IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 4.8.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.4611 OF 2006 AND WPMP.NO.1086 OF 2008 1. N. Raja 2. M. Sankar 3. R. Ramesh Babu ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The District Collector Cuddalore. 2. The Chairman Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli. 3. The Tahsildar Land Acquisition (NLC) Neyveli-2. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to provide alternative house site either at Indira Nagar Rehabilitation Centre, B2 Block, Neyveli or in any place and to provide job opportunity to these petitioners in view of the petitioners lands acquired in Periyakurichi; S.No.184/3A, 184/5A & S.No.184/11 respectively in Award No.15/94, dated 15.6.1994. For 1st Petitioner : Mr. Bharatha Chakravarthy For 2nd & 3rd petitioners : Mr. R. Margabandhu For 2rd respondent : Mr. N.A.K.Sharma For R1 & R3 : Mrs. Geetha, AGP https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus against the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited(hereinafter referred to as the "NLC") to provide alternative house-sites either at Indira Nagar Rehabilitation Centre, B2 Block, Neyveli or in any place and to provide job opportunity to these petitioners on the basis that the petitioners lands situated at Periyakurichi in Survey Nos.184/3A, 184/5A & 184/11 were acquired in respect of which Award No.15/94, dated 15.6.1994 was passed. 2. The first petitioner N.Raja has filed a separate M.P.No.1086 of 2008 seeking for a direction against the NLC to consider his application dated 28.6.2008 and appoint him in the post of Graduate Engineer Trainee (Civil) as per the Advertisement No.6/2008 issued by the NLC. The said miscellaneous petition has been filed by the first petitioner on the presumption that the said Advertisement No.6/2008 has been given also for the benefit of the project affected persons like that of the first petitioner. On the other hand, a reference to the Advertisement issued by the second respondent-NLC, Advertisement No.6/2008 requiring Graduate Engineer (Trainees/Executive Trainees) makes it clear that the said recruitment process is not forming part of the rehabilitation measure formulated by the second respondent-NLC in respect of the persons, whose lands have been acquired, relating to which award has been passed by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the main prayer in the writ petition is not only for the purpose of giving alternative hosue-site under the rehabilitation measure but also for providing employment, which is also under the rehabilitation measure. Rehabilitation measure has been given by the NLC in respect of the project affected persons in the annexure 6 of the Rehabilitation Action Plan proposed by the NLC. Under the said Scheme formulated by the NLC, it is seen that the basic requirement of a person to be eligible for rehabilitation measure is that such person should prove his resident of the house-site acquired for a period of five years prior to 4(1) Notification. The same has to be proved either in the form of voters list enumeration under separate door number or ration card or house tax receipts or electricity bills or service connections etc. 3. The learned counsel for the first petitioner in the writ petition, who has filed the present miscellaneous petition appeared through a different counsel, fairly submits that under the said clause, the petitioner would not be eligible for the allotment of any house-sites as per Rehabilitation Scheme, but https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his contention is that the scheme also contains proposal for expanding the scope of employment, even though under the said clause, 60% reservation has been made for project affected persons in the vacancies under the unskilled category in the remaining percentage of vacancies, the petitioner is entitled even if not covered under the Scheme. The first petitioner has now completed 40 years and he belongs to OBC and as per the rehabilitation measure under the scheme, he is eligible to be considered till he completes 43 years. Therefore, he should be treated as a person eligible not only in the scheme but also under any other employment, which is notified by the NLC in course of time. 4. On the other hand, Mr. N.A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that whether it is for the allotment of house-sites or for the employment, the requirement is five years of residence, which has to be proved through the records. As stated in the Scheme itself, he would submit that even for the purpose of appointment, a person who is stated to be an individual owner or has acquired any right by way of registered partition, he must prove that such documents have been executed at least five years before the date of 4(1) Notification. In the present case, even though the claim of the first petitioner in the writ petition is that he is the independent owner of the property, there is no record to show that he has been in possession for five years prior to 4(1) Notification and therefore, according to the learned counsel, he is not eligible to be considered even under the scheme. He also submits that as far as the process of selecting Graduate Engineer Trainee which has been initiated under Advertisement No.6/2008, the same is not forming part of the rehabilitation scheme, the petitioner will be eligible to be considered only if he conforms to the various requirements in the Advertisement. But the main prayer is the allotment of house as well as the employment. The present miscellaneous petition for the purpose of considering the petitioner for appointment under a separate advertisement is not maintainable. I find force in the contention to the learned counsel for the second respondent. As I have enumerated above, it is clear that the advertisement for appointment has nothing to do with the rehabilitation measure and it is a regular process of employment. In respect of that regular process of employment, any person, who is eligible as per requirement would be considered. On the other hand, as submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent under the Rehabilitation Scheme, he should prove basically that he has been in possession for more than five years before 4(1) Notification by producing the relevant records and in the absence of the same, I am of the considered view that the first petitioner in the writ petition is not eligible for any of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relief as claimed in the main writ petition as well as in the miscellaneous petition in WPMP.No.1086 of 2008. 5. As far as the second writ petitioner Shankar and the third petitioner R.Ramesh Babu, Mr.R.Margabandhu, the learned counsel for the said petitioners would fairly submit that the award was passed on 15.6.1994, which is also not denied by the learned counsel for the second respondent and the second writ petitioner has purchased the property acquired as early as 5.7.1991, which is much before the award and the third petitioner purchased on 13.2.1990 and they have been in continuous possession. 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the learned counsel for the second respondent-Neyveli Lignite Corporation that even if the purchase was made before that date, the concerned person must prove that he has been in possession for five years for the purpose of considering under the rehabilitation measure. It is made clear that in the event of the said petitioners 2 and 3 proving with records before the second respondent-Neyveli Lignite Corporation that they have not only purchased the property before the date, but also have been in continuous possession, the second respondent may consider their case. 7. In the event of the second and third petitioners making proper representations along with records to be submitted before the second respondent-NLC within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the second respondent- NLC shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law as per the Rehabilitation Scheme and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed in respect of the first petitioner and ordered in respect of second and third petitioners. WPMP.No.1086 of 2008 filed by the first petitioner stands dismissed. No costs. Kb Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The District Collector Cuddalore. 2. The Chairman Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli. 3. The Tahsildar Land Acquisition (NLC) Neyveli-2. + 1 cc to Mr. R. Margabandhu, Advocate SR No. 42850 + 1 cc to Mr. N. A. K. Sarma, Advocate SR No. 42141 + 1 cc to M/s. Sai, Bharath & Ilan, Advocate SR No. 42581 W.P.No.4611 of 2006 RSM(CO) SR/20.8.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/