TRILOK SINGH Vs. CCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioners, six in number, have come before this Court for a direction upon the respondents to provide employment to them under the Land Loser Scheme as well as compensation for acquisition of their lands within a specified period.

(2.) The petitioners at para 6 have furnished a chart showing the lands in the name of their ancestors proposed to be acquired by the respondents. From a perusal of the said chart it appears that the lands proposed to be acquired in respect of individual petitioners were 5 and 1/2 decimals to 66 decimals in each individual cases. According to the petitioners, possession of the land has been taken after acquisition since 1983. Notices were issued for said acquisition to the ancestors of the petitioners and they are entitled to get at least one employment for one family and they have relied upon the assurance given in different meetings by the representative of the management to the representative of the land losers. The documents submitted by them have been verified and checked but no report was submitted 'pursuant to Annexure-5.

(3.) The respondents-CCL have appeared and filed their counter-affidavit, wherein they have taken a categorical statement in para 5 that there is no provision under the Coal Bearing Area Act to provide employment to the land losers or their linear dependents. However, for smooth functioning the Central Coalfields Ltd. has formulated a scheme for providing employment to the land losers, under which employment can only be provided against two acres of irrigated land or three acres of non-irrigated land owned by land losers acquired within five years of the working zone. According to them, none of the petitioners fulfill the norms of the scheme. In para 6, however, the respondents have stated that out of the plot mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition, plot Nos. 2.214 have not been acquired by CCL. Plot Nos. 551 and 219 (P) have been acquired vide SO No. 3160 dated 13th August, 1983. Plot Nos. 276 (P), 257, 219 (P), 316, 235, 225 have been acquired vide SO No. 944 dated 24th March, 1984, It is the contention of the respondent-company that the compensation of the land is assessed on the basis of authentication of ownership of the land by the District authorities. No authentication in respect of plots acquired under SO No. 944 dated 24th March, 1984 has been received from the District authorities and in absence of such authentication of ownership over the land by the petitioners, compensation of the land has not been assessed. However, it is their case that on receipt of authentication from the District authorities, compensation will be assessed adding all the elements provided under the provisions of the Act including up-to-date interest and payment would be made to the tenants. In respect of plot Nos. 219(P) and 551 compensation was however, assessed in the name of different tenants on the basis of authentication received from the District authorities and 0.05 and 1/2 acres of land under plot No. 551 was authenticated in the name of the petitioner No. 5 Krishna Bhagat and compensation has been assessed in his name. The respondents have made out a case that rest of the petitioners have not appeared before the compensation camp held for compensation and whenever compensation camp is held, concerned tenants may appear with supporting documents in proof of their rightful ownership of the land and after verification of the documents, if are found correct, payment of compensation will be made to the tenants.