M/s Hindalco Industries Limited. vs The State of M.P. and others.

This intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been preferred by the appellant-Company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.04.2014, thereby Writ Petition No.4326/2014, has been dismissed finally.

2: Facts giving rise to filing of the present writ appeal in brief are that the appellant M/s Hindalco Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company for short) being a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in aluminum and its semis. The appellant-Company owns and operates an aluminum plant at Renukoot in District Sonbhadra. As the appellant wants to establish a new aluminum plant by the name of Mohan Aluminum Project in District Singrauli, it entered into an agreement with the State of Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant- Company acquired various lands after giving compensation to land oustees in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement. As per agreement, the appellant-Company was also liable to construct the rehabilitation colony along with other benefits which were to be given to the oustees. The respondents No. 4 to 6, who are deaf and dumb persons, made an application on 7.7.2012 before the Collector Singrauli for providing them employment. The Collector Singrauli, vide order dated 27.9.2012 directed the authority concerned to allot plots to them in the rehabilitation colony and to pay them amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each in lump sum as well as pension of Rs.1,000/- per month. But, the respondents No.4 to 6 did not proceed to avail the benefits given to them by the order of Collector dated 27.9.2012. The appellant- Company also informed this fact to SDO Devsar, District Singrauli mentioning all these facts, but the respondents No. 4 to 6 have not taken any step. Even they have not challenged the order of Collector dated 27.9.2012, but later on, they made an application before the Commissioner, respondent No.2, under the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), reiterating the same prayer seeking employment in the appellant-Company, which

was decided vide order dated 1.11.2013, whereby direction was given by the Commissioner to provide employment in the appellant- Company to one of the respondents No. 4 to 6 under Clause 8 of the aforesaid agreement.

3: The appellant-Company assailed the order dated 1.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner in the Writ Petition No.4326/2014 on the ground that the same is passed without jurisdiction, against the policy and against the provisions of Section 59 of the "Act". Another ground was taken by the appellant that under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, only the Collector is vested with the powers to decide the claim of displaced persons like respondents No. 4 to 6. The learned writ Court has failed to consider the fact that since the respondents No.4 to 6, being deaf and dumb and appellant-Company is functioning with new advanced machine, they are not entitled for employment.

4: Learned Writ Court has finally dismissed the W.P.No.4326/2014 at admission stage and observed that the Commissioner is appointed under Section 60(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and it is within the power of the Commissioner to take steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities. Since Clauses 4 and 8 of Agreement under Section 41 of 1894 Act, are not optional to each other, being complimentary, the appellant cannot wriggle out from discharging its duty under Clause 8 of the aforesaid agreement and stipulations contained under Clause 29.1 of Rehabilitation Policy, 2002, and non-compliance thereof with regard to acquisition of land belonging to effected persons would be voidable" . Therefore, this intra-court appeal challenging the above order dated 9.4.2014. 5: Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that appellant Company was always ready and willing to comply with the order dated 27.9.2012 passed by the Collector, but deliberately the respondents No. 4 to 6 did not avail the benefits provided to them. The respondents No. 4 to 6 kept silence and did not challenge the order passed by the Collector. The approach of the respondents No. 4 to 6 to the Commissioner for Disabled Persons, Madhya Pradesh, is patently unjust and illegal. Thus, learned Writ Court has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without going through the legal provisions and documentary evidence produced by the appellant, the agreement entered into between the appellant and respondents No. 4 to 6. He prays for setting aside the order passed by the writ Court.

6: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6, has contended that these respondents are deaf, dumb, and handicapped persons. As per the Rehabilitation Policy, 2002, with regard to the acquisition of land, the appellant- Company is duty bound to provide job to one of respondents No. 4 to 6, looking to their eligibility criteria. In the policy, nowhere it is mentioned that persons like respondents No. 4 to 6 can be deprived from providing employment. It is further contended that appellant-Company itself has violated the terms of agreement with regard to acquiring the land and acted against the provisions of M.P. Adarsh Punarvas Neeti, 2002.

7: We have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8: Now the questions for consideration arise are :-

(i) Whether the Commissioner under the Act has no jurisdiction to pass order of above nature ? (ii) Whether Collector has acted fully in accordance with

the terms and conditions of agreement ? 9: To answer the first question, we have to elaborate the powers of the Commissioner under the Act, which reads as under:-

"61. Powers of the Commissioner.- The Commissioner within the State shall -

(a) coordinate with the departments of the State Government for the programmes and schemes for the benefit of persons with disabilities; (b) monitor the utilisation of funds disbursed by the State Government; (c) take step to safeguard the rights and facilities made available to persons with disabilities; (d) submit reports to the State Government on the implementation of the Act at such intervals as that Government may prescribe and forward a copy thereof to the Chief Commissioner." Thus, looking to the aforesaid, since the Commissioner, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955, is only empowered to take up the matter for implementation of law, with regard to welfare and protection of rights of persons with disabilities under the Land Acquisition Act and Rehabilitation Policy, and is not empowered to direct for employment of one of respondents No. 4 to 6, therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction.

10 : Now, the second question which remains to be answered for fruitful purpose of this appeal, we have to consider the manner in which the Collector has dealt with Rehabilitation Policy, 2002. The Collector while passing the order dated 27.9.2012 has not properly considered Clause 29.1 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2002, which specifically stipulates for employment to the land oustees, as agreed to vide Agreement under Section 41 of 1894 Act. The respondents No. 4 to 6 cannot be debarred of their rights of

employment in such a manner. Thus, the action of the Collector is erroneous and fallacious to the agreement as aforesaid.

11 : After perusal of meticulous evidence available on record, and aforesaid legal aspects, it reveals that on the application so made by respondents No. 4 to 6 themselves, the Collector has passed the order dated 27.9.2012, directing to provide them plots under the aforesaid clauses of Rehabilitation Policy, 2002 and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- each, but the Collector has not passed any order in respect of providing the employment to any oustees like respondents No. 4 to 6 as per provisions of Section 41 of Land Acquisition Act and Clause 29(1) of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2002. The appellant-Company has not taken any step with regard to providing permanent employment to respondents No. 4 to 6 looking to their eligibility.

12 : Under the provisions of Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is mandatory to provide pension to those persons who attained the age of 60 years or above, employment to the oustees looking to their eligibility criteria, to provide plots to the oustees in the rehabilitation colony, etc. The Collector Singrauli allotted plot in the rehabilitation colony and ordered to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in lump sum as well pension of Rs.1,000/- per month, but no order for employment of anyone of respondents No. 4 to 6. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct that one of the respondents No. 4 to 6, as per his eligibility be provided employment in the appellant-Company, in view of aforesaid Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act.

13 : Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and it is directed that the order dated 9.4.2014 passed in W.P.No.4326/2014, the order of the Collector dated 27.9.2012 and order of Commissioner dated 1.11.2013 are hereby set aside. It is further directed that the

respondents No. 4 to 6 may approach the Collector, competent authority, having jurisdiction, raising his all grievances, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, who may consider and decide their grievance as per their entitlement and looking to their eligibility. It is further directed that if the posts are not available with the appellant, the appellant should have created the posts looking to their eligibility as per the agreement, within a period of 60 days thereof, in the light of the observations made herein above. The matter is remanded back to the Collector Singrauli, who shall decide it afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of Land Acquisition Act, as observed above.

14 : With the aforesaid directions and observations, writ appeal stands disposed of. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.