http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2869-2876 of 2005

PETITIONER: Hindustan Zinc Ltd

RESPONDENT: Bhagwan Singh Bhati & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2869-2876  OF 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 7424/2005

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

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

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 a 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

colonies.  So far as the land acquired for plant is concerned  there was a specific clause i.e. Clause 6 which read as follows: "Those cultivators whose land is being  acquired, one member 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 a para was inserted which did not even bear the  signature of any representative of the company.  Though this  document was produced before the High Court, the same was  totally 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 a 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 respondents  submitted that since in one case relief has been granted by  application of parity, the respondents were also entitled to  similar relief.

8.      It appears that various points urged by the appellant  have not been taken note of; more particularly the stand that  the document relied upon i.e. the purported agreement was a  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 a factually different scenario. It is  also stated that reliance should not have been placed on the  order in a 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 a fabricated document. 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 allowed to the aforesaid extent.