l^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A1LBILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2076 of 1999 Petitioner Krishna Kuxnar Yadav, S/o Bhaiiwar Suigh Yadav, aged about 32 years, resideut of Fagiii^ni, tahsU Sakti District Jaajgir Chanipa (MP) Versus Respondents 1. The CoUector Raigarh. 2. District Employiaent Officer, Raigarh, 3. Maaager, S.E.C.L. Raigarh. 4, Naib TahsUdar, Kharsiya, Distiict Raigarh. Single Besieh : Hon^ble Mr. Justice Satish K. A^aihotri. Shri Awadh Tripaflii, Advocate for fh.e Petltioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for fhe Respondeuts No. 1, 2 aiid 4. Sliri Vio^ay Paiidey, Advocate for fhe Respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (10th Jaaziaiy, 2006) The foUowitig order of flie Court was passed by Satish K. A^nihotri, J« 1. The petitioner was holding a piece of land admeasurmg 0,40 acrc bearing Khasra No. 39/2 at Village-Domnara, TahsU-Kharsia, Distdct- Raigarh, The said land was acquired by respondent No, 1 for respondent No, 3 zuider the Provisions of Section 9 (1) of fhe Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition aad Development) Act 1957 (for short 'fhe Act 19575). The petitioner was paid compensation agamst ftie said acqiiisitiou ofland in fhe inonfh ofApril 1995. The petitionerwas paid compensation ia Deceniber, 1995. The rehabilitation poUcy provides for graat of eniploynient aiso to fhe laad holders or one of his/her dependaats, ia addition to the coinpensation payable for the acqiusition of the land. The petitioner was accordmgly granted appomtsnent by onler dated 8.04.1996 (Annexure P/l), The appoiatDcient was inter alia subject to foUowiag conditious:- "Yoiir service shall be liable to be teroiiiiated at any tiiae tfit is foiind that eiaploynient has been obtaiaed by givuig aay false/wrong mfomiation regardiag relationship wifh fhe laiid owner, Educational qualificatioii, Chvnership of the land, Age etc. or aay matenal fact has been concealed eifher by yoii or fhe laiid oustees/owner.w At the time of appoiataieut the petitioner has given address of his origiual Village Doninara, Post-Jarkaiiara, Tahsil-Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, On a complaint, fhe Naib Tahsildar made an enquuy and by order dated 9.02.1999 (Annexiire P/6), held fhat the petitioner was not found residiag in ViUage Domnara, fhe petitioner was residiag in ViUage Faguram, Tahsil Dabhra, District Champa JaQJgir. Leam.ed coiinsel for fhe petitioner subinits that vfflage - Fagiiraai is 15 kins, away froin fhe place where fhe petitioner was holdiag fhe laad prior to Decemiber 1995. When his entire holding ofland was acqiiired by fhe respondent No. 3, fhe petitioner started Uving in viUage Faguraai. Wifh rcgard to fhe aufhenticity of fhe domicile certificate the n?spondent No. 3 initated aii enqziiiy after giviag proper notice dated 22,3,1999 (Annexzire P/7) to fhe petitioner. In fhe enquiiy report, the Enquiry Ofi&cer has recorded fhe stateinent of the petifioner, as under: a ^T TR ^FT ^ ^RT yft 3TKN d4tt^t ^PH t ^ Rd4^d ^ f^RTEtR t. ^ ^PT . 