The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment on a Class IV post on the ground that his land has been acquired for the establishment of Narendra Deo Agricultural University Kumarganj, Faizabad.
In support of his claim the petitioner has placed reliance upon a G.O. dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that for the purposes of University the land bearing Gata No. 68 area 1 Bigha 1 Biswa and 10 dhoor of the petitioner's father and his brothers was acquired and therefore he is entitled for appointment.
Shri Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the University on the other hand has placed reliance upon a decision of the Full Bench reported in 2004 (4) ESC 354 Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate wherein the Court has held that all such G.O. which provides for appointment to the persons whose land has been acquired is in violation of the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The relevant paragraphs 9, 11, 21, 22 and 25 of the said judgment 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.
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.
19. 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 them 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 Delhi Administration v. Manohar Lal, AIR 2002 SC 3088, Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. Raja Balwant Singh College, 2003 (1) ESC 424 etc. Hence the aforesaid decisions are not precedents,
21. The Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code and provides the procedure to be followed for acquisition as well as for assessment of the valuation and payment of fair and just compensation as per market value of the person whose land is acquired. In addition to that market value of the land interest @ 12% is also given from the date of publication of the Notification vide Section 23(1-A). Besides that, a sum of 30% on such market value is also paid as solatium for distress and for inconvenience or difficulties caused to the person on account of compulsory acquisition of the land vide Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land is acquired not only gets adequate compensation as per market value of the land but also gets interest on the amount of compensation (a) 12% from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act as well as an amount of solatium, which is 30% of the amount of compensation. Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the regulations provides that in the event of acquisition of the land one of the family members of the landholder shall be given employment in addition to the amount of compensation. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision or any promise, the petitioner respondent cannot claim appointment as a matter of right nor can the respondent make such appointment.
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.
25. In view of the above we answer the questions referred to us as follows :
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."
The G.O. dated 9.11.2005 came up before this Court in another matter being W.P. No. 2593(S/S) of 2013 Sant Bux Singh Vs. Vice Chancellor Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and this Court had been pleased to dismiss that writ petition considering the G.O. dated 9.11.2005 by order dated 7.5.2013.
The second submission of Shri Manik Sinha is that the land had been acquired for the University in the year 1980 i.e. more than 34 years earlier and the petitioner has merely obtained a certificate on 23.8.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and from that he is trying to show that his land has been acquired. He submits that the petitioner without stating the correct facts in the writ petition has therefore tried to mislead the Court.
Considering the entire matter in its totality and the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra) in my opinion no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.8.2014 o.k.