AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari for quashing letter
memo No.14646 dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-12) whereby application submitted by the petitioner for job under R & R Policy Haryana Government on account of acquisition of land was rejected on ground of being time barred; and issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide employment in Govt job in Group "D" and Group "C" Categories in view of Govt policy which envisages that in case, if two acres of land of the owner in a revenue estate is acquired for any infrastructure project then one dependent of land owner’s family is entitled to employment /Govt job subject to the fulfilling
of the requisite qualification as per Haryana Government Gazette Notification. Further, during the pendency of the writ petition operation of impugned order (Annexure P-12) may kindly be stayed.
It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were having 1/3rd share in total land measuring 64 Kanals 12 Marlas, which was acquired by the respondents for construction of Water Works-III in village Bhiwani Lohar and Ninan. In this regard, the respondents had issued Notification dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for acquisition of total land measuring 458 Kanals 13 Marlas for construction of Water Works-III in village Bhiwani Lohar and Ninan. Then notification dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P-2) was issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894.
On 09.11.2010, the respondent-State had formulated a Policy (Annexure P-3), as per which additional benefits were given for the landowners whose land is acquired by the Government. As per the said Policy, Government is to provide employment in Group 'D' and Group 'C' categories, if two acres or more of land of the landowner in a revenue estate is acquired for any infrastructure project, then one dependent of the land-owning family is entitled to employment/Government job, subject to fulfilling the requisite qualification.
It is submitted that in respect of the above acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector had announced Award No. 2 dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P-4). Land of the petitioners was included in the said Notification and in the aforesaid Award.
It is submitted that the landowner Jai Singh (the grand father of petitioner no.1) had previously filed a CWP-27507-2013 in this Court for release of the houses/structure on the land with sufficient open space in accordance with the Government policy. Vide order dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P-5) this Court directed the State to re-survey the area and in case plea of be petitioners is found to factually correct then take appropriate decision within a period of four month.
It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is dependent of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and also having requisite qualification for the job of Group "D" and Group "C" Categories; as evident from his matriculation examination certificate dated 21.06.2002, copy of senior secondary examination dated 29.11.2005, copy of B.A examination dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure P-6) and copy of Master of Business Administration dated 2013. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 had filed application form No.7 dated 7.04.2016 (Annexure P-7) for job under the policy of 2010.
Ld. Counsel submits that however the aforesaid claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 11.5.2016 (Annexure P-9), on the ground that acquired land of the petitioner is less than two acres, and application has been processed after five years from date on which the land was acquired.
Ld. counsel submits that respondents have failed to appreciate that petitioner is entitled for job as per the Policy, because Jai Singh and Om Parkash are real brothers and jointly having more than two acres of land which had been acquired by the respondent. As such, petitioner had submitted another
application dated Nil (Annexure P-11) seeking job under the R & R Policy of the State of Haryana on account of acquisition of land. However, even the said claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-12) mainly on the ground that claim of the petitioner is time-barred.
Ld. counsel argues that petitioner had submitted his first application on dated 07.04.2016, which is within the prescribed time limit of five years from the date of Award which is 06.06.2011, as prescribed in Para 11 of sub-section (vi) of the Policy. Petitioner had then again filed his second application on dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-11), which is in continuation of the first application. As such, application of the petitioner could not have been rejected being time-barred, as the first application had been filed within the prescribed time limit of five years.
It is further submitted that the respondent dismissed the application on the ground that petitioner had already filed a CWP-25232-2016 in this Court for the same purpose which was already dismissed; whereas it is pertinent that it was mainly dismissed on the ground that land of petitioner/dependent of land owners was less than 2 acres whereas in the above mentioned CWP Petitioner claimed job only on the basis of his father's share in acquired land which comes less than 2 acre but actually total share of their land is more than 2 acre as per Jamabandi. Accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.
Per contra, ld. State counsel has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and contended that thepetitioners have not come
before this Court with clean hands and they have suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that earlier the grandfather of the petitioner No.1 namely Jai Singh had filed a CWP-25232-2016 titled as'Jai Singh Vs State of Haryana & others' before this Court for setting aside order dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure P-6) and for seeking job for the petitioner No.1 under Policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Land Owners of the State of Haryana on account of acquisition of the land, acquired for construction of 3rd Water Works at village Ninan, Tehsil & District Bhiwani especially when similarly situated persons have already been granted emplacement as per order dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondents. The said application has been rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, Public Heath Engineering Department, Panchkula, vide letter memo No.42161-PHE/ES(2) dated 11.05.2016 on the basis of letter memo No.5163 dated 02.05.2016 issued by respondent No.3.
