APHC010307692011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NOs: 23204, 23227/2011 and 5366/2012 WRIT PETITION NO: 23204/2011 Between: K. Nagendram, Ysr Dist & 23 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Chairmancummd Jharkhand State 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P SRI HARSHA REDDY 2. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU WRIT PETITION NO: 23227/2011 Between: B.shivarama Krishna, Ysr District & 11 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Chairmancummd Uranium Corp Of India Ltd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU WRIT PETITION NO: 5366/2012 Between: Duggasani Mahendra Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Chairman-cum-managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU The Court made the following Common Order: These writ petitions are filed by the land losers whose land was acquired for setting up a Uranium Plant by the respondents. 2. In all these writ petitions, the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired in the acquisition process, and the petitioners were paid land acquisition compensation. The petitioners claimed that the respondents have denied employment opportunity to the petitioners, even though their lands were acquired, and which the respondents had assured that the family members of the displaced persons on account of acquisition of land would be provided employment. Since the petitioners were under fond hope of getting employment in a Company of National importance, they 3 did not resist the acquisition of their lands, even though their livelihoods were at stake. 3. In all these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is common, and all the petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of employment opportunities. As such, a common order is passed in these writ petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have passed the awards of compensation in the year 2007 and have also issued proceedings calling upon the petitioners to appear along with the relevant documents such as the Pattadar Pass Book, Agreement Paper, Partition Deed, Encumbrance Certificate, Ration Card, Voter Identity Card, Nativity Certificate, and any other documents related to the land acquired by the respondents for verification. It is further submitted that the names of the petitioners also figured in the list of land losers who were called upon to submit these documents. 5. It is also submitted that the respondents have chosen to offer employment to a few members on the list but have denied offering jobs to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have lost both their lands and their livelihoods, and their efforts to secure employment have not yielded any results. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not denied the acquisition of land, and it is not in dispute that the 4 petitioners were paid compensation. However, the respondents exhibited a different yardstick to different land losers while extending the offer of employment in the respondent corporation. It is further submitted that the petitioners ought to have been offered the same jobs as those offered to other land losers. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the land acquisition process was initiated in the year November 2005. The respondents have acquired 2200 acres of land for setting up a plant for the Uranium Corporation of India Limited, a Government of India enterprise under the Department of Atomic Energy. It is further submitted that soon after the issuance of the notification for land acquisition, the petitioners have approached various landlords of Middipentla Village and Velpula Village, both located in Vemula Mandal of Kadapa District, and acquired a portion of land from the landlords. None of the petitioners are residents of Middipentla Village or Velpula Village. 8. The petitioners have acquired portions of the land from the landlords and started claiming the benefit of employment. The petitioners from neighboring districts also acquired lands after having come to know that the respondents were offering the jobs to the land losers. However, the petitioners were neither eking out their livelihood by cultivating the land nor raising crops. The respondents have accommodated and offered jobs to all the genuine land losers, and those who have been employed by the respondent corporation are continuing in employment to this day. Insofar 5 as, the petitioners are concerned, the respondents have considered their cases on par with other land losers and concluded that all the petitioners have acquired land only after the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings. The motive behind acquiring lands that were already under proposal for acquisition, and acquiring only a portion of the land is to encash on the offer of jobs, was not considered by the respondents. 9. It is also submitted that the respondents have meticulously verified the Revenue Records, Title Deeds, Adangals, and Form-IB, and the petitioners did not come under the category of land losers eligible for the offering of jobs. As on the date of initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners’ names were not even reflected in the Revenue Records. It is submitted that all the petitioners had been adequately compensated monetarily for the acquisition of their lands. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Perused the record. 12. Evidently all the petitioners have acquired lands after 04.11.2005 i.e., the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings. As on the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings, none of the petitioners owned any lands in the villages where the proposed acquisition was scheduled. The Revenue Records were also updated much after their acquisition, and as such, the petitioners were found not eligible for the offer of jobs under the 6 land losers category. The denial of jobs to the petitioners by the respondents also cannot be found fault with by this Court, as none of the petitioners were admittedly eking out their livelihood by cultivating the lands which were acquired by the respondents. It is also curious to note that the petitioners have acquired lands as small as Ac.0.12 cents to lands less than Ac.2.00. Most of the sale transactions among the petitioners and the villagers took place for an extent of Ac.1.00 or less. All the sale deeds were also executed after 04.11.2005, and some of the sale transactions took place on 01.10.2007. The acquisition of land by the petitioners commenced from December 2005 onwards. 13. The scheme of offering jobs to land losers in the process of acquisition of land for establishing any industry is a novel Project, which is introduced to ensure that the villagers, who have been eking out their livelihood by cultivating the said lands, are protected, and the families of the land losers do not suffer on account of such acquisition of land. Jobs are offered to such families and the dependents of the said families to ensure that their right to livelihood is not disrupted. The attempt of the petitioners to gain employment by acquiring portions of the lands after the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings was rightly not considered by the respondents, as the motive behind the acquisition of those lands is evidently established. The petitioners do not fall under the category of land losers for being eligible for providing employment by the 7 respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ lands have been acquired and the petitioners have been paid adequate compensation. 14. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 30.01.2025 PNS