MD. HAZI ALI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction for giving employment to the rightful owner whose land in question has been acquired and further for an order for removal of respondent No. 4 who allegedly obtained employment in Piparwar Project of respondent -C.C. Ltd. by submitting forged documents.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been field by respondent No. 4 stating that the land was acquired by respondent -C.C. Ltd. in 1982. In 1986 respondent -CCL paid compensation to him and also under Land Looser scheme he was given employment. The case of this respondent (respondent No. 4) is that he had only 47.1/2 decimals of land and theretore in order to get employment he entered into an agreement with respondent No. 5 on 10.3.1994 so that he could have 3 Acres of land for obtaining employment. Respondent No. 4 contended that on execution of the agreement by respondent No. 5 and by giving consent of clubbing her land respondent No. 4 secured employment. In the counter -affidavit filed by respondent -C.C. Ltd. it is stated that the petitioner has no right to claim appointment as in view of the facts that employment under the policy of Land Looser's Scheme has already been offered to the rightful owner whose land has been acquired under the provisions of Coal Bering Areas Acquisition and Development' Act, 1957. It is stated that the clubbing of the land has been done as per the provisions laid down in Guidelines for offering employment against acquisition and use of land. Respondents' case is that the land in question measuring 3.11 acres belonged to respondent No. 5 and the same was acquired under the aforesaid Act by notification dated 17/27.2.1982. It is stated that after 1982 there was no question of sale and purchase of the land in question by respondent No. 5. It is further stated that in 1995 respondent No. 5 executed an affidavit in which she clearly denied that she had any relation with the petitioner and taking advantage her illiteracy, petitioner managed to execute affidavit in his name.