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

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 at 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 usC.A. No. 6187/2001 @ S.L.P. No. 9991/1998This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.A. No. 1260/1997. The State of Andhra Pradesh acquired a large tract of land and an award was given on April 30, 1986. The company for whom the land was acquired made a commitment that the land holders whose land has been acquired shall be given employment in the company. However, subsequently, Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed. Section 3(2) of the Act provides that no temporary appointment shall be made in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade without the prior permission of the competent authority and without the name of the concerned candidate being sponsored by the employment exchange. Subsequently, the respondents herein filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to the company to give employment to them as per their commitment. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners claimed themselves as land losers or their nominees entitled to benefit of commitment made by the appellant. A counter affidavit was filed by the appellant herein in the writ petition wherein one of the allegations was that the writ petitioners have fraudulently manipulated the land losers certificate and, therefore, are not entitled to the employment as per the commitment made by the company. The learned single Judge without adverting to the plea raised by the company, following the decision in W.P. No. 16492/1994 dated December 20, 1995 allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the company filed writ appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are before us.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We find that the High Court, in the present case, without adverting to the plea regarding authenticity of writ petitioners losers certificates raised in thet allowed the writ petition merely following the earlier decision.

Court's reasoning:
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.