- (1.) In pursuance of Haryana Government notification dated 6.6.1985 issued under Section 4 and following up declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land located at village Gudha, tehsil Karnal, was acquired at public expenses for a public purposes, namely construction of L.P.G. Bottling Plant in village Gudha. The landowners who were affected were of course granted compensation as envisaged under the provisions of the Act aforesaid, but on their insistence, the Land Acquisition Collector, while rendering his award, made provision of employment to genuine and deserving landless and all that was said in the award by the Land Acquisition Collector was that demand of the landowners for providing them suitable employment in the plaint was genuine and deserved to be considered sympathetically and favourably. Taking clue from the award, which was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on November 15, 1985, petitioners successfully staked their claim for employment either for self or their wards. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, thus, granting the relief as demanded by the petitioners, has been challenged in this and connected appeals Nos. 420, 421, 422 and 423 of 1992, which will be disposed on by this order.
(2.) The claim of the petitioners, as observed earlier, is based upon the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector as also an advertisement said to have been issued by the State of Haryana on April 20, 1985, even prior to the award, wherein it was mentioned that persons, whose lands were acquired for defence purposes of setting up of an Industrial Unit should be registered in the employment exchange for giving them job in the Unit, which was set up on the acquired land. The appellants in the written statement filed by them contested the claim of the petitioners by mainly pleading that inasmuch as they were not a party in the land acquisition proceedings nor were heard by the Land Acquisition Collector, they were not bound by the contents of the award and the landloers had been duly compensated as they were paid the market price of the land acquired from them. It was also pleaded that claim of all the eligible persons was considered and as the petitioners did not answer the criteria either with regard to maximum age or qualification or both, they were rightly denied employment. From the perusal of the judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that stand of the appellants was not before it as the written statement filed was misplaced in the office and was not tagged with the case file. The matter was, thus, almost exclusively decided upon the averments made by the petitioners. Even though, the contention of the appellants that the petitioners were not within the maximum age, which had been prescribed for eligibility for seeking employment, was noticed but a direction was issued that even if the petitioners were overage, the condition for maximum age in their case should be relaxed. At the time of motion hearing, the appellants were directed to consider the case of the petitioners for providing them employment in accordance with the scheme formulated by them without reference to the conservation made in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The counsel appearing for the appellants vide order dated 10.8.1992 was asked to file as affidavit alongeith supporting documents and in pursuance of the aforesaid affidavit of Shri P.R. Venkatachalan, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Indian Oil Corporation, New Delhi, with Annexure-A dealing with the case of all the petitioners individually and giving the grounds as to why they were not absorbed in the employment of the appellants, has been filed.
(3.) The only contention of the appellants is that the case of the petitioners was actually considered and inasmuch as the petitioners was not eligible being overage or not qualified being under-matric, they could not be accommodated. It is further contended that the petitioners at the most had a right for being considered, but they could not ask for employment irrespective of their age or qualification and that being so, the direction of the learned Single Judge to relax the age and qualification in their case, is not justified.;