The denial of employment under the Rehabilitation Policy after land acquisition is unjustified when the title is acknowledged and compensation paid, invoking the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

Order :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The short question involved in the instant writ petition is whether respondent-South Eastern Coalfield Limited (for brevity “SECL”) is justified in denying employment to the petitioner herein under the Rehabilitation Policy after acquiring his land and making payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,27,805.60/- to him on 17.07.2012, by disputing validity of his sale deed by which the petitioner acquired title over the said land on wholly untenable ground?

2. The aforesaid question of law arises on the following factual backdrop:-

(I) The petitioner herein was title holder of the land bearing Khasra No.630 area 0.66 acre situated at village Pondi, which he had purchased by registered sale deed dated 24.12.1992 by one Jyotibhushan Pratap Singh in which the caste of the seller and purchaser are mentioned as Schedule Tribe (Adivasi).

(II) The above-stated subject land was acquired by the competent authority for the purpose of respondent-SECL under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for brevity “the Act of 1957”) for Gevra-Project in 2004, accepting the clear and marketable title of the petitioner and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,27,805.60/- was paid to him on 17.07.2012 in lieu of such acquisition and no dispute whatsoever was raised qua his title while acquiring his land and making payment of the compensation to him. However, as per the scheme of Rehabilitation Policy of the respondent-SECL, they were required to provide employment to one member of the family whose land was subjected to acquisition by the SECL, to which the petitioner had claimed by making representation and which remained unadjudicated leading to filing of writ petition No.663/2015 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.03.2015 directing the SECL to consider the petitioner’s representation. Consequently, the SECL considered vide letter/order dated 11.04.2015 in which the SECL had issued direction to the petitioner herein to satisfy two conditions which state as under:-

“(i) to produce the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority; &

(ii) to explain as to why the particulars of his age and fact of minor are not mentioned in sale deed dated 24.12.1992.”

(III) It has also been held in above-stated letter/order dated 11.04.2015 that employment will be grantable to the petitioner only upon fulfulling the aforesaid twin conditions enumerated herein-above.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating inter alia that under the Rehabilitation Policy he is entitled for the employment in the respondent-SECL, which has not been granted to him, therefore, appropriate writ or direction be issued to respondent-SECL for providing the employment in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy.

4. The return has been filed by the respondent-SECL in which it has been stated by the respondent that the petitioner’s land has been subjected to acquisition under the Act of 1957, against which compensation of Rs.5,27,805.60/- has already been paid to the petitioner on 17.07.2012 and he is also entitled for grant of employment subject to vacancy for that village and other eligibility. It has also been stated that the petitioner prima facie appears to be eligible for grant of employment and his name was considered and his case was processed. It has been further stated that the subject land situated in the tribal area which was owned by Jyotibhushan Pratap Singh (seller) who also belonged to aboriginal tribe from whom the petitioner herein had purchased the subject land in the year 1992 by registered sale deed and in the said registered sale deed, the caste of both seller and buyer has been mentioned as Schedule Tribe, but the petitioner was minor on the date of execution of sale deed and he did not produce his caste certificate as mentioned in the registered sale deed. It has been further stated that transaction between the tribal and non-tribal is hit by Section 165 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Land R