BUTU PRASAD KUMBHAR AND ORS. versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 30-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 
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 
B 
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 
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] 
F 
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., G 
[

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.