Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding/ directing the opposite parties particularly the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to consider and provide suitable employment to the petitioner according to his qualification in terms of Government Order dated 15.06.1985, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
(ii)to issue, any appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, just and proper in the nature and cirucmstances of the case.
(iii)to award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land of the petitioner situated at village-Kailey i.e. Gata No.133(M) Rakba, measuring area 0-19-11 ½ has been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of a Hospital known as OPEC Hospital consisting 500 beds in village Kailey, district Basti. The petitioner has applied to the opposite parties for providing suitable appointment in lieu of the land acquired by them. The petitioner is having qualification of High School, as such, he is elible for the post of Malaria Inspector. In this regard, the petitioner has preferred representation dated 15/16.06.2007, which is still pending.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per government order dated 15.06.1985, the petitioner is entitled to get preference in the appointment.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the question as to whether a person whose land has been acquired can be offerred any government job, has been considered by full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 118, wherein the Court has come to the conclusion that since there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act to grant any such benefit of giving employment, as such, the government order to the effect providing benefit of employment is invalid. It is submitted that even a preference in employment on the basis of land having been acquired cannot be granted.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The Government Order dated 15.06.1985 provides that in case the land has been acquiured for the purpose of establishing the Industrial Uinit, the family members of the owner of land shall be given preference in the following manner:-
The Full Bench in paras-9,10 and 11 has observed that 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. The grant of solatium in addition to the 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 an our opinon violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and as such Government Order will amount to amendment of Section 23, which will be illegal.
Paras-9, 10 and 11 of the judgment on reproduction read as under:-
"9. 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. That being so we cannot understand under which law a person can get a job in addition to this compensation.
10. 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).
11. This grant of solatium in addition to the 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."
The Full Bench has further held that any Government Order providing for any further benefit not mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. As such, any such Government Order would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Para-22 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"22. There is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act under which the Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued. Whatever compensation has to be given for acquisition of the land is provided under the Land Acquisition Act itself which is a self-contained Code. Any G.O. providing for any further benefit not mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such GO. would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as already mentioned above."
The Full Bench has answered the questions referred in the following manner:-
"1. The Government Orders/Circulars providing employment to one member of a family of a person whose land has been acquired (over and above the compensation awarded under the law) are invalid.
2. The acquiring body for whose benefit the land is acquired are not bound by such Government Order/Circular.
3.No writ can be issued directing the acquiring body to consider the claim in accordance with the aforesaid Order/Government Circular."
Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that Government Order dated 15.06.1985 was not before the Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others (supra). It is also submitted that in the Government Order dated 15.06.1985 only a preference is to be given and it is not necessary that the appointment is to be given to the person whose land has been acquired.
The Full Bench has given reasons for coming to the conclusion that any such Government Order, which provides benefit of employment is contrary to the scheme as provided under the Land Acquisition Act and hence, would be invalid. Even in case, any Government Order which provides that preference in employment shall be given to a person whose land has been acquired, would be inconsistant with the intention of the Parliament as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. As such, I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. Distirct Magistrate, Agra and others (supra) the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit in government employment on the ground that his land has been acquired, even on the basis of Government Order dated 15.06.1985.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.2.2014 Suresh/