HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. versus BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 10-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
I 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 616 
A 
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. 
v. 
-~ 
BHAGWAN SINGH BHATI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2869-2876 of 2005) 
8 
. MARCH 10, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition: 
c 
Acquisition of land for company -
Writ Petition by 
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 
E before the High Court seeking a direction to the appellant~ 
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 
F 
acquired for establishment of the plant and not in the 
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. 
From the final Order dated 1.4.2004 of the High Court of D 
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. 7 424/2005 
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. 
D 
4. Stand of the present appellant was that there was no 
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 w

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