THIPPANI RAJALINGAM Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was filed by 51 petitioners to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefits of G.O.Rt.No.424, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (PR-I) Department, dated 10-7-1988 to them us illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order was passed on 29-9-1994 to appoint the petitioners in the existing vacancies as unskilled contingent workers in Bhupalapally Mining Project or any other place. On the ground that the said interim order has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents, the said Contempt Case filed.

(2.) The lands admeasuring Acs.60.38 guntas belonging to 98 claimants was acquired by invoking the provisions of the land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to is the 'the Act'). The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 24-2-1988. Award was passed on 3-6-1988. While 47 persons were paid with compensation amounts pursuant to the above Award, 51 claimants, who are the petitioners, could not be paid the compensation amounts because of raising of dispute with regard to their right to receive the compensation. Therefore, a reference was made to the Civil Court under Sec.30 of the Act. The said reference was tried as O.P. No.72 of 1990 in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal and the same was answered in favour of the petitioners by Award dated 24-7-1992 passed by the Civil Court. The said O.P. covered an extent of Ac.22.01 guntas. It is not in dispute that 47 persons, who were covered by the Award, are similarly situated to that of the petitioners and were considered for appointment by way of rehabilitation under a Scheme framed for providing employment to the land oustees. It cannot be denied that these petitioners are also similarly situated with the said 47 persons, who were provided rehabilitation employment in accordance with the scheme framed in G.O.Rt.No.424, dated 15-7-1988. While the reference was pending before the Civil Court, G.O.Ms.No.310, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (PR.I) Department, dated 11-11-19.91 came to be issued, modifying the consideration for rehabilitation appointment to land oustees for being referred through employment exchange and also imposing a condition of maximum extent of land and income and that if there is an excess of extent or income, the land oustees will not be eligible/but only such of those land oustees, who are within the above specific limits of land acquired or income shall be eligible for consideration.

(3.) Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this is a glaring discrimination violating the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners are in no way dissimilar to that of 47 claimants under Award dated 3-6-1988 and that for the reason that a dispute with regard to title of the petitioners arose; therefore, the matter was referred to Civil Court and as the reference in the Civil Court took 4 years for adjudication, the petitioners cannot be dissimilarly treated, while Mr.K. Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, relies upon the later G.O.Ms.No.310, dated 11-11-1991.