ORDER :

This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the respondent to provide employment to the petitioner against the acquisition of his land as per the agreement dated 02nd April, 1997 in lieu of the land having been acquired falling under Khata No.8 Plot No.421, 437, 441, 456.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that one memorandum of undertaking was singed in between M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and owners of the land for acquisition of land for mining purpose in lieu of employment to be given to the land users and compensation as per the terms of the agreement for which the respondent management has agreed to provide appointment to 9 persons whose names have been referred under Annexure-1 dated 02.04.1997 but when it has not been extended, the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that 9 persons altogether were to be provided appointment as per the agreement of compromise under Annexure-1 but only 5 persons have been appointed leaving behind the petitioner which is absolutely improper and incorrect on the part of the respondent management for the reasons that the land of the petitioner has also been acquired and therefore he is also entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the compromise agreement as contained under Annexure-1.

4. The petitioner has taken plea that one Khagendra Nath Mahto who is not the lineal of the title holder but provided with appointment and therefore the petitioner who is also not related with the title holder ought to have been provided appointment in the same way as has been adopted in the case of Khagendra Nath Mahto but by not doing so, the respondent management has committed illegality.

5. Per contra the respondents management has taken plea that the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment in view of the fact that in the compromise agreement, there is no reference of the name of the petitioner since the said agreement contains the name of 9 persons who have been nominated for their appointment and as per the extent of acquisition of land and who have been found to be eligible, have been provided with the appointment. The petitioner has not been given appointment for the reason that he is not lineal to the original title holder. It has been stated that Khagendra Nath Mahto is also lineal to the title holder since the name of his mother-in-law namely, Laxmi Devi is appearing in the list appended to Annexure-1 and therefore the contention raised by the petitioner that Khagendra Nath Mahto is intruder is not correct.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and after hearing them at length and on appreciation of their rival submissions, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the agreement has been arrived in between the Bakranath Mahto, the original title holder with the Bharat Coking Coal Limited for acquisition of land pertaining to Khata No.8 Plot No.456, comprising area of 11.70 acres in Mauza Parghabad, Revenue Thana No.160 Circle District Dhanbad which is also a subject matter of land acquisition record No.27/95-96 by which proposal has been given for acquisition of land to the extent of 16.30 acres. In terms of the aforesaid agreement, both the parties have arrived into a contract to provide appointment to 9 persons who will be nominated by the Bakranath Mahto and other title holders by way of affidavit whose number will not exceed to 9 and thereafter they will not make any claim to give appointment to any of their legal heirs.

7. It is further evident from the material available on record that one Ram Prasad Mahto, Thakur Das Rawani, Santosh Kumar Rawani and Namrata Mahto have been provided with the appointment along with one Khagendra Nath Mahto who is the dissident of Faguni Mahto and therefore he has also been provided with the appointment.

8. It is evident that Ram Prasad Mahto, Khagendra Nath Mahto, Thakur Das Rawani and Santosh Kumar Rawani have been pro