AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to show cause as to how and under what circumstances the petitioner is neither being paid compensation in lieu of acquisition nor the petitioner's son is being provided employment as per the policy decision of Respondent No. 1 and further to show cause as to why, Respondent No. 5, namely Laki Mahto has been given employment wrongly, if not collusively, in place of petitioner's son and calling upon the respondents to produce the document of appointment of respondent No. 5 before this Hon'ble Court as also for issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding / directing respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to forthwith pay due compensation in terms of policy decision of Respondent No. 1 and also to provide employment, under such policy to the petitioner's son, in place of respondent No. 5, by declaring the said appointment of respondent No. 5 as illegal, and thereby setting it aside.
(2.) THE facts in brief are stated as under: There was a registered partition deed signed on 1.08.72 between the petitioner and his five brothers and all the properties and assets including the property in question was partitioned as a result of which the following lands comes under the share of petitioner and one of his brother, namely, Pyarelal Sao. Khata No. Plot No. Area 97 3431 1.10Dec. 3425 0.05Dec. 3420 0.26Dec. 152 3424 0.05Dec. 3426 0.04Dec. 3427 0.62Dec. 3428 1.44Dec. 3429 0.36Dec. 3429 0.64Dec. Total 4.56 Dec. According to the petitioner he and his brother Pyarelal Sao became the absolute owner of the lands and continued in possession thereafter on payment of rent to the State after being duly mutated in respect thereto. A notification No. S.O. 4269 dated 3.9.85 was issued under the Provisions of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 notifying the aforesaid land measuring 4.56 Dec. for acquisition and the same was accordingly acquired. The petitioner being a raiyati land holder and the same after being verified from the Revenue Authority was entitle to compensation more so when Authentication Report was submitted to the respondents by the Revenue Authority confirming the raiyati status of the petitioner vis -a -vis the land in question.
(3.) IT is further submitted by Shri P.K. Prasad, Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the compensation case records were prepared and sent to the headquarter and assurance were given from time to time for payment of compensation but inspite of several meetings nothing came forward. The respondents accordingly took possession of the land and also issued notice stating that the lands have been acquired and no person can make any encroachment.;