Father’s Undertaking For Cousin’s Hutti Gold Mines Job Defeats Son’s Claim To Acquired-Land Employment: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Company’s endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s claim for employment under the land-loser policy was liable to be quashed.

The court held

The Court held that the Company’s rejection of the petitioner’s employment claim disclosed no error warranting interference.

It also directed

Finding the petition devoid of merit, it dismissed the writ petition.

01Facts

The petitioner’s father owned 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy. No. 42/B, Ooti Village, acquired for the benefit of Hutti Gold Mines Company Limited (HGML).

pp. 3–5

Under HGML’s 2012 Recruitment Rules, eligible land-losers or their family members could be considered for employment.

pp. 3–5

The petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting his employment claim, contending that employment given to his cousin related to land acquired from his uncle.

pp. 3–5

The respondents relied on the petitioner’s father’s affidavit and undertaking requesting that the cousin be given the job and stating that he would not claim employment in respect of the acquired land.

pp. 8–10

The petitioner and his father had earlier obtained an order directing the Company to consider their representations; following consideration, the Company rejected the claim.

pp. 3–5, 8–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Company’s endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s claim for employment under the land-loser policy was liable to be quashed.

pp. 2–3, 8–11

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could claim a separate employment benefit when his father had sought employment for the petitioner’s cousin and undertaken not to claim employment, and the father was named in the acquisition notification for both relevant survey numbers.

pp. 8–12

03Law Applied

The Court applied HGML’s Recruitment Rules, 2012.

pp. 6–8

Under Rule 3(b), a “khatedar” is the owner named in Column 9 of the RTC at the time of the final acquisition notification.

pp. 6–8

Rule 4(B)(i) provides that one job may be considered for the khatedar; Rule 4(C)(1) sets a one-acre minimum, subject to the stated exception for a khatedar whose only livelihood land is less than one acre; and Rule 4(C)(4) limits consideration to one job where a khatedar has more than one acquired survey number.

pp. 6–8

No judicial precedents were cited.

pp. 6–8

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s father was identified as khatedar for Sy. No. 42/B and was also named in the acquisition notification concerning Sy. No. 47/2A.

pp. 7–12

The father’s affidavit and undertaking showed that he had requested employment for his nephew—the petitioner’s cousin—and agreed not to claim employment for himself in respect of the acquired land.

pp. 7–12

The Court considered the Company’s grant of employment to the cousin consistent with that undertaking and the Rules’ one-job limitation.

pp. 7–12

It also rejected the contention that Sy. No. 47/2A belonged solely to the uncle, because the father’s name appeared in the notification for both survey numbers.

pp. 7–12