R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard.

2. Petitioner claims to be Secretary of Land Losers Committee. He has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents-Bharat Coking Coal, Limited ( BCCL) for implementing the rehabilitation package of the Government of India and the offer made by BCCL vide Circular dated 19 th October, 1990 ( Annexure-4/1) and for a direction to act pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure-18).

3. Mr. Mazumdar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted as follows. That 37.49 acres of land were acquired under L.A. Case No. 67/1986-87 and 1/87-88 of village Amjhar displacing 87 families. The Supreme Court, passed an order on 13.12.1995 in CMP Case No. 16331 of 1982 in the case of Lal Chand Mahto v. Coal India Limited and Ors. (Annexure-10). In paragraph 4, it was said that simultaneously with taking possession, employment to the head of the family consisting of parents and minor children, was to be given. Thus each family should be given employment. Further there has been discrimination inasmuch as the other land losers having less than two acres of land were given one employment whereas the land losers under the said acquisition cases having less than two acres of land were not given one employment and as such more employments were given with regard to other villages in comparison to the lands acquired, under the said land acquisition cases.

4. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents/BCCL, submitted as follows. The said order of Supreme Court was an interim order passed on the petition for vacating stay and was passed in different situation, prevailing at that time. Moreover, keeping in view all relevant aspects, including the directives of the Central Government, a rehabilitation package was offered by BCCL to the land losers under Circular dated 19.10.1990 (Annexure-4/1). He further submitted that by letter dated 21/28.4.1992 (Annexure-7), and again by letter dated 3.4.12.1992 (Annexure-14) petitioner was informed that his case was examined and 18 employments were sanctioned only after getting the vacant possession of the entire land in one go as a package deal and the agreed names of 18 persons be furnished. This was refused by the petitioner. Petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, who made certain recommendations, which are not binding on BCCL. He further submitted that in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition on 25.1.1999 it was specifically stated that physical possession of the lands in question has not been delivered to BCCL inspite of payment of compensation as far back as in the year 1991. On the question of discrimination, Mr. Mehta submitted that different package deals had to be done with the land losers keeping in view different prevailing situations and therefore petitioner cannot claim discrimination. Moreover, from the document relied by the petitioner to allege discrimination, it appears that on the pressure of a political party-JMM, the deal was finalized. Mr. Mehta relied on the Division Bench Judgment reported in 2004 (4) JCR 526 (Jhr) Steel Authority of India Limited v. Jamuna Prasad Mahto and analogous cases and the judgment dated 2.2.2006, passed in WPS No. 5445 of 2005. He therefore submitted that petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.

5. Mr. Mazumdar admitted that compensation had been received. He further admitted that out of the members of land losers committee, only two persons had land more than two acres and the rest had land less than two acres.

6. In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, as per the scheme, one employment was to be provided against acquisition of two acres of land. Admittedly, except two persons all others had less than two acres of land, but even then against acquisition of 37.94 acres, 18 employments were offered. This offer was made by sanctioning 18 posts as far back as in