Harsh Kumar Sharma v. National Thermal Power Corporation

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2344 of 2019 Harsh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kush Kumar Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar Lig 2, Tifra Bilaspur Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. National Thermal Power Corporation Through The General Manager, Ntpc Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Sub Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, GA For Respondent/s :

Mr. B. D. Guru, Adovate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/04/2019

1. The claim of the petitioner for grant of employment against the land belonging to the petitioners family which has been acquired by the respondent No. 1.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that the land belonging to the petitioner's father totalling 0.15 acres constituted Khasra No. 1060/2 & 1062/4 was acquired by the respondent No. 1 way back in the year 1999. According to the petitioner initially the father of the petitioner has applied for grant of employment as a Land oustee which was never decided by the respondent and pending the claim of the father

of the petitioner, subsequently has moved his application for employment instead of his father's in the year 2008 and which again has not yet been decided by the respondent.

3. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No. 1 is directed to scrutinise the claim of the petitioner so far as his claim for grant of employment against his land being acquired and on due scrutinising of all the papers if the petitioner is entitled for the benefit, appropriate orders be passed promptly and if the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit as has been claimed by him, respondent No. 1 would intimate the petitioner as to why he is not entitled for the same.

4. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition stands accordingly disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit