Disposed

Tana Bhagat Shist Mandali Comm v. Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Feb 2022WPC/3679/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking employment for land losers. Noting the absence of specific details and the list of members, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The respondents were directed to consider this representation along with prior communications and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation; respondents directed to look into the representation and pass appropriate orders if logical conclusion of past communications is not reached.

Tana Bhagat Shist Mandali Comm Vs Central Coalfields… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 3679 of 2004

¶3

Tana Bhagat Shist Mandali Committee, through its General Secretary, Karambir Tana Bhagat, son of Somra Tana Bhagat, having its Head Office at Bamandiha, PO, PS & District - Lohardaga

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi

¶7

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶8

Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi

¶9

General Manager (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

¶13

Through Video Conferencing

¶14

¶15

04 /15.02.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ajit Kumar is present.

¶16

2. Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, who is a retained counsel of respondent- C.C.L. is also present. However, he submits that he does not have a copy of the writ petition and he has made his submissions on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶18

“For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order or direction commanding upon the respondents to provide employment to the members of the petitioner who are ether land losers or descendants of the land losers within a specified period and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶19

4. From the records of this case, it appears that a counter-affidavit was filed on 20.01.2011, however, the same is not traceable in the office of this Court.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case has been filed through a committee and the members of the committee are land losers, but they have not been provided employment. The learned counsel also submits that certain communications with the CCL were made by the authorities of the

¶21

¶22

State, as contained in the annexures to the writ petition, for providing employment, but no action was taken and consequently, the petitioners were constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the respondent –CCL on the basis of the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that if certain communications were received by the State authorities and addressed to CCL, the same must have been taken to a logical end and in case the same has not been taken to a logical end, the petitioner may file a fresh representation along with a copy of the present writ petition before the respondent no. 3 who may look into the matter and pass an appropriate order.

¶24

7. The learned counsel also submits that as the claim of the petitioner is an old one, therefore, the petitioner or its members who would approach the respondent no. 3 may also submit the documents regarding compensation which might have been paid to them to prima facie satisfy that it was their land which was taken by CCL.

¶25

8. Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific case of the petitioner is that the lands belonging to the members of the petitioner are being used and possessed by CCL and there may not be any formal acquisition of land. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the present writ petition has been filed by a committee and even the list of the members of the committee has not been provided by the writ petitioner. No foundational detail as such has been given with regard to the description and area of land which is claimed by the petitioner to be belonging to its members and being used by the respondent for its collieries and offices. However, from the perusal of the communications which have been annexed along with the writ petition which are dated 25.01.1990, 11.12.1990, 25.07.1994 and 27.02.1996, it appears that there is a series of communication between the State Administration and the respondent no. 2 to indicate that the claim for employment of the members of the petitioner was directed to be looked into by the respondent no. 2 and as per the writ petition, the matter was not taken to a logical end due to which the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

¶27

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner and its members to approach the respondent nos. 2 to 4 by filing a fresh representation giving the details of each one of them i.e. the details of their land which they claim is being used by respondent –CCL, details of any payment received from CCL in connection with the acquisition or use of land by CCL etc along with supporting documents and upon filing of such representation, the respondents are directed to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶28

11. The authorities will also take into consideration as to whether the communications which have been annexed along with the writ petition were ever taken to a logical conclusion. If the communications annexed with the writ petition have been taken to a logical conclusion, then under such circumstances a communication to this effect be made to the petitioner and/or its members who would approach the respondents by filing the representation and no further deliberation is required to be done.

¶29

12. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

13. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit or otherwise of the claim of the members of the petitioner or its members in this writ proceedings.

¶31

14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Pankaj

Tana Bhagat Shist Mandali Comm v. Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tana Bhagat Shist Mandali Comm v. Central 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

Muna Shaw and Ors. Vs Health

Ajit Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Lakhan Paswan Vs Chairman, Bank of India And Ors.

Ramakant Singh Vs Bihar State Road Transport Cor

Nirmal Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of School Education and Literacy

Bela Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.