LAWS(KAR)-2014-2-87

MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD Vs. SHASHIDHAR R SHETTY

Decided On February 06, 2014
Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Shashidhar R. Shetty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land belonging to the first respondent and his family members measuring 3.35 acres in Sy. No. 5-4P1 of 62 Thokur village, Mangalore Taluk, was acquired by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for the benefit of the appellant for setting up of Special Economic Zone at Mangalore. The first respondent filed a representation at Annexure-F dated 25.07.2007 contending that the benefit under Annexure-A Scheme particularly, employment to a member of the family has not been provided for by the appellant. Since the representation was not considered, he filed W.P. No. 37406/2011 for a mandamus directing the appellant to provide employment and other benefits as provided in the Scheme. A learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 7.2.2012 has allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to implement the terms and conditions of the package at Annexure-A insofar as the first respondent is concerned, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The appellant has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the entire compensation for acquiring land has already been paid to the first respondent and his family members. The mother of the first respondent has filed an affidavit at Annexure-R.3 nominating her son Praveen, aged about 28 years to be employed by the appellant. It is argued that the first respondent cannot be employed by the appellant, because his mother has already nominated her another son for the said purpose.

(3.) We have perused the order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has not stated anywhere in the order that the first respondent has to be employed in terms of the Scheme at Annexure-A. Learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is called for. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.