BAJRANGLAL SONI Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents to provide employment and also pay compensation in respect of the land acquired by the respondents. The South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short "SECL") required land for carrying out mining activity. This led to acquisition of land held by Bharatlal, father of the petitioner jointly with other holders. The acquisition took place in two phases. First acquisition took place in the year 1977-78, whereas the second in the year 1982-83. In course of time, the SECL, in furtherance of State Govt. policy to provide employment to those whose land were acquired, provided employment to two sons of Bharatlal, namely- Rajulal and Janki Prasad. They are brothers of the petitioner. Two sons of Bharatlal were provided employment by SECL in the year 1998. At that time, the respondent authorities did not provide any job to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there were recommendations made in his favour by the revenue authorities. In the year 2011, certain representations were again made by the petitioner and by his father claiming employment and when no such relief was granted, this petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquisition of land belonging to Bharatlal as joint holder along with other holders in the year 1978 and 1983 entitled the petitioner to get employment under the scheme of rehabilitation promulgated by the State Govt. vide notification dated 25th September, 1991. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that entitlement of the petitioner for grant of employment was duly examined by the Nayab Tahsildar who submitted a report dated 14.7.1998 along with which. the Sub Divisional Officer vide his memo dated 15.9.1988 (Annexure P-4) recommended that appointment be provided to the petitioner also. But, no employment was provided despite such recommendation. The petitioner submitted representation to respondent-authority on 19.12.2000 and on various dates subsequent thereto up to 2011, but when no relief was granted, this writ petition has been filed. It is contended that according to rehabilitation policy of the State Govt., the petitioner had become entitled to be treated as a family and as such entitled to employment.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner and raises objection with regard to very maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the petition is highly belated and suffers from delay and laches. He submits that if the petitioner claims appointment, he should have approached this Court within a reasonable time. The two brothers of the petitioner were granted employment in the year 1998. The petitioner has filed this petition after 14 years from the date the appointment was given to petitioner's brothers. There is no explanation for delay and the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on that count alone.