BUTU PRASAD KUMBHAR AND ORS.versusSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

A                  BUTU PRASAD KUMBHAR AND ORS.
                                          v.
              STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

                                 MARCH 30, 1995

B                  (R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21.

          Right to livelihood-Land acquisition for Rourke/a Steel Planl-l'ay-
C   ment of compensation for land acquired-Displaced person-Rehabilitation           ...
    and resettlement of-Employment to one member of displaced family-Huge
    expenditure incu"ed for rehabilitation-Writ petition after 35 years of land
    acquisition-Claim for employment not only to each and every member of
    displaced family but also to their descendants-Held not maintainable.

D          For the purpose of setting up the Rourkela Steel Plant nearly 2«K!OO
    acres or land were acquired in 1954 and the compensation for the acquired
    land was paid. With a view to resettling and rehabilitating the displaced
    persons the then Union Minister for Steel advised that at least one person
    of each displaced family may be provided job in the steel plant. Many years
E   after the acquisition i.e. in 1995 the displaced persons filed a writ petition
    in this Court seeking directions for employment not only to every member
    of the displaced family but also to their descendants and in any case to
    treat them preferentially for employment on the ground that giving
    employment to only one person or the family or the displaced person was
    violative or constitutional guarantee under Article 21.
F
           The respondents raised preliminary objection as to the main·
    tainability of the Petition on. the ground or inordinate delay and filed a
    counter affidavit stating that though approAimately only 2900 families were
    affected by the acquisition, yet 4557 persons have been employed; part or
G   the land acquired was surrendered for resettlement of displaced persons
    and huge expenditure has been incurred for providing basic development
    facilities in these resettlement colonies. These averments were not serious-
    ly disputed by the petitioners though they based their claim on the basis
    of Constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 21.

H         Dismissing the petition, this Court
                                         76
                            B.P. KUMBHAR v. SAIL                           77

          HELD: 1. A petition on incorrect facts and after such an inordinate A
    delay which has resulted in a generation gap normally is sufficient for
    rerusal to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. However, considering the
    nature or the problem and respondents' decision to give employment to
    displaced persons it did not appear expedient to dismiss the petition on the
    ground or delay or the conduct or some of the petitioners in joining those
                                                                                  B
    who have not been given employment. There is no satisfactory answer to the
    averments in the counter affidavit that the respondent company provided
    employment to 4557 displaced persons when only 2901 families were ar-
    fected by the land acquisition. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt that
    one person of every displaced family whose land was acquired has been
    given employment and therefore, the letter and spirit or the scheme to C
    accommodate the displaced persons stood satisfied. [81-E-H]

           2. Petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of their land
    without following the procedure established in law. They were paid compen-
    sation for their land acquired. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation
    or Article 21 Is devoid of any merit Even otherwise the obligation of the D
    State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of bis livelihood does not extend
    to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in CO'!Se-
    quence or acqnisition of land. Even if the Government or the steel plant
    would not have offered any employment to any person it would not have
    resulted in violation of any fundamental right yet considering the poverty of E
    the persons who were displaced both the Central and the State Government
    took steps to ensure that each family was protected by giving employment
    to at least one member in the plant. Therefore, one fails to appreciate how
    such a step by the Government is violative of Article 21. The claim of the
    petitioners that unless each adult member is given employment or the
    future generation is ensured of a preferential claim it would be arbitrary or
                                                                                  F
    contrary with the Constitutional guarantee is indeed stretching Article 21
    without any regard to its scope. Trnly speaking it is just otherwise. Accep-
    tance of such a demand would be against Article 14. [82-C-F]

•         Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.,        G
    [1985] 3 S.C.C. 545, held inapplicable.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 167
    of 1992.

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)                      H
    78                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A            Prashant Bhusan for the Petitioners.

         Dipankar P. Gupta, Solicitor General, S.K. Mehta, G.M. Mishra and
    Dhruv Mehta for the Respondent No. 1 & 2.

             Ms. Kirti Mishra for the Respondent in No. 3 & 4.
B
             N.N. Goswami, Y.P. Mahajan and A.K. Sharma for the Union of
    India.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C          R.M. SARAI, J. The question that arises for consideration in this
    petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by the
    petitioners, who were residents of villages which formed part of Rourkela,
    is whether the respondents were bound to give employment to all the
    erstwhile residents and even their descendents and in any case to treat
D   them preferentially for employment as they or their members <!f families
    were displaced due to setting up of Rourkela Steel Plant even though they
    were given market value for their land acquired.