1992 ^ 7?H 1996 ?R5 'CTFT ^TFTRT ^ ^t ^RR ^ f^K ? ^ft •amn ^PT f^TqTC '^3¥ 60 ^^ W ^R ^cH &TT I ^RR^ ^ ^ f^ 4' ^FTR f^f? f^K ^NT ^rte^t ^ WTST f^ir 7rar w^ ^ra ^?t yRif^f^ "^T ^^ ^?T ^ Exhibit No.3. i ^s^ -sTcrrar ^ TTFT t^TPTcT ^uT^ ^ ^TWcf ^ £[M f^ 'nr^ TFTTPT T^r -s^ ^^ pggtB^i^^^ yRtf^R ^ft TR^T ^? ^?T ^ f^ Exhibit No. 4 f^i^ f^r 'Trar, ^RT^ 1992 ^ 1996 n^ TnTr ^l^-ii^i ^ ^ "^ ^t ^fe t ^T^ •si^rrm ^ ^TRT TPT ^i^-ll^t ^ ^ ^ ^fe ^ f^ Election Coinniission of India ^RT ^TT^ f^rr 7rar qf^pr '^ra' ^ft t f^Rr^t uf^RtRi ^ ' r?r ^? 1??r ^ f^ Exhibit No. 5 f^i^ f^qr T^ ^r^ .srRrf^T SECL I?PFT? ^r ^T?T ^ 7T^ Pl^f^a -q~^, ^it f^ ^ ^RT f^ TT^ ^ TTFT ^144T11<<i ^vfT 7Pn ^TT.f^ ^ ^ W^ f^T ^f ^pft qft ^f^r ^? ^r ^ f^ Exhibit No. 6 f^r^ f^rr ^raT 1 W\ 1996 ^ sTK y^ ^t vFfN H-^^^d ^NT ^ cft ^Pft aft gfk ^^ cR^ ^' ^ 1rit4^ ^ ':[Nt sft ^r ^ TTFT ^t^rii^i ??ter ^ ^pr^ "^r Picii^ ^pr TR^W TnTr IRT ^rr^? '^ ^mr 3ft? 'q€f'^ <3Tq^ c^f ^ra: ^R ^TMI ^TRr '^^TT QTT, I^RT^ ^vR' ^ ^ 'TFT ^RTO ^t^TT ^^r ^r f^rar TRm "q"^ ^ft f^ TnTT ^I^T1I<<I ^ ^TR ^ ^TT ??' te^f '?T^t t ^F[ 1999 ^ ^PT 1g?TRFT gKT dg4^td ^ 7Pft ?R ^t ^^f ^{^\W ^RT ^ f^raT :TOT XT 3f^ ^ WT^ T^f Pt^l^t ^^ ^ WT^ cCT?f ^T^ 1q~? 3TRT vTRT c^ -^T -^ f^RT^t "qTii? ^ ^ ^t^^l^t ^ ^€f^ ';?5T ^ ^+lf$t4 ^ f^cTRT TmTTJT ^l ^t ^ft fe 1992-93 ^ ^Frrar Tf^ c^t f?R^T ^^Tr ^\W< t 1 "^ WFTT f^RRT yn1DT 'q^l X3^[ ^YT ^FIqraT ^TT 15PT "^ trm' ^<4T1t^t ^ Ptct!^ ^?? ^?T ^TT j w The appointment order dated 8,04, 1996 (Annexzirc P-1) was caaceUed by Uie respondent/SECL by oider dated 17.04.1999 (Annexurc P-8). The petitioner has filed fhis petition praying that fhe order issiied by Naib TahsUdar dated 9.02.1999 (Annexure P-6) be qiiashed and the order dated 17,04.1999 (Aunexure P-8) passed by the General Maaager, SECL Raigarh Areabe also quashed. Mr. Awadh Tripafhi, leamed Coiinsel for fhe petitioner subniits that fhe appointinent order was terminable subject to fhe fact fhat the eraployiaent was obtamed by givuig false/wrong iaformation regarduig edzicational quaJification, ownership or any Hiaterial facts had been concealed either by the depenclant or tlie land oustees/owuer. The domicile certt&cate was not one ofthe conditions for quashiag fhe appoiatment. Secondly, fhe domicile certificate was issued in Revenue Case No. 377/B 121/92-93. The oider dated 9.02.1999, caaceUing fhe earUer doiaicile certtficate was passed wifhout any basis, as fhe enqiiiry with regard to his residence at Domiiara was condzicted after 1996 wheii tbe petitioner had already shifted to new ViUage Le, Fagurani, after his enfire holduig of lajad was acqziired by fhe respondent No. 3. Leanied coiuisel for fhe. petitioner further suibDiits that even ofherwise a person who is not residing ia the viUage isiay hold a laad and on fhe basis of holdiag a laad appoiafcsiient was to be given, not on the basis of fhe residence of fhe laiid holder, Admittedty the petitioner was holdiag fhe laad ia viUage Doinnara, which has been acqiiircd by fhe respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was paid com.pensation accordingly. Shri Viaay Paadey, learaed counsel for fhe Respondent No. 3, per contra szibixiits that it is torue that fhe residence is not a condition for giviag appoiatoient but tlie condition is of fhe holding of fhe land aad admittedly fhe petitioner was holding fhe land in qiiestion in viUage- Doninara and fhe said laad was acqziired by the SECL/Respondent No.3, The order of appoiataient was canceUed on fhe ground fhat the petitioner had not submitted fhe relevaat facts i.e. doinicile certificate correcfly