SANJAY PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 5283/2013

(2.) THE instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the respondent No. 6 for deleting his name from array of parties in the writ petition on the ground that the present respondent is neither necessary party nor required for proper adjudication of the case. His name has only been included as party respondent in order to support the contention of the petitioner that in similar circumstances, the respondent CCL had given employment to the respondent No. 6 on account of surrender of possession of more than two acres of land to the said respondents, which is being denied to the present petitioner.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner's application was rejected by order dated 21st November 2006 passed by the General Manager, (BS), Central Coalfields Limited, Barka -Sayal Area (Annexure -6). The said order dated 21st November 2006 gave description of the land which were included for the purposes of showing that the area of land surrendered by the father of the petitioner No. 1 was 2.00 acres and it includes 1/2 decimal of land of one Ram Nandan. In respect of L.A. Case No. 2/1980 -81 in respect of Khata No. 51 & 1, total 2.28 and 1/2 acres of land has been acquired. If the share is calculated, share of the petitioner's father came to 1.03 ¼ acres of land. Out of Khata No. 43 in respect of 1.04 acres of land, the petitioner's share comes to 0.52 acres. In plot No. 293 (P) in respect of which L.A. Case No. 1/1978 -79 started, petitioner's grand father's share came to 0.09 acres. In respect of other areas of Plot No. 293, total area being 1.39 acres, petitioner's share comes to 0.34 ¾. The said order therefore indicated that the total area in the petitioner's share comes to 1.99 acres (approximately). The petitioner had claimed half decimal of land of one Ram Nandan whose name has occurred in the Agreement (Annexure -3) which has been referred to herein above and it was taken to bunch with the land of the petitioner so that it comprised 2.00 acres of land. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's claim however, was that at the time of consideration of the petitioner's case, there was no system available of making arrangement with other raiyats to overcome the shortfall of land necessary for getting employment.