         Rourkela Steel Plant, one of the largest steel plants was conceived
           •
  in the year 1954. It was decided to set it up at Rourkela which at that time ·
E consiskd of small villages and for this purpose nearly 20000 acres of land
  were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation was paid.
  When the project was in offing there was probably resistance by local
  residents, therefore, the State Government issued statement that the dis-
  placed persons would be given alternative sites of farming and they would
F be given jobs in the steel plant. According to petitioners the hopes of the
  displaced persons were belied as after the steel plant was constructed
  workers were employed from outside and no offer of employment was
  made to the poor displaced tribals. The petitioners claim that when the
  then President of India visited Rourkela to inaugurate the first blast
  furnace of the Rourkela Steel Plant in 1959 a representation was made to
G him by the Rourkela Displaced Persons Welfare Committee highlighting
  their grievances and explaining that the alternative sites offered to them
  were just an eyewash as they were at a distance of at>out 20 miles from the
   resettlement colonies and it was impossible for the displaced persons to
  travel to and fro and under.ake any agricultural operations. It was also
H pointed out that in these circumstances the only alternative was to afford
                   B.P. KUMBHAR v. SAIL [SAHA!, J.]                      79

 gainful employment to the displaced persons in the steel plant. It is pointed A
 out that in 1981 after prolonged discussions an agreement was reacheu
 between the Rourkela Steel Plant and the displaced residents of one of the
 resettlement colonies, namely, Jhirpani Resettlement Colony and it was
 agreed that the displaced persons would be given employment at the
 earliest under the T.N. Singh Formula, yet the petitioners all of whom are
                                                                               B
 of Jhirpani Resettlement Colony were not given any employment. Accord-
 ing to petitioners the sympathetic sentiments were echoed even in the
 meeting held on 29th November 1988 but the petitioners and various other
unemployed displaced persons numbering nearly 1500 whose list has been
 attached as Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition could not secure any employ-
ment. In the counter affidavit filed by the Additional chief Personnel C
Manager of Rourkela Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited (for
short 'SAIL') these allegations are denied and it is stated that the minutes
dated 25th August 1981 have been fully implemented as even though only
approximately 2900 families were affected by the land acquisition yet the
company has employed 4557 displaced persons. It is further averred that D
in accordance with the minutes of the meeting held on 25th August 1981
171.50 acres of land was surrendered to the State Government for allot-
ment to the residents of Jhirpani Resettlement Colony and had even been
handed over by the respondents" to the Government. It is stated that this
petition was filed in 1952, that is, 30 to 35 years after the acquisition and E
now it is even the second and third generation who are seeking employment
on the basis of descent which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The affidavit further states that the company has shared to
the extent of 50% the expenditure incurred in the resettlement/rehabilita-
tion of the families in providing infrastructure and other amenities like
roads, water supply, health ·care, education facilities, school etc. All the F
displaced persons were given additional amount as housing subsidy of Rs.
200-400 per family and reclamation subsidy of Rs. 200 per acre of land.
The company has further stated to have provided basic development
facilities to the peripheral areas including the resettlement colonies and
has incurred huge expenditure. It has been pointed out that due to all this G
pressure the company had to employ 22538 persons as against the require-
ment of 19500.


       What is described as T.N. Singh Formula shall be clear from the
letter dated 25th July 1973 which is extracted below:                  H
    80                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A           "With reference to the letter cited above, I am to say that there is
            no specific scheme of Govt. to provide employment to the dis-
            placed persons of Rourkela in the H.S.L. Rourkela. However, Shri
            T.N. Singh the then Steel minister of Govt. of India during course.
            of discussion, advised that atleast one person of each displaced
            family may be provided job in Rourkela Steel Plant. Accordingly
B           Rourkela Land Organisation, Rourkela has prepared family history
            of displaced persons after spot inquiry. Such list has also been
            available to the local employment exchange as well as H.S.L. to
            consider their cases for appointment in H.S.L."

C There was thus no scheme for employing every displaced person. but in
  view of the press statement of the State Government the then Union
  Minister considered it reasonable that the respondents should employ in
  the Plant at least one member of each family. Whether such assurance or
  decision was legal and constitutional or not but it was certainly fair and in
D the larger interest of displaced persons. Its compliance as averred in the
  counter affidavit could not be seriously disputed.
                                                                                   .   -
        Faced with the factual difficulty which the petitioners could not
  successfully rebut either by filing a proper affidavit or by bringing material
  on record to demonstrate that the averments in the counter affidavit were
E incorrect the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the effect of
  acquisition was that it deprived not only the head of the family or the
  member in whose name the land was entered in the revenue records but
  every adult member suffered the injury as he was prevented from reaping
  the benefit from the land both at the date when acquisition was made and
p even in future. Therefore, giving employment to one person of the family
  of displaced persons was violative of the constitutional guarantee under
  Article 21 and consequently it was the obligation of the State to ensure that
  every member of the family was given employment in the plant or in the
  alternative whenever the vacancy arose it should consider them on
  preferential basis. The learned counsel urged that the employment of one
G person of each displaced family on T.N. Singh Formula could not deprive
  other members of family who were adults or would have been adult at any
  time in future of their fundamental right of livelihood as explained by this
  Court in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & .Ors., [1985]
  3 SCC 545. He urged that payment of compensation for acquired land was
H a l'oor solace and in any case the State Government having assured and
                         B.P. KUMBHAR v. SAIL [SAHA!, J.]                    81

