HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. versus BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS.

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.

BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2869-2876 of 2005)

. MARCH 10, 2008

(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

Land Acquisition:

Acquisition of land for company -Writ Petition by landholders - Claiming employment in the company for one member of each family - Company disputing the relevant clause in the agreement as fabricated one and also raising plea of delay -High Court allowing the claim relying upon an earlier order -HELD: High Court having not recorded its findings on the issues raised as also with regard to similarity of fact of the case relied upon, matter remitted to it for disposal afresh.

The respondent landholders filed writ petitions

[before the High Court seeking direction to the ][appellant~ ]company at whose instance the lands were acquired, to give employment to one member of each of such families. The stand of the appellant-company was that the said stipulation was in the agreement with respect to the lands acquired for establishment of the plant and not in the agreement for acquisition of lands in the instant case which was for residential colony. It was further stated that the relevant clause in the agreement was doctored one; and that the petitions were filed with delay of about 10 years. The High Court ignored the document and, on the basis of an earlier decision, allowed the claim.

Allowing the appeals filed by the Company, the Court

HELD: It appears that various points urged by the appellant have not been taken note of; more particularly, 616

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v. BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)

the stand that the purported agreement relied upon was

fabricated one and there was an insertion by manipulation. It is to be noted that the order on which the Division Bench of the High Court placed reliance was rendered in factually different scenario and reliance should not have been placed thereupon in routine manner. The High Court has not indicated as to how the factual scenario is similar. No finding has been recorded on the stand that the writ petitions not only were belated but also were founded on fabricated document. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. [para 8·9] [619-0, E, F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2869-2876 of 2005.

From the final Order dated 1.4.2004 of the High Court of [D ]

Jodhpur (Rajasthan) in D.B.C.Spl. Appeal Nos. 1465/1999, 85/ 2000' 1049/1998, 37 4/2001, 1466/1999' 439/2002' 1464/1999 and 1463/1999

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 7 424/2005

C.A. Sundaram, P.C. Sen, Pallav Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Rajendra Singhvi, Maitreyi Singhvi, Ashok Kumar Singh, Dr. Sushi! Balwada and R.C. Kaushikforthe appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is

to the order passed by Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. dismissing the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. Special Appeals filed by the appellant. Appeals filed by the appellant. filed by the appellant. by the appellant. the appellant. appellant. The appeals were directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.10.1999.

Court dismissing the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. dismissing the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. the Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. Civil Special Appeals filed by the appellant. Special Appeals filed by the appellant. Appeals filed by the appellant. filed by the appellant. by the appellant. the appellant. appellant.

2. The respondents had filed the writ petitions seeking

directions to the present appellants for giving employment to

members of the families of persons whose lands were acquired at the instance of appellant M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. According to them, there was an agreement with the company whereby the company had agreed to give compensation for the land acquired and also to give employment to one member of the

[family ][of ][the land owners. ]

3. The learned Single Judge taking note of the

submissions of the company that there was no such agreement for giving employment but in view of the policy some preference was to be given, disposed of the writ petitions. It was the stand of the company that the only direction that is to be given was to consider cases of the writ petitioners in consonance with the applicable rules of the company. The High Court referred to an earlier order and allowed the special appeals.

4. Stand of the present appellant was that there was no

such agreement as contended. In fact the document which has been produced to project the claim that there was any agreement to give employment as claimed was doctored one. The Division Bench did not attach any importance to the same and directed that in view of the earlier decision dated 21st November, 1996, the Writ Petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed.

5. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two types of agreements were entered into for acquisition of land. One category related to the land [acquired for the plant and the other for the residential colonies. ]So far as the land acquired for plant is concerned there was specific clause Le. Clause 6 which read as follows:

"Those cultivators whose land is being acquired, one memb!:lr of the family of that cultivator or his legal heirs shall be given employment according to his qualification by Hindustan Zinc in its Institution."

6. It is pointed out that so far as the land acquired for the

residential colonies is concerned there was no stipulation and fraudulently para was inserted which did not even bear the

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v. BriAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS. tDR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

signature of any representative of the company. Though this document was produced before the High Court, the same was totaily ignored. It is further pointed out that even for the lands acquired for the plant is concerned, if one family member has been given employment, no further claim can be entertained. The High Court did not also take note of the fact that the writ petitions were filed after about decade. The land was acquired sometime in 1988 whereas the writ petitions were filed in 1998. In view of the Central Government's directives, employment can be given only as per the guidelines. The High Court has completely lost sight of these facts.

7. In response, learned counsel for the responaents submitted that since in one case relief has been granted by application of parity, the respondents were also entitled to similar reiief.

8. It appears that various points urged by the appellant [D ]

have not been taken note of; more particularly the stand that the document relied upon i.e. the purported agreement was fabricated one and there was an insertion unauthorizedly by manipulation. It is to be noted that the factual scenario of the order on which the Division Bench of the High Court placed reliance was rendered in factually different scenario. It is also stated that reliance should not have been placed on the order in routine manner.

9. The High Court has not indicated as to how the factual

scenario is similar. No finding has also been recorded on the stand that the writ petition not only was belated but also was founded on fabricated aocument. It is therefore appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The High Court is requested to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal by the end of July, 2008.

10. The appeals are ailowed to the aforesaid extent.