Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Gunaram Murmu, S/o. Majhia Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3175 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the functionary of the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL) by which the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for grant of employment under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the management-UCIL has been rejected.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The father of appellant had purchased the landed property under Mouza Turamdih, Thana No. 1181 appertaining to Khata No. 13, Plot No. 28 admeasuring a total area of 7.5 decimals by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2003.
The Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum vide his Letter bearing Memo No. 1476 dated 17.12.2003 recommended the mutation of the aforementioned landed property in the name of the father of appellant after being satisfied that as to the authenticity of the transfer
The court affirmed that a land loser is entitled to employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, regardless of pending title disputes.
Writ jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed property titles; such matters should be settled through civil courts, as per the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, ruling that the absence of a dwelling house on the acquired land precluded entitlement to employment under the rehabilitation policy.
The court emphasized that individuals who construct homes on acquired land qualify as displaced families under the Odisha R&R Policy, reinforcing an expansive interpretation in favor of providing emp....
Railway land losers policy withdrawal held prospective; pre-existing applications recommended before withdrawal entitled to consideration under earlier scheme, not retrospectively denied.
Son of compensation-receiving co-owner qualifies as son of land loser for railway rehabilitation employment despite lack of mutation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
