Case: M.D. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd Vs. Kangala N. Rao and Ors

C.A. No. 7632/1997 A large tract of land was acquired by the State of Andhra Pradesh for the appellant herein under the Land Acquisition Act. On April 30, 1986, the land acquisition collector gave an award in respect of land acquired. One of the commitments made by the appellant for whom the land was acquired was that the land losers shall be given employment in the company. According to the respondents neither the land holders whose lands were acquired nor their nominees have been given employment by the company as per their commitment. Under such circumstances, the respondents herein filed writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court for issuing a direction to the appellant herein to give employment to the writ petitioners in its company. In the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, the appellant herein filed a counter-affidavit wherein it was asserted that the company had already given employment to the land holders whose land was acquired as per its commitment and question of giving employment to the writ petitioners does not arise. The learned single Judge without adverting to that aspect of the matter allowed the writ petition and gave direction to the company to give employment to the writ petitioners. Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court but the same was dismissed. It is against the same judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant urged that in view of the fact that the appellant herein has already given employment to the land holders whose land was acquired or to their nominees, the High Court fell in error in not considering that aspect of the matter in the case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that although there is no finding to that effect but from the conclusion arrived at in the judgment shows that the High Court did consider the plea of the appellant. We have perused the judgment but we do not find any finding recorded by the High Court that the plea of the appellant that it has already given employment to land holders or their nominees is incorrect. In the absence of such finding, the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and send the case back to a Division Bench of the High Court to decide the writ appeal in light of observation made hereinbefore. It will be open to the parties to file fresh affidavits, if they are so advised.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have perused the judgment but we do not find any finding recorded by the High Court that the plea of the appellant that it has already given employment to land holders or their nominees is incorrect. In the absence of such finding, the judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and send the case back to a Division Bench of the High Court to decide the writ appeal in light of observation made hereinbefore. It will be open to the parties to file fresh affidavits, if they are so advisedC.A. No. 6187/2001 @ S.L.P. No. 9991/1998We are therefore, of the view that the plea raised in thet by the company was required to be considered by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge and send the case back to a Division Bench of the High Court to decide the case afresh in the light of observation made hereinbefore. It will be open to the parties to file fresh affidavit and raise such contentions which may be available to them under law.