DEVIDAS JAIRAM SOMASE, MANOJ DEVIDAS SOMASE, ARUN SAHEBRAO SOMASE, SAHEBRAO JAIRAM SOMASE Vs. SAHEBRAO JAIRAM SOMASE, DEVIDAS JAIRAM SOMASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent to both these petitions is a public Corporation dealing in petroleum products. It acquired certain lands in vi1lage Dhotane-Budruk Panda situated near Manmad in Taluka Nandgaon, District Nasik for the purposes of setting up LPG Bottling Plant. In all such projects , the agriculturists in the particular area are the sufferers and, therefore, it appears that the ministry of Industry, Bureau of Public Enterprises laid down certain guidelines to be followed by such corporations. As far as these acquisitions are concerned, the relevant guidelines were recorded in a letter addressed on behalf of the 1st respondent corporation to the District Collector, Nashik dated 15th december 1995. These guidelines were essentially for providing preference in employment to those whose lands were to be acquired.

(2.) Devidas and Sahebrao, both sons of Jairam somase, are two such persons whose lands came to be acquired for this project. It is material to note that their land holding was common unti1 this policy was declared and it is not disputed that they got their lands partitioned in the year 1996. Thus, the plot of land which came to Devidas bears No. 27/3/b/4 whereas the one which remained with Sahebrao bears No. 27/3/b/2.

(3.) On the basis of this policy, Devidas - the petitioner in the first petition is seeking a job for his son Manoj whereas the second petition is filed by arun, the son of the above referred Sahebrao. Manoj was minor at the time when the aforesaid policy was declared and implemented. He is born on 4th September 1984. On his behalf , the above referred Writ Petition No. 1584 of 2000 is filed contending that the family of Devidas somase has not been given any employment. The petition came up for consideration before another Division Bench on 31st July 2000 which admitted it and directed the 1st respondent Corporation to keep one post vacant. The second petition was filed by Arun since he was not selected by the 1st respondent Corporation for employment. Both these petitions are being heard together. An affidavit in reply has been filed in both these petitions.