No statutory obligation exists for employment after land acquisition compensation is paid.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7th September, 2017. The appellant sought a direction to the respondents to employ one member of the family on account of acquisition of land by South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. (for short “the Company”) for its purposes.

2. The appellant claims to be owner of the land bearing Khasra No.8/3 situated in Village Kurriha having area 0.121 hectares. The said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of residential colony for residence of employees for which an Award was announced on 25.9.1991. The compensation for acquisition of land stands disbursed to landowners including the present appellant.

3. A scheme was circulated in the year 1991 to rehabilitate and resettle the families who get displaced on account of acquisition of land. It was contemplated to provide employment to one member of the family in term of paragraph 3(a) of the said Scheme. Since entire land of the appellant was acquired and no employment was given, therefore, appellant filed the writ petition No.8589/2008 before this court that is more than 17 years of the acquisition. The said writ petition was initially dismissed on 6th of May, 2015 but an appeal against the said order was allowed on 9th of September, 2016, wherein the Division Bench recorded the following finding: -

“6. On the contrary along with the petition, petitioner has filed the Rin - Pustika, annexure P - 1 which goes to show that they were in possession of the land right from the year 1989-1990. That being so, the findings recorded by the learned writ court seems to be incorrect and as learned writ court has recorded these findings and thereafter has not gone into the question of rights available to the petitioner when the award dated 25.09.1991 passed and the effect of amendment in the policy in the year 1995 i.e. 21.12.1995, it is a fit case where appeal should be allowed. The order passed by learned writ court is quashed and matter is remanded back to learned writ court for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law.”

4. Thereafter, writ petition filed by the petitioner was again dismissed by the impugned order. It may be mentioned that after the Circular of 1991, there is another Circular issued on 21.12.1995, in which there is no provision to provide employment to the person whose land was acquired for the purpose by the respondents.

5. Learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition inter alia relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Butu Prasad Kumbhar and others Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 225, wherein it has been held that Government is not bound to give the employment to the land owner after the payment of compensation. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under :

“6. The constitutional challenge based on Art.21 does not appear to have any substance. In Olga Tellis (supra) it was observed by this Court that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far reaching and the deprivation of the right to livelihood without following the procedure established by law was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen. Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Art.21 is devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to every member of each family displaced i