There is no provision for granting a job in addition to the compensation provided under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the principle of laches applies when a right is not exercised for a long time.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Office of the Additional Solicitor General of India has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.02.1989 issued by Respondent No. 4

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to consider the grievances of the Petitioner and passed an appropriate order upon the letters pending before Respondents within stipulated period to meet the end of Justice."

3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation in the year 1985. Thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioner seeking his appointment with the respondent-Corporation on the ground that his land has been acquired hence apart from compensation, which was paid in lieu of the land an appointment should also be given by the corporation. The claim for appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-Corporation because he was over age. Subsequently a meeting was held in the area office of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation at Allahabad on 18.01.1989.Thereafter a letter dated February 06, 1989 was written by the Deputy General Manager (Personal), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. New Delhi to the Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Varanasi, U.P. In the said letter name of the petitioner was at item number-1. The letter reads as follows :-

"Kindly refer the meeting our Area Manager, Allahabad, Shri P.N. Shukla had with you on 18/1/89 on the subjects :

1. We would like you to confirm that Shri Lalji Yadav has not been sponsored because he is over age. His date of birth being 20.1.60.

2. Although the name of Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Matabhik has appeared twice in the list of land-losers (Sl.Nos. 31-32 & 167-168), but his name has not been sponsored by you so far. You may take necessary action for sponsoring the name of Shri Ashok Kumar.

3. Whereas you have sponsored the name of Shri Ram Ashrey S/o Shri Jagar Dev who is 8th pass. But, you have not sponsored the name of Shri Shyan Narain S/o Shri Sarvesh who is also 8th pass. You may please sponsor the name of Shri Shyam Narain also.

4. You have sponsored the name of one Shri Rajinder Prasad S/o. Sh Tribhuvan whereas as per our list of landlosers, the candidate sponsored by the land-loser is Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o. Sh Tribhuvan, and not Sh. Rajinder Kumar. You may please clarify this.

You may please take necessary action on items mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 at the earliest so as to enable us to proceed further on the matter."

4. It is argued that after the aforesaid letter was written no action was taken either by the Employment Exchange Officer or by the Officer of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that petitioner is continuously approach the respondents no.3 and 4 and thereafter, various representations were made by him but no action has been taken in the matter. Since no action has been taken on the representations made by the petitioner hence present writ petition.

5. On the other hand it is argued by Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1985 but nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition that any assurance was given by the corporation to the petitioner to provide employment. It is further argued that the petitioner was sleeping over his rights from last more than 37 years hence apart from merits of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. After land of the petitioner was acquired, he