aud he had submitted false domicUe certificate, The term of the appointnient niakes it clear that the service is Uable to be termmated if it was found fhat tihe employment has been obtamed by giving false/wroug tiiformation aad fhe petitioiier had given wrong domicile certi&cate whUe obtaiamg the appointDient order. on 8.04.1996. Accordmg to leamed counsel for the respondeut No, 3 it ^.ge^jg^^ ^- was siifficient to caacel fhe appoiatnieat of the petitioner, which was doue after holdiiig proper enquiry. la fhe present case proper enqziiry was held aad it was fozind that the petitioner was uot resident of vUlage Doninara, at the tiaie when fhe appointnient order was passed. 8. Shri Paiikaj Shrivastava, leanied coiinsel appearing for fhe respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 subinits fhat fhe impugned order dated 9.02.1999, is actiially not under consideration, as the SECL has held ite own enqiiiry on fhe basis of the domicile certificate. Thus, it is not necessary to consider aad quash fhe order dated 9,02.1999. 9, I have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties aiid perased the docuineuts appended to fhe writ petition, affidavits & refrum filed by the respondents. 10. I am of fhe view, fhat the appouitnieiit of the petitioner is not dependent on his residence ih the viUage where he was holdiag the laiid, which has been acquired by the SECL uuder the provisions of the Act 1957. It is uot disputed by fhe parties that the laiid ui dispute was situated in viUage Doinnara under the ownership of the petitioner and the petitiouer had been paid coiapensation accordiagly. Grmit of employment is one of fhe conditioiis of fhe poUcy for acquisition of land for fhe purpose of miaing under fhe provisions ofthe Actl957, iu additiou to the conipensatiou ia Ueu of acqiiisition of fhe laad, The petitioner has clail&ed in the enqiiuy which has been recorded ui fhe enquiiy report tiiat under the circumstaiices when his eutire land holduig was acquired by the SECL fhe petitiouer had nioved to ofher viUage i.e. Faguram, TahsU Sakti, District Janjgu' Chainpa, which is 15 k.ni. away frora the or^uial vfflage Le. Domnara. The petitioner^s address given at the tmie of acqiiisition of laiid was correct aad fhe petitioiier had not coacealed any material facts for obtamiag fhe appointment order dated 8,04,1996, The contentiou of leanied .^:,.^^s^k^ 6 ^. a T'n 11. 12. connsel for the respoiideat No, 3 is not siistainable, ia view offh.e fact fhat domicile was not the criteria and it was not a relevaiit fact for graiit of enxploynient ia lieu of acqiiisitioa of land. Admittedly, the criteria was holding of fhe land aad not residence of fhe land holder, Smce SECL Raigarh Arca has condiicted its enquiry on its own. It is not necessaiy to go uito fhe legatlty aad validity of the oider dated 9,02.1999. In fhe prcsent case fhe appoiatment order dated 8,04.1996 was righfly passed aiid fhere was no conceaknent of aoy xnaterial aiid relevaat fact. Subseqziently, passing of fhe impugned order dated 17.04.1999 (Annexzire P/8), by respondent No. 3 was nnjust and miproper, The sanie deserves to be quashed and set aside. For the reasons stated above, fhe petition is aUowed. No order as to costs. Certi&ed copy, as per Riiles. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge