- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come before this court seeking a direction upon the respondents to provide employment to his brother Umapada Sikdar under the landlooser scheme prevailing in the company against acquisition of 1.00 acre of land in Plot No. 291, Khata No. 132, Mouza-Salgora.
(2.) The brief facts of the case, stated on behalf of the petitioner, are that the land in question were purchased by the grandmother of the petitioner from one Devnarayan Singh out of 7.28 acres of land by registered sale deed dated 16th July, 1940 The mother of the petitioner came in possession thereafter over the said 1.00 acre of land. When the father of the petitioner came to know that the respondent-Eastern Coalfields Limited is intending to purchase/acquire the land from one Ganga Sagar Singh (Respondent No. 4, he raised an objection stating the aforesaid facts that the land comprising 1.00 acre out of the entire area of 7.28 acres of land of plot No. 291 belongs to him. However, it appears from the submission of the petitioner that the entire 7.28 acres of land was allegedly sold by the respondent No. 4 in favour of the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited and after dispute raised by the petitioner relating to 1.00 acre out of 7.28 acres of land under plot No. 291 was not resolved, a title suit being T.S. No. 1 of 1996 was instituted by the Management of the Eastern Coalfields Limited for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over 7.28 acres of land of Plot No. 291, Khata No. 132, Mouza-Salgora in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad. The said suit was decreed in part vide judgment dated 15th of May, 1999 by the Court of Subordinate Judge-5th, Dhanbad declaring that the plaintiff Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has got right, title and interest over 6.28 acres out of 7.28 acres of land in plot No. 291 and also held that the remaining 1.00 acre out of 7.28 acres of land in the said plot was found in exclusive possession of the defendant i.e. the present petitioner. The Eastern Coalfields Ltd. thereafter preferred First Appeal being Title Appeal No. 27 of 1999 which was rejected vide judgment and decree dated 5th of December, 2002 by the Court of Additional District Judge-4th, Dhanbad. Whereafter, the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. preferred second appeal being Second Appeal No. 627 of 2004 before this court which has since been dismissed on the point of limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that when the entire chunk of the land comprising 7.28 acres of land were allegedly purchased by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in the year 1981 including 1.00 acre of the petitioner's land, petitioner or his brother was entitled to employment in lieu of the scheme of the respondent which has been brought on record by the petitioner as Annexure-7 to his reply of the counter affidavit. As per the said scheme, for the land purchased or acquired or used between the period from 3.9.1975 to 12.8.1983, minimum 1.00 acre of land is required for one employment and in case of more than 3 acres, maximum of two employment can be given to a family.
(3.) Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondents, as stated in their affidavits, that in respect of 1.00 acre of land the petitioner claims that a registered deed of settlement dated 16.7.1940 was granted by one Dev Narayan Singh in favour of Sona Kumari, grandmother of the petitioner. However the respondent Eastern Coalfieds Ltd. have purchased 7.28 acres of land by different sale deeds dated 1st of October, 1981 and 11th of January, 1983. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. vide M.P. Case No. 466 of 1986 was initiated in respect of petitioner's claim for possession of 1.00 acre of land out of the said plot which was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The said proceeding was decided in favour of the petitioner on 22nd of November, 1990, Thereafter, the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. preferred Cr. Revision No. 8 of 1991 before the court of learned District Judge, Dhanbad against the order passed in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the court below which again was decided in favour of the petitioner confirming his possession vide order dated 12th of September, 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and the Criminal Revision was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vide declaratory suit being Title Suit No. 1 of 1996 for declaration of title and confirmation of the possession over the 7.28 acres of land of plot No. 291 as the petitioner has claimed possession over the said piece of 1.00 acre of land. The title suit was decided vide judgment and decree dated 5th of May, 1999 by the learned Subordinate Judge-5th, Dhanbad holding the title and possession of the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in respect of 6.28 acres out of 7.28 acres of land, but at the same time, it was also held that the remaining 1.00 acre of land of plot No. 291 was in exclusive possession of the defendant i.e. the present petitioner. Appeals against the aforesaid judgments and decrees preferred by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. up to the stage of second appeal were dismissed as have already been narrated hereinabove. The findings and declaration made by the Title Court stood confirmed and attained finality. During the proceeding of the case, the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. were asked to file a specific affidavit as to when they actually came into possession of the said land as it was the specific contention of the petitioner that the land is always being used by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. since 1981. Through the supplementary counter affidavit, respondents have stated that since 1989, the land came into possession of the re11(sic) such, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim employment in lieu of 1.00 acre of land. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that as per the said scheme (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit), landlooser like the petitioner could get the value of the land which is used after 1.1.1985 even if it is less than 2.00 acres of land and no employment can be given lieu thereof. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. The claim of the petitioner for seeking employment rests on the plea that 1.00 acre of land which belongs to him was purchased by the grandmother of the petitioner from one Devnarayan Singh out of total area of 7.28 acres of land of plot No. 291 in the year 1940. It is the contention of the petitioner that even though, the said respondent No. 4-Ganga Sagar Singh was not the owner of the said land but the land in question belonging to the petitioner, was also sold in favour of the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and as such, it stood acquired, purchased and used by the company since 1981 which entitles the petitioner to seek employment under the scheme relied upon by him which was in operation in between 3rd September, 1975 to 12th August, 1983 where under one employment for minimum 1.00 acre of land acquired, purchased or used, was the requirement. However, from perusal of the judgment of the learned Title Court which stood confirmed up to the second appeal stage, it appears' that the judgment which has been delivered in May 1999, holds that the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein, was in exclusive possession of one 1.00 acre out of 7.28 acres of land in the said plot, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner comprising 1.00 acre in the said plot was being used on purchase/acquisition by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. since the year 1981, does not appear to be factually sustainable. It further appears that in the proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C., the possession of the petitioner was upheld till the year 1995, where after, the respondents preferred Title Suit in respect of total 7.28 acres of land for declaration of its title and confirmation of possession. As such, even from the aforesaid facts, it appears that the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to have been taken away from the year 1981 onwards on the basis of the sale deed executed by another person i.e. respondent No. 4 in favour of the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd. The scheme invoked was applicable till the year 1983 whereafter, different scheme came under which minimum 2.00 acres of land were required to be acquired or purchased from the landlooser to entitle him to claim one employment in lieu thereof. Therefore, the prayer for grant of employment, in lieu of loss of his land cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove. However, if the petitioner's land comprising 1.00 acre has been used admittedly by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Ltd., he would be entitled to the value of the land as per the policy prescribed under the relevant scheme. Such exercise for grant of adequate compensation to the petitioner as per the relief/rehabilitation policy of the respondent company would be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.;