Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 5283/2013
(2.) THE instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the respondent No. 6 for deleting his name from array of parties in the writ petition on the ground that the present respondent is neither necessary party nor required for proper adjudication of the case. His name has only been included as party respondent in order to support the contention of the petitioner that in similar circumstances, the respondent CCL had given employment to the respondent No. 6 on account of surrender of possession of more than two acres of land to the said respondents, which is being denied to the present petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner and the official respondents do not dispute the aforesaid position that the presence of the respondent No. 6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present controversy. Accordingly, let the name of respondent No. 6 be deleted from the array of parties for which necessary correction be carried out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 in red ink during course of the day. I.A. No. 5283 of 2013 stands disposed of. Heard counsel for the parties. By the letter dated 22nd/24th December 2010 (Annexure -15), petitioners' claim for grant of employment under the scheme of land acquisition in the year 1993 by the Central Coalfields Limited has been rejected. The said order was passed in view of the direction given in judgment dated 28th May 2010 passed in WPS No. 4386/08. The grounds for rejection as borne out in the impugned order are; i. that the proposal of the petitioners for appointment as a land looser was falling short of 0.001/2 acres of land, ii. that in the description of land shown by the petitioners for seeking such employment, only 0.96 acres of land has been utilized by the respondent CCL, iii. the concerned mines has since been closed and there is no possibility of utilizing the rest of the land by the respondent, iv. the case of the petitioners is not covered by the revised rehabilitation policy of the respondents. Little background to the controversy is necessary in order to appreciate the case of the parties: Earlier, by an Agreement contained at Annexure -3 dated 10th December 1993 entered into between the Management of the respondent CCL and three persons including the father of the present petitioner No. 1, a total of 2.00 acres of physical possession of the land was surrendered with immediate effect by the second party without any encumbrance, for which compensation had already been paid to the land oustee and the legal possession of the land had already been given to the CCL by the State Government. The claim of the petitioner No. 1 was indicated as 'nominee' son of Kanhai Sao for claiming employment in lieu of the surrender of 2.00 acres of said land. The description of the land contained in the said Agreement also indicated that 0.001/2 acres of land of one Ramnandan Sao, son of Nageshwar Sao were also included in the entire 2.00 acres of land. Apparently, as per the policy of the respondent CCL, it stipulated that the land looser could only be given employment, if the minimum area of land acquired or surrendered in favour of the respondent CCL is not less than 2.00 acres. The said policy also permitted the bunching of the land of a neighbour of the land looser if the area fell short of 2.00 acres. Thereafter, since the petitioner No. 1 was not offered appointment, he had occasion to move this Court in WPS No. 4687/01 for directing the respondent CCL to consider his case for appointment as per scheme and to grant employment to one of the members of the family for which land has been acquired. This Court vide order dated 11th September 2003 disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority of the respondent CCL to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment within a stipulated period. Relevant extract of the judgment is quoted hereunder: This application has been preferred by petitioner for direction on respondents to consider his case of appointment as per scheme, to grant employment to one of the member of the family of which land has been acquired. One of the ground taken by respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment, as only 1.39 acres of land of his family was acquired. As per scheme, a member of the family whose more than 2 acres of land has been acquired for M/s. C.C.L. is entitled for appointment. It is true that this Court cannot determine the disputed question whether more than 2 acres of land of the family of petitioner was acquired or not, but from the enclosure attached by the petitioner i.e. the Certificate of Collector under the Act for acquisition, it appears that certain compensation amount was paid to Shri Sakal Prasad Sao and Shri Kanhai Lal Sao (uncle and father of petitioner) jointly for acquisition of 2.28 1/2 acres of land. Another certificate shows that a further compensation amount was paid to Shri Sakal Prasad Sao and Shri Kanhai Lal Sao (uncle and father of petitioner) jointly for acquisition of another 1.04 acres of land. In the circumstances, for determination of the question as to what is the total land of the family of petitioner was acquired, the case is remitted to the General Manager, Barkakana Area, C.C.L. The petitioner may produce documents before the General Manager, Barkakana Area, C.C.L. in support of claim of acquisition of more than 2 acres of land. The General Manager, Barkakana Area C.C.L. if so required may enquire from the concerned office of the State Government and will communicate its decision to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. If it is found that more than 2 acres of land of petitioner's family was acquired for C.C.L., the competent authority will consider the case of petitioner for appointment within a period of three months from the date of decision. In case the authorities dispute the claim of the acquisition of 2 acres of land in such case the petitioner may move before a civil court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner's application was rejected by order dated 21st November 2006 passed by the General Manager, (BS), Central Coalfields Limited, Barka -Sayal Area (Annexure -6). The said order dated 21st November 2006 gave description of the land which were included for the purposes of showing that the area of land surrendered by the father of the petitioner No. 1 was 2.00 acres and it includes 1/2 decimal of land of one Ram Nandan. In respect of L.A. Case No. 2/1980 -81 in respect of Khata No. 51 & 1, total 2.28 and 1/2 acres of land has been acquired. If the share is calculated, share of the petitioner's father came to 1.03 ¼ acres of land. Out of Khata No. 43 in respect of 1.04 acres of land, the petitioner's share comes to 0.52 acres. In plot No. 293 (P) in respect of which L.A. Case No. 1/1978 -79 started, petitioner's grand father's share came to 0.09 acres. In respect of other areas of Plot No. 293, total area being 1.39 acres, petitioner's share comes to 0.34 ¾. The said order therefore indicated that the total area in the petitioner's share comes to 1.99 acres (approximately). The petitioner had claimed half decimal of land of one Ram Nandan whose name has occurred in the Agreement (Annexure -3) which has been referred to herein above and it was taken to bunch with the land of the petitioner so that it comprised 2.00 acres of land. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's claim however, was that at the time of consideration of the petitioner's case, there was no system available of making arrangement with other raiyats to overcome the shortfall of land necessary for getting employment.;