Dismissed

K.Naveen Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Jan 2017WP/1185/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking employment under a 'one job for one family' policy for lands acquired by the State. The petitioner failed to produce documents proving he was the displaced person before the Screening Committee, leading to rejection. The Court refused to entertain the challenge to this rejection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Naveen Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 1185 of 2011

¶6

and M.P.1 of 2011

¶7

K.Naveen Kumar .. Petitioner Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶9

The Collector, Vellore District

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶11

BHEL (BAP) Unit, Rep. By its Executive Director, Ranipet, Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 4^th respondent to appoint the petitioner in the 4^th respondent unit following the policy of one job for one family of whose lands were acquired by the 1^st respondent for the benefit of the 4^th respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s. A.B.Fathima Sulthana

¶14

For RR 1 to 3 : Mr. S.Diwakar, Special Govt. Pleader For R4 : Mr.John Zachariah for M/s. Fox Mandal Association

¶15

Heard Ms.A.B.Fathima Sulthan, learned counsel

¶16

appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.John Zachariah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 4.

¶17

The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition praying to direct the 1^st and 4^th respondents to appoint

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

the petitioner in the 4^th respondent-unit following the policy of “one job for one family”, of whose lands were acquired by the 1^st respondent for the benefit of the 4^th respondent.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1^st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 27.01.1981, Industries Department, by which the 1^st respondent imposed a condition that the displaced persons should be provided with employment by the 4^th respondent. The land herein mentioned belongs to the grandfather of the petitioner, which was acquired by the 1^st respondent for the benefit of the 4^th respondent as per Award No.14/83 dated 14.10.1983 and the land was situated in survey No.88/2A, at Narasingapuram Village. According to the petitioner, no one was provided employment as per the award in favour of the petitioner's grand father. Earlier, petitioner's father applied for appointment, in view of the above, award was passed on 02.06.2008. Subsequently, his father expired intestate on 27.06.2009, leaving the petitioner, his mother and his brother. Hence, the petitioner applied for job on 05.08.2009 with respect to the above said award. But, he was not employed as per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 27.01.1981.

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.2906 of 1995 etc. was filed before this Court by the erstwhile landowners, and this Court, by an order dated 18.09.1995, has directed the 4^th respondent to consider the case of the erstwhile landowners in preference to the others in the matters of recruitment. Subsequently, this Court by an order dated 13.05.2008 made in W.P.No. No.4113 of 1998, directed the 3^rd respondent to notify the constitution of a Screening Committee and give adequate publicity to the land losers to appear before the Committee with necessary records.

¶22

The order in W.P.Nos.2906 of 1995 etc. batch is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1394 of 1995. In W.P.No.4113 of 1998 and others (batch), by an order dated 13.05.2008, this Court allowed the Writ Petition directing to form a Screening committee and to examine the applicants claim. Aggrieved by the same, the 4^th respondent filed appeals in W.A.Nos.1275 to 1277 of 2008 (batch), which were dismissed by this Court by a judgment dated 29.09.2010. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with the above said prayer.

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, the petitioner has submitted his application to the Screening Committee claiming employment and he was asked to

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

appear before the Screening Committee on 16.11.2011. The petitioner appeared before the Screening committee on that date for enquiry, but he could not satisfy the Screening committee that he was the land loser. Therefore, the question of employment does not arise. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent also relied on an order of this court in the case of S.Branitharan and K.Parasuramna in Writ Petitions W.P.Nos.25973 and 22131 of 2012, which were dismissed for similar prayer. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer in the Writ Petition as well as the averments made in this Writ Petition cannot be considered. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

In view of the said fact that the Screening committee had considered the petitioner's application and the same was rejected for the reason that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is the land loser. The petitioner approached this Court, challenging the decision of the said Committee and has filed this Writ Petition before this Court, which cannot be entertained. As the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is the land loser and also considering the above said order of this court, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// pvs Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶28

The Secretary, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Collector, Vellore District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District.

¶29

+1cc to Ms.Fox Mandal Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.1341 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.2080

¶30

SS(CO)

¶31

RS(02/03/2017)

¶32

W.P. No. 1185 of 2011

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Naveen Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Naveen Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Marichamy, Vs the Chief Secretary to

Paruchuri Global Foundation Vs Chief Educational Officer

Paruchuri Global Foundation, Vs Chief Educational Officer

B.Tamilarasi Vs the Secretary

S.Balakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Indo Fly Ash Association Vs the Union of India