Disposed

Nishith Kumar Paul v. Easten Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jun 2017WPC/836/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking employment under the Land Looser Scheme due to alleged non-payment of compensation for acquired land. Court directed Circle Officer to enquire regarding the extent of land possession (2.03 acres vs 1.01 acres) to determine entitlements.

What did the court decide?

Directed Circle Officer, Nirsa Block to enquire regarding possession of lands by M/s. ECL amounting to 2.03 acres.

Nishith Kumar Paul Vs Easten Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C). No. 836 of 2002

¶3

=============================================================

¶4

Nisith Kumar Paul, son of Sri Hari Ram Paul, resident of Khas Nirsa, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

Eastern Coalfield Ltd. through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Santoria, P.O. Disergarh, District Burdwan (West Bengal).

¶8

The General Manager (L&R), Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Headquarter Santoria, P.O. Disergarh, District Burdwan (West Bengal).

¶9

The General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Mugma Area, P.O. Mugma, District Dhanbad.

¶10

The Agent, Chapapur & Shyampur Colliery, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad.

¶11

… ... Respondents . ============================================================= For Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate =============================================================

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶13

09/ 08.06.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for providing job to the petitioner under the Land Looser Scheme, whereas, the respondents have already acquired the land of the petitioner bearing Khata No. 128, Plot No. 2, measuring an area of 1.01 acre and Khata No. 71, Plot No. 1041, measuring an area of 1.02 acres, total area of 2.03 acres and further direction to consider the case of the petitioner for employment under the Land Looser Scheme, on ground that several similarly situated persons have already been provided with the job and monitory compensation.

¶15

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶16

The petitioner purchased 1.01 acres land of Khata No. 128, Plot

¶17

No. 2, Mouza-Shyampur, under P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad by registered sale deed dated 03.03.1993 and petitioner also purchase 1.02 acres land of Khata No. 71, Plot No. 1041, Mouza Luadih, under P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad, by registered sale deed dated 10.03.1993. After purchase, the petitioner became a raiyat and was in peaceful possession of the said lands after construction of boundary wall. In the year 1994, petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent, in which he had agreed to sale his land under the Land Looser Scheme, in which the respondents have agreed to provide the job to the petitioner in lieu of the sale deeds. Though the land was acquired by the respondent-company but till date neither any monitory compensation has been given nor job has been provided to the petitioner and hence, this writ petition has been preferred.

¶18

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.B. Lal strenuously urges that the respondents have acquired lands of the petitioner long back and started mining operation over the said lands but till date, the petitioner had neither been provided with monitory compensation nor he has been provided with the job under the Land Looser Scheme. Learned counsel submits that though an application was made for his appointment on 18.11.1994, the respondents have paid no heed to it and on the other hand, several similarly situated persons have been granted monitory compensation and jobs and the petitioner has not been considered for the same due to illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents. In order to strengthen his arguments, learned counsel draws attention of the Court towards Annexure-3 and demonstrates that list of candidates were prepared for granting appointment by the respondents, in which name of petitioner figured at Sl. No. 23 and it has also been shown that total lands of 2.03 acres has been acquired from the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents themselves have recommended to the headquarters for providing job and compensation to the petitioner, but the same has not been done till date.

¶21

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondent-ECL vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Lala draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-‘B’ to the counter-affidavit, which reads as

¶22

under:-

¶23

“The Competent Authority has advised that no action is to be taken for taking possession of the land and for providing employment against this parcel land.”

¶24

Learned counsel also draws attention of the Court towards paragraphs 24 & 25 of the counter-affidavit, in which specifically it has been mentioned that:-

¶25

“ 24. It is stated and submitted that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Hon’ble Court by not giving the clear picture. It is stated that M/s. ECL has only taken possession of 1.01 acre of Plot No. 2 of Khata No. 128 in Mouza Shampur No. 74 with the consent of the petitioner and the same is being used for mining purposes by the Shampur Colliery but with respect to Plot No. 1041 in Khata No. 71 of Mouza Luadih No. 130 is not in possession of M/s. ECL and the same has neither been acquired nor the same has been registered in favour of M/s. ECL nor the same is being used by M/s. ECL for the mining activity or for its allied purposes. Thus, the land (Plot No. 1041 of Luadih Mouza) in question is not covered under Land Looser Scheme.

¶26

25. That as per the present Land Looser Scheme, one employment is provided against 2 acres of land in exceptional cases and since in the present case of the petitioner, only 1.01 acres of his land (Plot No. 2 of Khata No. 128 in Mouza Shampur No. 74) is being used for mining purposes with his consent by the Shampur Colliery and as such, no question arise for providing employment to the petitioner. However, it is stated that petitioner shall be paid admitted consideration amount for 1.01 acre of land/ plot subject to the exception of registered Sale Deed by the petitioner in favour of M/s. ECL.”

¶27

¶28

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that since the respondents-authorities have admitted in their counter-affidavit that they have taken possession of land of Shampur Colliery being an area of 1.01 acres of land and submits that the petitioner shall be paid admitted consideration amount for 1.01 acres of the said land subject to execution of the Sale Deed by the petitioner in favour of M/s. ECL. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the

¶29

entire land amounting to 2.03 acres have been taken into possession by the respondent-ECL but as per the agreement, they have not provided job or monitory compensation, which fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. There is no document before this Court to come derive a finding that the entire land has been taken into possession b y the respondents.

¶30

¶31

¶32

In these peculiar circumstances, this Court directs the Circle Officer, Nirsa Block, District Dhanbad to enquire the matter regarding possession of lands by M/s. ECL amounting to 2.03 acres of land in respect to the petitioner. Needless to say that if the lands have been acquired by M/s. ECL, the petitioner is entitled for monitory compensation in view of the agreement and in view of the settled principles of law but if it is found that the land has not been acquired by M/s. ECL, the petitioner is entitled for monitory compensation regarding land/ plot of 1.01 acres subject to execution of registered Sale Deed in favour of the respondent-ECL

¶33

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

kunal/-

Nishith Kumar Paul v. Easten Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishith Kumar Paul v. Easten Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Kishore Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vikash Dubey Alias Bikash Dubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Nirmal Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kaushlendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Suraj Prakash Srivastava Vs Deepika Sinha

M/S.Rezvi Enterprises Vs Union of India And Ors.