       the Central Government having ad\ised the SAIL to give employment to A
       the displaced persons and the petitioners and others like them having been
       kept under a promise that they shall be given employment they are
       precluded on principle of promissory estoppel from backing out and
       claiming either that the employment was not available or that there was
       over staffing or that they have to accommodate the displaced persons of B
       Mandira bandh. It was further urged that apart from persons whose land
       had been acquired the assurance was to offer employment to those eligible
       displaced persons who in consequence of setting up of the steel plant were
       rendered unemployed. He also pleaded vehemently that not only the adult
       members and other members of the family but even those children who
       were then minor but they have now become major or they being descend- C
       ents and may be the second generation were entitled, on the same principle
       of being deprived of their bread and butter which could have been available
       to them after they became major to be employed or at .least given
       preference.
                                                                                  D
             What stands admitted is that the land was acquired in 1953-54 and
      the steel plant was set up in 1959. Yet these petitioners many of whom, we
      are informed, are already in employment of the respondents and that was
      vehemently urged by the learned Solicitor General as a preliminary objec-
      tion to the maintainability of the petition, approached this Court in 1992
      for enforcement of their rights. That a petition on incorrect facts and after E
      such an inordinate delay which has resulted in a generation gap normally
      is sufficient for refusal to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction. However,
      considering the nature of the problem and respondents' decision even in
      1988 in relation to giving employment to displaced persons it did not
      appear expedient to dismiss the petition on ground of delay or the conduct F
    _ of some of the petitioners in joining those who have not been given
      employment. There is no satisfactory answer to the averment in the counter
)
      affidavit that the respondent company having provided employment to 4557
      displaced persons when only 2901 families were affected by the land
      acquisition and the assurance given was to employ only one person of each
      family there does not appear much substance in the grievance made by the G
      petitioners. Further no details have been furnished by the petitioners in
      respect of the persons whose list has been appended with the writ petition
      as to whether any member of their family was given appointment by the
      Steel Plant or not. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt that one person
      of every displaced family whose land was acquired has been given employ- H
                                                                                   -

    82                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A ment and, therefore, the letter and spirit of the scheme to accommodate
    the displaced persons stood satisfied.

         The constitutional challenge based on Article 21 does not appear to
  have any substance. In Olga Tellis (supra) it was observed by this Court
  that the concept of right of life conferred was wide and far-reaching and
B the deprivation of the right to livelihood without following the procedure
  established by law was violative of the fundamental guarantee to a citizen.
                                                                                       ,...
  Needless to say that petitioners or their ancestors were not deprived of                        ~


  their land without following the procedure established in law. Their land
  was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation
c for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is devoid
  of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no
  citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment
  to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of
  land. Rourkela Plant was established for the growth of the country. It is
  one of the prestigious steel plants. It is established in public sector. The
D Government has paid market value for the land acquired. Even if the
  Government or the steel plant would not have offered any employment to
  any person it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right
  yet considering the poverty of the persons who were displaced both the
  Central and the State Government took steps to ensure that each family
E was protected by giving employment to at least one member in the plant.
  We fail to appreciate how such a step by the Government is violative of
  Article 21. The claim of the petitioners that nnless each adult member is
  given employment or the future generation is ensured of a preferential
  claim it would be arbitrary or contrary with the constitutional guarantee is     ~


  indeed stretching Article 21 without any regard to its scope and ambit as
F
   explained by this Court. Truly speaking it is just the otherwise. Acceptance
   of such a demand would be against Article 14.
                                                                                              (


           The learned Solicitor General however stated that even though the
    public sector undertaking because of being over-staffed is being put to
G   great strain and even though the Government of India had taken a polic')'
    decision as far back as 1986 not to give employment to any one in future,      •
    yet the respondent-Steel Plant after verification has found 247 persons
    eligible for being given employment. They are willing to abide by it. He has
    pointed out that in the meantime another dam has been constructed and
H   the persons who had been displaced bave also been required to be accom-
                  B.P. KUMBHAR v. SAIL [SAHA!, J.]                      83
modated and, therefore, a scheme has been framed in which 80% displaced A
in conseqnence of Mandira Dam and 20% ont of 247 are being given
employment since 1993. He stated that nearly 50 persons out of 247 have
already been absorbed. We are of the opinion that given employment to
20% may take longer time and since the age bar has been put at 35 it would
be appropriate if the SAIL expedited the absorption of these persons by B
increasing their number from 20% to 40% each year.

     In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed subject to the
observations made in respect of 247 persons identified by the respondents.
There shall be no order as to costs.

T.N.A.                                                 Petittion dismissed.   c