DANRO WATER RESERVOIR PROJECT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come before this Court for a direction upon the respondents to rehabilitate the displaced persons in view of the rehabilitation policy passed by the Cabinet of Jharkhand on 11th September, 2006.

(2.) According to the petitioners, they are descendants of the original displaced persons, who were displaced on account of construction of Dhanro Water Reservoir Project in the District of Garhwa in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a policy decision, brought on record by way of a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, Annexure-5, which is the policy decision of the State of Bihar framed in the year 1981 for the purposes of relief and rehabilitation under Memo No. 796 dated 21.2.1981.

(3.) On the other hand, respondent-State have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It has been submitted on their behalf, on the basis of averment made in the counter affidavit that the Dhanro Water Reservoir Project was initiated in the year 1974-75 to construct a small dam across the river Dhanro at Dhurki Block in Garhwa District, during which some villages i.e. Bhandar, Tatidiri, Ketma and Panghatwa came under submergence area. It is further submitted that the scheme was completed in the year 1985 and compensation to the displaced persons of Panghatwa village were granted against their lands and houses in the year 1978-79. It is further submitted that in accordance with the rehabilitation policy approved by the State Government in the year 1981 for Chotanagpur and Santhal Pargana, preference was given for employment in any Government services to a person of 18 years of age and above to each family in Class-IV and Class-III at the time of publication of Section 4(A) of the Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further submitted that in due course only two persons could be employed, however, the petitioners, who are sons and grandsons of the displaced persons, are seeking employment by virtue of the present writ petition preferred in the year 2007. Although the petitioners have relied upon a letter dated 9th July, 2005 but such rehabilitation policy is not meant for sons and grandsons of the displaced persons' family and no decision has also been taken thereafter. It is submitted that provision for relief and rehabilitation is a matter of policy decision, this Court would restrain from interfering, as has been repeatedly held by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. In these circumstances, the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in law as well as on fact and no relief can be granted.