Supreme Court of India
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.versusBHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 330
- Decided
- 10 March 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the case for fresh consideration because the High Court failed to record findings on the alleged fabricated document, the delay, and the inapplicability of the earlier precedent.
Summary
The respondents, whose lands were acquired by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. for a residential colony, filed writ petitions seeking a direction that the company employ one member of each family, alleging an agreement containing such a clause. Hindustan Zinc contended that the employment clause existed only in agreements for land acquired for its plant, not for the residential colony, and that the document presented by the respondents was a fabricated insertion; it also argued that the petitions were filed after a ten‑year delay. The Rajasthan High Court, relying on an earlier decision in a different factual context, dismissed the company’s special appeals and allowed the respondents’ claim. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not examined the allegation of a doctored document, had not addressed the delay, and had improperly applied a precedent from a factually distinct case without recording any findings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged employment clause in the land‑acquisition agreement is valid and applicable to the residential colony lands.
- Whether the document purporting to contain the employment clause is a fabricated or doctored document.
- Whether the writ petitions are barred by delay (limitation) of about ten years.
- Whether the Rajasthan High Court erred in relying on an earlier order decided in a factually different scenario.
- Whether the respondents are entitled to employment under the alleged agreement.
Subjects
Land acquisitionEmployment clauseFabricated documentLimitation periodWrit petitionSupreme Court remand
Judgment
~ I
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 616
A HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD.
v. -~
BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2869-2876 of 2005)
. MARCH 10, 2008
8
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
Land Acquisition:
Acquisition of land for company - Writ Petition by
c landholders - Claiming employment in the company for one
member of each family - Company disputing the relevant
clause in the agreement as a 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
D 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 a direction to the appellant~
E 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
F 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 a doctored one;
"
and that the petitions were filed with a delay of about 10
years. The High Court ignored the document and, on the
G 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 ·r-
appellant have not been taken note of; more particularly,
.__
H 616
t I
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v. BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & 617
ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
-~ the stand that the purported agreement relied upon was A
a 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 a factually different scenario and reliance
should not have been placed thereupon in a routine B
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 a fabricated document.
Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is set c
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.
D
From the final Order dated 1.4.2004 of the High Court of
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 E
Civil Appeal No. 7424/2005
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. F
y
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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. G
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
H
\ j
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 4 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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,
E 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
F acquired for the plant and the other for the residential colonies.
So far as the land acquired for plant is concerned there was a
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 a para was inserted which did not even bear the
H
( I
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v. BriAGWAN SINGH BHATI & 619
ORS. tDR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
signature of any representative of the company. Though this A
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 B
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. c
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.
D
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 E
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 F
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 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 G
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.
R.P. Appeals allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search