IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 13.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1286 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking for direction upon the respondent-BCCL to provide employment in lieu of acquisition of land and house of the petitioner situated at Khata No. 23 Plot No. 163 Area 0.02 decimals in Mouza Barora District Dhanbad, was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case:

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading available on record, reads as under:

3. The petitioner purchased 02 decimals of land in Khata No. 23 Plot No. 163 Area 0.02 decimals in Mouza Barora District Dhanbad from its rightful owner and made residential house thereupon. For the use and purpose of respondents-BCCL the land of the petitioner and others were acquired and a land acquisition proceeding was initiated being Land Acquisition Case No. 31/1991-92 and accordingly compensation to the tune of Rs. 2783.25 P for the vacant land of 2 decimal and Rs. 2001.02 P for the house situated upon the land of petitioner was assessed and received by the petitioner through cheque, which was accepted by the petitioner with protest.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner made several representations before the respondents-BCCL that in lieu of acquisition of land and house situated on the land he may be provided employment and in pursuant thereto, vide memo dated 02.08.2007 it has been informed to the petitioner that no employment can be given to the petitioner against the acquisition of 02 decimals of land and as per Rehabilitation Policy only on acquisition of 2 acres of land the employment can be given.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition in which the respondents-BCCL was called for, who appeared and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that on the land in question there was no residential/dwelling house of the petitioner and only four mud walls were there and further for the land and four mud walls situated thereupon compensation has already been paid to the petitioner.

6. Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, dismissed the writ petition, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed.

7. It is evident from the factual aspect that the land measuring an area of 0.02 decimals in Khata No. 23 Plot No. 163 Area 0.02 decimals in Mouza Barora District Dhanbad whereupon the petitioner alleged to have constructed residential house was acquired by initiating a land acquisition proceeding being Land Acquisition Case No. 31/1991-92 and accordingly compensation for vacant land as also the house situated upon i.e., four-wall mud was assessed and received by the petitioner. However, thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondents-BCCL seeking employment in lieu of acquisition of land and house [four-mud wall] situated on the land, which was denied by the respondents-BCCL, hence the petitioner filed the writ petition.

8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition agreeing with the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL in the counter affidavit as well as in reply affidavit wherein stand has been taken that the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will be said to be closed for all practical purposes after coming into effect of ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’.

9. The order passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge by filing the instant intra-court appeal.

10. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has not appreciated the fact in right prospective that even though the land was acquired and the