Disposed

Manisha Kallu Nishad v. Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Coal, New Delhi and Others

Bombay HC3 Aug 2024WP/6890/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a writ petition concerning employment eligibility arising from land acquisition. The petitioner claimed ownership of acquired land, yet an authority deferred action due to a pending civil suit involving her brother and differing land portions. The Court directed the authority to reconsider eligibility based on the 2012 policy, noting the suit concerned separate land, and grante

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's eligibility, allow document production, and decide within three months.

Manisha Kallu Nishad Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:8622-DB

¶2

9 WP-6890-2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6890 OF 2023

¶6

[Manisha Kallu Nishad ..V/s.. Union of India and Ors.]

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Ms S. M. Tripathi, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr N. G. Moharir, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : 3 rd AUGUST, 2024 .

¶11

. Heard.

¶12

Land bearing survey Nos.88/1 and 88/2 has been acquired for WCL Project by issuing Notification dated 27.01.2015 under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The revenue record at the relevant time shows that petitioner was the owner of survey No.88/2 admeasuring 0.82 H.R, whilst remaining land bearing survey No.88/1 was owned by Manoj Chaudhari. The petitioner has applied for grant of appointment on account of acquisition of land. The Authority declined to consider her urge for employment on the ground that civil suit namely RCS No.66 of 2022 is pending in which, petitioner’s brother Rajesh had challenged the alienation made by his father during his minority. Since the said alienation (sale deed) was of the year 2011, it does not bare a reference as to which, portion of the survey No.88 admeasuring 0.82 H.R. was sold. The, pending civil suit does not bare the specific division in survey No.88. Petitioner’s brother Rajesh has filed said civil suit for setting aside sale deed, but as there is no specification as to whether the challenges is to survey Nos.88/1 or 88/2. WCL has not

TAMBE

9 WP-6890-2023

considered the petitioner’s urge by keeping it in abeyance.

¶17

Looking to the matter from another angle, it is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of land survey No.88/2 admeasuring 0.82 H.R., whilst the dispute is about remaining 0.82 H.R. in between petitioner’s brother Rajesh and purchaser Manoj. In any case, suit is decreed or dismissed that would have repurcation on conferment of title of 0.82 H.R. portion only. Still, it has no impact on the remaining land admeasuring 0.82 H.R. owned by petitioner, and latter acquired.

¶18

It is petitioner’s contention that as per R and R Policy of the year 2012, land having minimum holding of 2 acres would get one employment. In the circumstances, we see no difficulty in deciding the petitioner’s urge for employment. The decision of civil suit would not come in the way of said adjudication, if the holding of petitioner satisfies the criteria.

¶19

In view of above, we direct respondent No.2 - WCL to reconsider the petitioner’s eligibility on the basis of above observations and the prevailing policy. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to produce all relevant documents before the Authority. The appropriate decision shall be taken within three months from the date of production of documents by the petitioner.

¶20

(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶21

TAMBE

Manisha Kallu Nishad v. Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Coal, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Kallu Nishad v. Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Coal, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay S/O Hemraj Bhurle Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bhandara and Others

Ku. Rupali Laxman Sonkusare (Mrs. Rupali W/O Sudhirkumar Neel) Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi and or

Jagruti Shetkari Bahuuddeshiya Mitra Mandal, Kavtha(Naik), Thr. Treasurer Nilkanth Aaudumbar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Social Justice and Special Asst. Dept. Mumbai

Harsh Rajkumar Shriwas Vs the Chairman, District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Kartik Naresh Shriwas Vs the Chairman, District Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Premlata D/O Manoharrao Sonparote Vs Dr Arvind R. Ladole, through Principal, B.B. Arts, N.B. Commerce and B.P. Science College, Digras