause of action also arises in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Central Government through its Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, New Delhi acquired the aforesaid land of father of the petitioner, in public interest, on which he had non-bhumidhari rights, for the project of respondent No. 2 under Section 9 of the Act through Government Order No. 1021 dated 1-3-1982.
(3.) CONTENTION of Counsel for the petitioner is that after acquisition, an agreement dated 25-7-1982 was entered into between the representatives of the land loosers and the representatives of the respondents in which, it is claimed that it was promised that the land loosers will be paid compensation and a member of their family will be given employment. A bare perusal of the aforesaid agreement dated 25-7-1982 shows that the parties discussed the matter in detail and it was decided that : 8. On the basis of the aforesaid clauses, the petitioner has staked his claim after a period of more than 25 years for appointment in the project of the respondent No. 2. 9. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as no service settlement was carried out, residents of the area had only possessory rights over their plots but due to acquisition of their plots in the whole southern area of district Mirzapur (now Sonbhadra), a Public Interest Litigation was filed by Banwari Sewa Ashram, Myorepur, Mirzapur before Hon'ble the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 20-11-1986, appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, laid down certains guidelines. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that Hon'ble the Supreme Court took cognizance on the basis of letter received from Banwari Sewa Ashram, Myorepur, Mirzapur and observed as under : ". . . . . The question required detailed consideration was relating to the claim of the Adivasis living within Dudhi and Robertsganj Tehsils in the District of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh to land and related rights. The State Government declared a part of this Jungle lands in the two Tehsils as reserved forest as provided under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and in regard to the other areas notification under Section 4 of the Act was made and proceedings of final declaration of those areas also as reserved forests were undertaken. It is common knowledge that the Adivasis and other backward people living within the Jungle used the forest area as their habitat. They had raised several villages within these two Tehsils and for generations had been using the Jungles around for collecting the requirements for their livelihood-fruit, vegetables, fodder, flowers, animals by way of sports and fuel wood. When a part of the jungle became reserved forest land in regard to other proceedings under the Act were taken, the forest officers started interferring with their operations in those areas. Criminal cases for encroachments, as also other forest offences were registered and systamatic attempt was made to obstruct them from movement. Even steps for throwing them out under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 were taken. " 10. In the instant case, it is noticed that the petitioner is not an Adivasi as such, his claim is not within the ambit of the question, which has been considered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the aforesaid case Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982. 11. Counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioner by means of the instant writ petition has tried to overcome the period of limitation as he has invoked writ jurisdiction after 25 years from the date of aforesaid contract/agreement dated 25-7-1982. As such, he vehemently urged, that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 12. Reverting back to the rights of the petitioner in respect of contract/agreement dated 25-7-1982 entered into between the representatives of land loosers and the representatives of the Northern Coal Field Ltd. , reference may be made to Government order/circular dated 28-12-1974 on the same issue of appointment/service to a member of the family of the displaced person which was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra & Ors. , 2005 (1) LBESR 8 (All) (FB) : (2005) 1 UPLBEC 118. It was held that High Court cannot issue mandamus to the acquiring body for giving appointment to the members of the family whose land had been acquired on the basis of Government Order/circular dated 28-12-1974. The Full Bench also held that no such mandamus can be issued as Land Acquisition Act takes care of the difficulties of the persons whose land is acquired by granting 30% solatium on compensation under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in addition to the full market value of the land which has been acquired. It further held that Government order/circular dated 28-12-1974 was inconsistent with scheme and provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court refused relief to the petitioner in that case on the ground that Government Order/circular was not only unworkable but was also inconsistent with the scheme and was also violative of Articles 21,16 and 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is not denied that the petitioner has been paid compensation for the land acquired by the Union of India for respondent No. 2. If the petitioner claims any breach of contract/agreement dated 25-7-1982, he could have filed civil suit within the stipulated period of limitation but he cannot file writ petition which is not maintainable as per decision of the Full Bench in Ravindra Kumar's case (supra) for the oblique motive to overcome the period of limitation. 14. Scheme of providing employment, if any, was at the initial stage of the project, when posts were available. The petitioner appears to have been sleeping over his rights for the last more than 25 years and now cannot be granted any relief in the instant writ petition after lapse of more than 25 years, more particularly when the Full Bench in Ravindra Kumar's case (supra) has held that no mandamus can be issued in the circumstances which has been followed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 16863 of 2006, Amar Nath & Ors. v. Union of India & 2 Ors. , decided on 28-3-2006 and in Civil Misc. Writ No. 25049 of 2006, Mahendra Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , decided on 8-5-2006. 15. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the petition not only suffers from laches for which no explanation has been given but also that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief for enforcement of any private agreement entered into between the representatives of land loosers and respondent No. 2 after more than 25 years. 16. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;