High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sunil Kumar Agnihotri v. G.M.,Thermal Power Station & Others - WRIT - A No. 24857 of 1996  RD-AH 8724 (8 May 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24857 of 1996
Sunil Kumar Agnihotri
General Manager, Thermal Power Station Panki, Kanpur Nagar & Others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner claims Government service in lieu of agricultural land acquired by the State Government in 1968 from his father for construction of Ash Pond for Thermal Power Station at Panki, Kanpur Nagar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire agricultural land holding of the father of the petitioner measuring 10 Bighas had been acquired by the State Government in lieu whereof the petitioner should have been given employment in a Government department.
Per contra, Sri A.K.Sachan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by G.Os. dated 31.8.1989, 1.6.1995 and 29.5.1995 appended as Annexures C.A. 1 to C.A. 3 to the counter affidavit it has been clearly provided that no employment shall be given to the family members of those farmers whose land has been acquired by the State Government before 17.6.1979 in public interest.
In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the family members of those farmers whose land had been acquired by the State Government have been given employment/job by the respondent-State even after issuance of the aforesaid G.Os.
Be that as it may, it is not a legal right of the petitioner to be given employment in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Ravindra Kumar Vs District Magistrate, Agra and others, (2005) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 118. In that case also a mandamus was sought by the petitioner for employment on the basis of the G.Os./Circulars in lieu of acquisition of his land but the Court held that no such mandamus can be issued as the Land Acquisition Act nowhere provides that the affected person should be given service in addition to compensation, interest and 30% of solatium on compensation to him. The Court further held that any such G.O/Circular would be inconsistent with scheme and provisions of the Act and that it violates provisions of Articles 21, 16 and 14 also.
The High Court after analysing the provisions of the Act and the Constitution refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioner on the ground that the G.O./Circular was wholly unworkable too.
The instant case is not on a better footing than the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra) referred to above and decided by a Full Bench of this Court on the ground that the G.O./Circular issued clearly provides that the members of those farmers whose land has been acquired prior to 26.6.1979 would not be provided employment.
It is not denied that the petitioner has been paid compensation, solatium etc.
Thus, I am also of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid Full Bench decision rendered in Ravindra Kumar (supra) and he is not entitled to appointment in lieu of acquisition of land for which he has been paid compensation, solatium etc. in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for in this case.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.