SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. versus PREM KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 19-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

•. 
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. 
A 
v. 
PREM KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 2006 
[ARIJITPASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition : 
Land totaling 0. 72 decimal acquired-Claim of compensatory c 
appointment on ground of being land loser-Entitlement-Held: Not entitled 
in terms of Guidelines dated 22.12.1984. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 14-Equa/ treatment-11/egality or irregularity committed by 
D 
authority in favour of any individual or group of individuals-Held : Others 
cannot claim favour on the plea of equality-Wrong decision by the 
Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim 
parity or equality. 
Land totaling 0.72 decimal belonging to respondent was acquired. He E 
filed Writ Petition before High Court claiming compensatory appointment 
on the ground that he was a land loser. High Court directed appellant to 
consider his case. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the entitlement to 
employment of a person whose land has been acquired is governed by the F 
guidelines dated 22.12.1984. Since total land acquired in his case is .72 
decimal, he is not entitled to any relief and the High Court should not have 
given the directions as done. 
Respondent No.1 contended that the norms fixed have not been uniformly 
followed and in several cases acquisitions were for lesser extents of land and G 
they have been given employment. Several instances were highlighted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the recommendations and the guidelines 
... 
679 
H 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A dated 22.12.1984 make the position clear that acquired area should be 3 acres 
of non-irrigated land or 2 acres of irrigated land. Because the acquired area 
is much less under the recommendation/guidelines, respondent was not 
entitled to any relief. (683-A-BI 
2. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the 
B Constitution of India, 1950 is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in 
a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any 
illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals, 
others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on the ground of denial 
thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passe,d in favour of one individual 
C does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. His right must be founded 
upon enforceable right to entitle him to the equality treatment for enforcement 
thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce 
the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a 
right. (683-C; 684-F) 
D 
State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Anr., (2000) 9 
sec 94, relied on. 
Gursharan Singh and Ors. v. NDMC and Ors., (19961 2 SCC 459; 
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Dau/at Mal Jain and Ors., 
(199711 SCC 35 and State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, (19971 
E 3 sec 321, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3041 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2004 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in L.P.A. No. 180/2004. 
Jagdeep Dhankar, Aishwarya Bhati and K.S. Bhati for the Appellant. 
K.C. Bajaj, Sandhya Bajaj, Himanshu Bajaj and Sanjeev Malhotra for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of judgment rendered by a Division 
bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench. Background facts 
H leading to filing of the appeal are as follows : 
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. v. PREM KUMAR SHARMA [PASA Y AT, J.) 68 J 
Respondent No. I-Prem Kumar Sharma filed a writ Petition before the A 
High Court claiming appointment on the ground that he was a land loser, High 
Court by its order dated 8.8.2001 directed consideration by the sub-Divisional 
Officer. Since the sub-Divisional officer held that he was entitled to employment, 
a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High 
Court held that since the land of the respondent No. I had been acquired, B 
he was entitled for compensatory appointment. The High Court gave the 
following directions: 
"The petitioner is directed to extend the employment to the son/ 
defendant as the case may be of respondent no,3, within a period of 
twelve months from today, on availability of first vacancy with the C 
petitioner. 
In case no 

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