2007 JTR(SC) 509
2007 53 AIC 46 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 4511 ; 2007 67 AllLR 779 ; 2007 3 ALT(Cri)(SC) 178 ; 2007 4 CivLJ 508 ; 2007 8 JT 254 ; 2008 1 LLN 430 ; 2007 5 Scale 653 ; 2007 8 SCC 254 ; 2007 5 SCR 79 ; 2007 4 SLR 605 ; 2007 KHC 3530 ; 2007 4 Supreme 790
2007(4) Supreme 790
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
D.G.M.(HR) P.G. Corpn.of India Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
T. Venkat Reddy & Ors.— Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1953 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.16600 of 2005)
Decided on : 13-04-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Nitin Kumar, S.M. Sharma and Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Banju Raj Kumari, Arvind Minocha, Vishal Baheti, Mrs. Veena Minocha and Randhir Singh, Advocates.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : .
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provides the statutory framework for land acquisition by public authorities and outlines the obligations and rights of displaced persons. Although the present case does not involve direct acquisition disputes, the provisions of the Act inform the principles governing land acquisition and rehabilitation, which are relevant when interpreting the duties of state-owned corporations toward displaced persons. The Act ensures that acquisitions are carried out in accordance with due process and that rightful claimants are not deprived of benefits to which they are entitled under the law.
(B) The core legal principles include the absence of a statutory scheme for employment of land oustees by state-owned corporations, the non-justiciability of policy decisions regarding employment, the principle of priority without relaxation or exemption, and the discretionary consideration of displaced persons for unskilled posts when schemes exist.
Facts of the case:
The appellant corporation acquired lands in 1982 for establishing a sub-station. Respondents claimed ownership of the acquired lands and filed a writ petition seeking directions for employment as displaced persons, relying on a letter from the appellant clarifying that no employment scheme existed. The Single Judge directed the respondents to consider employment within four weeks per schemes or rules, if any. The Division Bench held no scheme existed but directed that respondents be considered preferentially for unskilled posts when employment was undertaken, subject to eligibility.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench recognized no scheme for employment of land oustees or their dependants but noted a semblance of priority for respondents. Priority implies preference only when other things are equal, and respondents cannot claim exemption or relaxation. The court clarified that direction for consideration applies only when respondents are land oustees or dependants seeking employment, and if no scheme exists, employment considerations do not arise.
Issues:
Whether a state-owned corporation must provide employment to land oustees or their dependants in the absence of a scheme, and whether a direction for preferential consideration amounts to an enforceable right.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where no statutory scheme exists for employment of land oustees, the state-owned corporation has no obligation to provide employment, and a direction for preferential consideration applies only to persons seeking employment as land oustees or their dependants, without creating any enforceable right.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of with no costs awarded, as the High Courts order merely directs consideration under a non-existent scheme and does not impose any binding obligation on the corporation.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act provides the statutory framework for land acquisition by public authorities and outlines the obligations and rights of displaced persons. Although the present case does not involve direct acquisition disputes, the provisions of the Act inform the principles governing land acquisition and rehabilitation, which are relevant when interpreting the duties of state-owned corporations toward displaced persons. The Act ensures that acquisitions are carried out in accordance with due process and that rightful claimants are not deprived of benefits to which they are entitled under the law.
(B) The core legal principles include the absence of a statutory scheme for employment of land oustees by state-owned corporations, the non-justiciability of policy decisions regarding employment, the principle of priority without relaxation or exemption, and the discretionary consideration of displaced persons for unskilled posts when schemes exist.
Facts of the case:
The appellant corporation acquired lands in 1982 for establishing a sub-station. Respondents claimed ownership of the acquired lands and filed a writ petition seeking directions for employment as displaced persons, relying on a letter from the appellant clarifying that no employment scheme existed. The Single Judge directed the respondents to consider employment within four weeks per schemes or rules, if any. The Division Bench held no scheme existed but directed that respondents be considered preferentially for unskilled posts when employment was undertaken, subject to eligibility.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench recognized no scheme for employment of land oustees or their dependants but noted a semblance of priority for respondents. Priority implies preference only when other things are equal, and respondents cannot claim exemption or relaxation. The court clarified that direction for consideration applies only when respondents are land oustees or dependants seeking employment, and if no scheme exists, employment considerations do not arise.
Issues:
Whether a state-owned corporation must provide employment to land oustees or their dependants in the absence of a scheme, and whether a direction for preferential consideration amounts to an enforceable right.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where no statutory scheme exists for employment of land oustees, the state-owned corporation has no obligation to provide employment, and a direction for preferential consideration applies only to persons seeking employment as land oustees or their dependants, without creating any enforceable right.
Result:
The appeal is disposed of with no costs awarded, as the High Courts order merely directs consideration under a non-existent scheme and does not impose any binding obligation on the corporation.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.Appellant questions correctness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of the writ appeal filed questioning correctness of the orders passed by a learned Single Judge. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:-
3.Respondents claimed to be the owner of certain extent of lands which was acquired by the appellant for the purpose of establishing a sub-station. Respondents filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant to consider their cases for appointment to a suitable post because they answered the description of displaced persons. They placed reliance on letter dated 3.1.2005 issued by the appellant. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the cases of the appellant within a period of four weeks as per the Schemes or Rules framed therein.
4.Appellant questioned the correctness of the order passed by learned Single Judge stating that the lands in question were acquired in 1982 and neither at that point of time of acquisition or subsequently there was any scheme to provide any employment to the displaced persons, whose lands were acquired for the purpose of establishing a sub-station. It was pointed out that the letter, on which reliance was placed, was issued in response to the request of one of such alleged displaced person. The letter clarified the position that no scheme was prevalent in the appellant-corporation. The stand of the writ petitioners was to the effect that in almost every organization controlled by the State, oustees of the lands or their dependants are provided with employment and the appellant, being a State-owned Corporation, cannot take a different stand.
5.The respondents claimed to be the owner of the land acquired for establishing sub-station. The Division Bench held that no scheme exists in the appellant-Corporation to provide employment to the land oustees or their dependants and that much time had elapsed since the acquisition. It was, however, of the view that a semblance of priority can be recognized so far as the respondents are concerned and as and when the appellant undertakes employment preference was to be given to respondents. By its very nature, priority pre supposes the existence of preference, other things being equal. The respondents cannot be conferred with the benefit of any exemption or relaxation but whenever the appellant-Corporation undertakes to any employment to any unskilled posts, first it shall consider the case of appellants preferentially, subject to their eligibility and fulfilment to other conditions. It was further directed that in case they were found to be qualified and equal to other persons seeking “such employment”, the respondents shall be considered on priority basis.
6.According to learned counsel for the appellants there is no scheme in operation and, therefore, the question of providing any priority to any land oustee or his dependants does not arise.
7.By way of reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench being very innocuous should not be interfered with. No direction for employment has been given and what has been directed is its consideration.
8.At this juncture it would be relevant to take note of what has been stated by this Court in Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others,1 [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 225]. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that the implementation of the High Court’s order would lead to opening of flood gates to similar writ petitions does not appear to be of any substance. The direction for consideration when other persons seek “such employment” can only mean when somebody else is seeking employment as a land oustee or his dependant. Obviously, if there is no scheme, there cannot be any consideration of any prayer for employment on the basis of land oustees or his dependants. Therefore, only clarifying the position that the direction of the High Court relating to “such employment” will be in relation to persons seeking employment as land oustees or their dependants. If there is no scheme, the question of giving any employment would not arise. It is also clear from the order of the High Court that the respondents cannot be conferred with any benefit or exemption or relaxation.
9.Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
***********