JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 31.7.2003.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The learned Single Judge has passed the judgment on the basis of the judgment dated 4.2.2000 in Writ petition No. 607 of 1995, Ram Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. In that judgment (the judgment dated 4.2.2000), reliance has been placed on a Government Order of the State Government, which provides grant of a job to one member of the family of the person whose land has been acquired.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Government Order of the State Government is not binding on the appellant which is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned and control by the Central Government and it had, never agreed to comply with the Government Order dated 15.6.85 issued by the State Government vide Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit in the writ petition. He has also submitted that the writ petitioner has not mentioned either the number of the land nor the area acquired by the Government nor has he mentioned the total holding possessed by him or his parents or other close relatives. It is also submitted in Paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit to the writ petition that there is no vacancy at present in the Gas Authority of India Ltd. The nature of a job in the Gas Authority of India Ltd. is highly technical and requires specialized knowledge and hence employment of an unqualified person would be dangerous.
5. We fully agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the Government Order of the State Government is not binding on the appellant, as it is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned and control by the Central Government.
6. It is not denied that the petitioner has received full compensation as provided under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act which means an amount equal to full market value of the land with interest as well as solatium under Section 23(2) which is equal to 30% of the market value. We cannot understand under which law a person can get a job in addition to this compensation.
7. The Land Acquisition Act takes care of the difficulties of a person whose land has been acquired by granting 30% solatium under Section 23(2) in addition to the market-value of the land which has been acquired. Thus, if the market-value of the land acquired is Rs. 1 Lac, the owner will get not only Rs. 1 Lac but an additional Rs. 30,000/- i.e., he will get Rs. 1.30 Lac with interest at 12% from the date of the notification under Section 4 to the date of the award or the date of taking possession whichever is earlier, vide Section 23(1-A).
8. This grant of solatium in addition to full market value of the land has obviously been made to cater to the difficulties of the person whose land has been acquired. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act to grant a job in addition to the amounts specified in Section 23. Hence, any Government Order for providing a job in addition to that is in our opinion, violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, for such a Government Order will amount to amendment of Section 23, which will be illegal.
9. In Writ Petition No. 27690 of 1991, Dau Dayal v. Agra Development Authority and Ors., decided on 21.3.1995, Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J., held that as there is no provision for granting a job in addition of compensation provided for in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, no such job can be granted.
10. We fully agree with the view taken by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J., in the aforesaid decision. It is well known that there is already surplus staff in most Government Departments and Public Sector Undertakings and further jobs cannot be given in this manner as that would only be putting in greater burden on the tax payers and there would be violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.
11. In Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., JT 1995 (3) SC 428, it was held that there is no requirement under Article 21 of the Constitution to provide employment to a member of the family displaced by the acquisition of land. In Director, Mandi Parishad v. Sohan Lal, 2003 ALJ 540, a Division Bench of this Court held that when the petitioner has received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, he cannot claim appointment in addition. The Government Order not being issued under a statutory provision cannot have any statutory force. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and Ors., AIR 1977 SC 2149 (vide Paragraph 15), the Supreme Court observed :--
"In order that mandamus may be issued to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance."
12. In the present case, we have not been shown any statutory provision requiring a job to be given to one member of the family of the person whose land has been acquired. In Ravindra Kumar v. District Magistrate, Agra, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29679 of 1999, decided on 21.7.99, one of us (M. Katju, J.), has taken a similar view.
13. Apart from the above, even on the facts we are of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to the relief claimed. The State Government acquired the land in the year 1987-88 and the petitioner applied for employment after four years without explaining the delay. Moreover, the petitioner in the writ petition has not given the details of the land acquired, the area of land still possessed by the petitioner or his close family members, whether there is an alternative source of employment and other relevant details.
14. A person may be holding a good job in Government Service or in a Public Sector Corporation or a Private Company and even if his land is acquired he may not suffer much, particularly when he is getting full market value as well as solatium as compensation. There may also be persons who may have large holdings (it is well known that there are various devices of getting over the Ceiling Act) and if they are deprived of fraction of their land holding they will hardly suffer much, particularly when competition is being paid. Their is no justification for joint of a job to a member of the family of such a person. No detail at all has been given by the writ petitioner about these matters. Learned Counsel for the respondents in this appeal has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble R.A. Sharma, J.) in Umesh Chandra Srivastava v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28795 of 1992, decided on 14.2.1994. In that decision it was observed by the learned Single Judge :--
"Land is the source of livelihood of vast population of this country and if it is acquired by the Government, its owner is definitely deprived of the source of livelihood, and grant of compensation under the Act, though may give him some solace, cannot be a substitute of the land, which has been acquired. It is on this ground that the Government, which runs a welfare state and is responsible for the well being of the people, has laid down the policy by the above G.O., providing for employment against inferior post to at least one person of the family, whose land has been acquired. The decision of the Government is fully in consonance with the concept of the welfare state and the provisions of the Constitution. Such a decision is liable to be respected by the Department or the Authority for whose benefit the land is acquired by the Government."
15. With profound respect to the learned Single Judge we are not in agreement with the view he has taken. The learned Single Judge has adopted an approach which is mere emotional rather than legal. A writ is issued for violation of law or enforcement of some legal duty, and not on such vague and general considerations that since the Government is a welfare State it has to provide a job to a person whose land is acquired. As already stated above, the person whose land is acquired is not only given full market value with interest from the date of the Notification under Section 4, but is also given 30% solatium on top of that. If the Legislature intended that apart from the above, the affected person should also be provided a job to a member of his family then such a provision would have been made in the Land Acquisition Act.
16. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the Supreme Court decision in Calcutta Port Trust v. Deba Prosad Bag, AIR 1994 SC 2137 and Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 920.
17. In our opinion, the aforesaid decisions do not lay down any principle of law that on acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act apart from giving compensation under the Act a job has also to be provided. It is well-settled that a mere direction in a judgment without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent vide AIR 2002 SC 3088 : 2003 (1) ESC 424, etc. Hence, the aforesaid decisions are not a precedent.
18. Moreover, as rightly stated by the appellant, the nature of a job in the Gas Authority of India Ltd. is a highly technical one and if unqualified people are appointed there can be danger to the public. Hence, also the stand of the appellant is correct.
19. For the reasons given above this Special Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is quashed and the writ petition is dismissed.