It is submitted that the aforesaid CWP-25232-2016 has been filed by the grandfather of the petitioner No.1 namely Jai Singh for the same land and on the same facts & grounds as mentioned in the present civil writ petition. The aforesaid No.25232-2016 (O & M) has been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 01.09.2022 with the following observations: -
"6.Matter of policies are best left to the makers of the policy i.e. State and thus Court shall not superimpose its own views in the policy domain. Trite to say, that would amount to transgressing into the un-chartered territory which this Court ought not to. Needless to say, policy in question has been applied across board qua all the land owners and it is not the case where the petitioner has been
meted out with any hostile discrimination. In case, the petitioner is given the benefit by overlooking the minimum eligibility requirement of two acres, same would amount to opening of Pandora box for those who are not before this Court and whose less than 2 acres of land was acquired and were not offered any employment.
No grounds for interference are made out.
Dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.”
Accordingly, prays that present writ petition be dismissed.
No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Id. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
As per the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) of the State of Haryana, it is stipulated that wherever 75% or more land of the land owner in a revenue estate, subject to minimum of two acres, is acquired for infrastructure project, thereby impacting his sustenance to a considerable extent, one dependent of the land owning family would be provided a job by the Government in Group 'D' and Group 'C' categories, subject to the incumbent fulfilling the qualification prescribed for such job.
As noted above, petitioner No. 1 had previously submitted an application dated 7.4.2016 seeking job under the above said Policy. The said application of the petitioner had been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 11.5.2016. As such, Jai Singh had filed CWP No. 25232 of 2016 seeking setting aside of the order dated 11.05.2016 and had sought employment under
the R&R Policy. The said writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-10) for the following reasons: -
“I am unable to persuade myself with the submission of learned Senior counsel, which he has vehemently insisted on, that benevolence of the policy ibid arises out of the intent that wherever the family of a landowner is dependent for its livelihood on the land which has been acquired regardless of the minimum area, one member of the family ought to be provided a job. Instant is the case where concededly the area of the land of the petitioner which has been acquired for the project in question is 7 kanals as against the minimum of 2 acres, which translates into 16 kanals prescribed for providing job to a dependent member of the land owning family. Therefore, the policy as it stands does not cover the petitioner to seek a job. As regards the land, concededly petitioner has been given compensation and the adequacy thereof is not subject matter of the present proceedings for which there is remedy provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013.”
Firstly, contention of the respondents that petitioners have suppressed this fact is incorrect, as petitioners have duly appended the order dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure P-10) passed in previous CWP No. 25232 of 2016. Therefore, there is no concealment of fact by the petitioners, as incorrectly stated by the respondents.
Further, said previous CWP-25232-2016, was dismissed as land holding of Jai Singh/ grandfather of petitioner No. 1, which was was acquired in the present Award dated 06.06.2011 was only 7 Kanals; which is less than the stipulated limit of 2 acres. It is now the contention of the petitioners that acquired land was jointly owned by Jai Singh (now deceased) and Om Parkash
(petitioner No. 3 herein), and as the combined land is measuring more than two acres, therefore petitioner No. 1 is entitled for appointment under the R&R Policy.
However, the said contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted as, for the same cause of action/for the same acquisition, grandfather of the petitioner has already approached this Court by way of CWP No. 25232 of 2016 titled as Jai Singh v. State of Haryana and others.
Moreover, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, application is required to be submitted within a period of six months from the announcement of Award. In the present case, petitioner has moved his application only on 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-11), which has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2024. Petitioner cannot seek to ride in two boats at the same time. On the one hand, petitioner is saying that his present application dated 13.09.2024 is in continuation of his previous application dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-7), which was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 11.05.2016, which was subject matter of challenge in the previous CWP No. 25232 of 2016 filed by grandfather of petitioner No. 1. However, petitioner is simultaneously admitting that the previous writ petition had been filed by his grandfather only in respect of the 7 Kanals of land owned by Jai Singh. Whereas, in the present petition, it is stated that petitioners have shared/joint land of total measuring 18 Kanals 08 Marlas, which is more than 2 Acre and now the petitioners are claiming for job/employment for the petitioner No.1 on the basis aforesaid shared/joint land. The petitioners cannot seek to bypass the requirement of Law by change of stance. As such, contention
of the petitioner that the present application of 2024 is in continuation of the previous application of 2016, is untenable.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.