STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PREM KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 22.1.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2745 of 1999, whereby the writ petition was allowed, and the State Government has been directed to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in terms of the policy decision of the State Government as an additional relief to the land oustees whose lands had been acquired for the Bilasi Jalashaya Project in the district of Banka.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner was the owner of certain areas of land. The State Government decided to acquire whole of his land, apart from the lands of many others, for creation of Bilasi Jalashaya Project in the district of Banka. Proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The whole of the land of the writ petitioner with house, well etc. measuring 2.75 acres in Village-Kojhi were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the said irrigation project. The State Government in the Department of Water Resources had issued resolution bearing memo no. 1212. dated 18.9.1993, in the nature of a policy decision that such oustees of land under the Act may be appointed on Class-Ill or Class- IV post in the Bihar Government. The writ petitioner (the respondent herein) submitted his representation dated 2.7.1998 to the Director, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, for his appointment on a suitable post as envisaged by policy decision. The representation further stated that the compensation amount determined under the Act may be paid to him immediately, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereinbelow:

(3.) Learned Government Pleader submits that it is not possible to give employment to such a large number of land oustees. He next submits that the only compensation envisaged in law under the Act has already been paid to him. He lastly submits that the policy decision does not create any enforceable right in favour of the land oustee. He relies on the judgment of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ravindra Kumar V/s. District Magistrate,2004 SCR 253.