c ^-/^^/. S.B. fSeFvicc Mattcr) IN THE HONTBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl SlrSgle WRIT PETITION ftgl-NO^-^ ^0/2009. PETITIONER: Responden'ts ^^ ^iy .^^y ^'y^ s: -" ^ Abhishek Dwivedi, son of Shri Vishnu Dewedi, aged about 28 years, residence of village Podi, Post Podi, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. versus Larat Aluminium Company Limited, Through Its General Manager, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Asst. General Manger (Mines), Bodai Daldali Bauxite Mine Kawardha, BALCO, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. \. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Revenue Department, , D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^J HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. WRiT PETITiON (0 N0.2640/2009 PETITIONER Abhishek Dwivedi RESPONDENTS Versus Bharat Aluminium Company Limited and others Present: - Shri CJayant K.Rao, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents No.3 and 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17th January, 2011) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard fmaily. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the employment to the petitioner in the office of respondent No.2 and 3 as per the New Rehabilitation Scheme, 2007 issued by the State Government. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his father owned an ^ agricuiturai iand situated in viliage-Keshmarda, Patwari Haika No.1/2, Revenue circie-Bodla, Tahsil-Kawardha under Khasra No.-189/2 and 189/3 admeasuring 1.02 hectares. The aforesaid land of the petitioner was acquired under acquisition proceedings drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act of respondent company. Even though the iand of the petitioner was acquired and the possession was taken, the petitioner has neither been provided any compensation which is payable to him under the law nor has been provided employment under the rehabilitation policy promulgated by the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the land of the petitioner was acquired for respondent / company but the petitioner is not aware of the award passed in the acquisition proceedings untii the same was disclosed by the respondents in their return. He submits that even jfthe acquisition proceedings have been initiated in the year 2002 and culminated in passing of award on 30/08/03, the petitioner wouid be entitied to employment in view of rehabilitation policy which has now been promulgated by the State Government in the year 2007, piaced on record as Annexure P/4. Submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner is that as the rehabilitation policy is a benevolent scheme of the Government, even if the iand was acquired prior to promulgation of the policy, the petitioner's claim for empioyment is liabie to be considered and the petitioner is entitied to appropriate employment. He submits that the acquisition proceedings wiii not come to an end untii proper compensation as payabie under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act is actually paid to the petitioner and as the compensation amount till date has not been paid to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the iand acquisition proceedings have finaiiy come to an end and therefore, the policy of the year 2007 wouid be applicable in the matter of grant of empioyment. He submits thataii the conditions stipulated in the policy of 2007 (Annexure P/4) are fuifilled by the petitioner and even though the petitioner gave notice to respondents, no empioyment was given nor any compensation has been paid to him. 4. On the other. hand, submjssion of learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 is that the notification under Section 4 (1) 6f the Land Acquisition Act was published in IA/O daiiy news papers on 26/11/2002 and the acquisition proceedings were drawn and an award was finaily passed by the Coliector on '/^\ 1 : ?t^&\ s :^ \ '%^\/. ^^^^^' 30/08/03. He submits that as the award makes provisions for payment of compensation, the petitioner's grievance regarding non-payment of compensation is not correct. He further submits that the petitioner has not made any such prayer and only made prayer that he should be provided empioyment. Learned counsel for the respondent then contended that the rehabiiitation scheme of the year 2007 which contained provision for providing empioyment to those whose land were acquired is only prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively in respect of the acquisition proceedings which were earlier concluded upon passing of award. His further submission is that the policy itself ciearly states that the same wiil not apply in respect of case where awardwas aiready passed prior to coming into force of the policy. He further submits that after passing of award, the respondent/company deposited the entire compensation of Rs.87,11,035/- and has thereafter taken possession of the iand also in the year 2005 and started mining operation. 5. Learned State counsel submits that as far as claim for employment is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to the same. 6. The only relief prayed in the petitioner is for issuance of mandamus for providing employment to the petitioner as per Rehabilitation Poiicy of the year 2007. From the averments made by the petitioner in his peiition, it is the case of the petitioner himself that though the acquisition proceedjngs were initiated in the year 1999, the same was not concluded and therefore, notification initiating acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 2002. From the award which has been placed on record by respondent No.1 and 2, it is revealed that the same was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kawardha on 30/08/03. It js not in dispute that the land owned by the petitioner ./^^t '^. e^... ^ .''^'^^^ ^ • '"^t^h ^....^ ^/ was also acquired under the acquisition proceedings in respect of which the award dated 30/08/03 has been passed. 7. The petitioner has placed on record the rehabilitation policy promulgated by the State of Chhattisgarh and published in Chhattisgarh Rajpatra (Asadharan) on 23/2/07, by which the rehabiiitation scheme of 2007 dated 23/2/07 has been published. Para 1.2.1 ofthe policy very categoricaliy states that the same wouid be applicable from the date of publication in respect of all those projects where the lana" acquisition proceedings are not finalised and award is not passed. This wouid ciearly mean without any ambiguity that the policy is intended to apply oniy prospectively in respect of those acquisition proceedings where the award has not been passed. Admittedty, the award in the present case has been passed way back on 30/08/03. The poiicy came into existence in the year 2007. In the absence of the poiicy being retrospective, the claim of the petitioner is untenabie in law. Provision for empioyment upon acquisition of iand is not statutory obiigation under the Land Acquisition Act but could be claimed oniy under a poiicy of the Govemment. The ciaim for employment dehorse the policy is not enforceable under the law. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no writ of mandamus can be issued to respondents to provide employment to the petitioner. it is not a case of the petitioner, either pleaded in the petition or otherwise demonstrated from any other policy in force and prevaient at the time of passing award that the petitioner was entitied to employment. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in respect of prayer which has been made by the petitioner in the petition. ^^^h ) (0^; 8. However, before parting with the case, it is observed that if the petitioner has not been paid compensation as per award, the petitioner may approach respondent No.4 with the said grievance, who shall considerthe same. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. Dyypii Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude