PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to give employment against the acquisition of their ancestral/raiyati land measuring about 18.27 acres as per the scheme framed by the C.C.L and for direction upon the respondent for appropriate compensation in terms of money at the rate of then existing market value.
(2.) The factual matrix, as has been depicted in the writ application in a nut shell is that for acquisition of land, a land acquisition case bearing No. 24/1985-86 was filed by the respondent company namely C.C.L to acquire 59.45 acres of raiyati land from 48 raiyats of village Bachra. A notification No. D.L.A. Haz-42/06-676 dated 02.04.1987 was published and subsequently published in Hazaribagh District Gazette on 16.04.1987 as per annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been submitted that at village Bachra, the ancestral land belonging to the petitioners, in the name of their grandfather namely, Ritu Mahto, measuring a total area of 8.27 acres and also 10 acres of Khutkatti raiyati lands belonging to the petitioners were also marked by the respondent company to be acquired for its purposes. Subsequently, notices were issued to all raiyats/interested parties including the grandfather of the petitioners to appear with all necessary documents of the land on 24.04.1990. After completion of the legal formalities, the grandfather of the petitioners was informed that as against the acquisition of 8.27 acres of land, Rs. 1,19,944.80 has been decided as compensation to be paid to him as indicated in the notice dated 15.01.1991 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Since the valuation of the lands belonging to the petitioners was very low, the grandfather of the petitioners filed an objection in the aforesaid land acquisition case giving full details of commercial value of the land and also requesting the respondents for enhancement of compensation as per the market value of the land. The objection raised by the grandfather of the petitioners fell on the deaf ears and compensation amount was accepted by the grandfather of the petitioner with demur on 07.05.1991 and subsequently after due verification and assessment a sum of Rs. 14,82,484.20 was ordered to be paid to the grandfather of the petitioners, which appears by an observation of the order of award dated 17.06.1992 in L.A No. 24/1985-86 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh, as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It has further been submitted that so far as acquisition of 10 acres of Khutkatti land belonging to grandfather of the petitioners, no compensation were paid to him. After payment of compensation, the father and mother of the petitioners namely Budhan Mahto and Sohabatia Devi applied for the jobs and employment was only given to Budhan Mahto and the case of Sohabatia Devi was not considered. After getting employment, the father of the petitioners, Budhan Mahto started doing work in the respondent company. During his employment, he came to learn that in large number of cases against acquisition of less land than the petitioners, services to many members of a raiyat has been given as mentioned in para 15 of the writ petition. After getting such information the father of the petitioners submitted representation on 15.09.2003 before the Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area, C.C.L, Hazaribagh for employment of three sons, namely petitioners 1 to 3, since all land belonging to family were acquired by the CCL as per Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Since the representation failed to evoke any response from the respondents, the petitioner No. 1 submitted another representation before the Coal of Ministry, Government of India for payment of due compensation and employment to family members. On receipt of said representation Coal Ministry, Government of India wrote a letter to the Chairman cum Managing Director, C.M.P.D.I.L, Ranchi, on 22.12.2004 to take necessary action within 15 days of the receipt of the letter as per Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 2 after receipt of the letter dated 22.12.2004 wrote to General Manager (L and R), CCL, Ranchi to look into the matter, who in turn wrote to the Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area to make an enquiry of the matter. On such instruction, enquiry was made by the concerned respondent and on 07.11.2008 the factual position on the application of the Kauleshwar Mahto was given by the Deputy Chief Manager (L and R) whereby it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the case of their mother namely Sohabatia Devi for employment in the respondent company was turned down on vague facts but the certificate dated 25.10.2008 given by the Range Forest Officer that their land has been utilized since in the year 1994-95 as evident from Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioners left with no alternative, have been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that after enquiry made by the respondent-CCL on 07.11.2008, the said enquiry report was not intimated to the petitioners for long, who ran from pillar to post to get information and managed to get the copy of the enquiry report in the year 2012. After that the petitioners filed the instant writ petition, therefore, there is no delay/unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 (Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.) . Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondents in not providing sufficient employment to the petitioners is contrary to provisions of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of delay in approaching this Court has referred to AIR 1970 SC 769 (Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Ors.) , AIR 1987 SC 1353 (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji) , AIR 1993 SC 802 (Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd v. District Board, Bhojpur and Ors.) , AIR 2003 SC 1140 (Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) and AIR 2011 SC 2161 (Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar and Ors.) . Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to AIR 1984 SC 866 (H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to condone delay of 30 years in approaching the court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been deprived of their fundamental rights by the respondent- CCL and the petitioners belong to a class which did not have any other vocation or business for the purpose of earning their livelihood. The case of the petitioners should be considered in the right perspective without delving on the technicalities of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent-CCL should have given employment to the three family members of the awardee and since it has been admitted by the respondent-CCL that against acquisition of 8.27 acres of land by them, only one employment has been given by them to Budhan Mahto (son of awardee).;