SK. AMJAD MAJI Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The contention of the petitioner is that as a nominee and son of Irsad Maji and grandson of Kubed Maji (the original land looser), the petitioner was entitled to get appointment under the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. as per the Land Looser Scheme on the ground that the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. had used and purchased of 1.005 acres of land originally belonging to Kubed Maji. In support of his contention the writ petitioner has annexed documents to show that appointment in respect of Kubed Maji was already approved by the competent authority and subsequently, instead of Kubed Maji, Irsad Maji who is the father of the petitioner was being considered. Thereafter, when the matter was pending for consideration, Irsad Maji crossed the age limit of 35 years and instead nominated the petitioner as per the scheme which allows such nomination.

(2.) Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing with Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment under the Land Looser Scheme because the purchase was made in 1983 and thereafter, in 1985 and even if the lands so purchased in two phases are tagged together, the scheme provides that a minimum of 2 acres of land ought to have been purchased in order to enable a nominee or the land looser himself to be appointed under the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf the petitioner submits that if both the lands which were bought in different phases are tagged together, his case can be covered at least as under the user scheme. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2012(2) CHN 100 (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Sk. Nasiruddin).