- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner alleges that part of land belonging to his grand father was acquired for the purpose of establishing a tube-well. According to the Government Order dated 21-12-1981 for grant of employment to the land looser, the petitioner claims appointment on the ground thereof.
(2.) MR. C. B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case oinagendra Nath Chan be v. Ex ecutive Engineer Public Tube-well Region Prakhand Faizabad and others, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10868 of 1990, disposed of on 8-1-1993, a copy whereof in Annexure-5 to the writ petition and Mohd. Samsad All and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1992 Vol. I UPLBEC 128 and contends that the person similarly situated was directed to be given appoint ment by the said judgment. Mr. D. R. Chaudhary, Additional Chief Standing Counsel contends that by virtue of Government Orders dated 12-5-88 and 29-6-88 issued subsequently where the land is very small and where on such land no project is established, the earlier Government Order dated 21-12-1981 giving appointment to the land looser would not be applicable. The said Government Orders dated 12-5-88 and 29-6-88 were not taken into consideration in the decision dated 8-1-1993 in Writ Petition No. 10868 of 1990 whereas the decision in the case of Mohd. Samsad Ali (supra), the position is different where the land was acquired for establishment of a Government College which is admittedly a project. The said distinction has not been noted in the decision dated 8-1-1993. In view of the specific provisions contained in the Government Order dated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wherein it has been provided that in case of acquisition of land on which no project is being established, the rule would not be attracted, the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
(3.) MR. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that by reason of the Government order dated 21-12-1981, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion, three conditions are to be fulfilled for the purpose of attracting the provisions of said Government Order which according to him has been fulfilled in the present case. The said three conditions are that the land has been acquired for which the families have been displaced, that the family should consisted of minimum two members and that if he is eligible for ap pointment in the project in such post, which are outside the purview of the Public Service Commission. In the present case the estab lishment of the tube-well is being said to be a project according to Mr. Yadav. But the fact remains that for the purpose of establishment of a tube-well a very small quantum turn of land is acquired which may not is place the family. It is not pointed out that the house of the family of the petitioner was acquired. Only 34 acres have been acquired. Therefore, it cannot said that the petitioner's family was dis placed. Only in case of large project, the families are displaced both from residence as well as from their source of income. Acquisition of very small quantum of land cannot be said that it come within the said displacement on account of a project. The purpose of such Government Order was to compensate and secure such family who have been displaced for the larger interest of the society and have been deprived of their farm and home as well as their means of livelihood. Acquisition of very small quantum of land for establishment of tube-well in a particular locality from an individual cannot be said to be a project which is displaced that individual. This has been so clarified in the Government or ders dated 12-5-88 and 29-6-88 referred to by Shri D. R. Chaudhary, learned Addi tional Chief Standing Counsel.;