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

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

The right to livelihood under Article 21 is not violated if the displaced persons by land acquisition were paid compensation and at least one member per family was provided employment as a matter of government policy. There is no constitutional or legal obligation to provide employment to every member or descendant of a displaced family, and claims to that effect are not maintainable. An inordinate delay of 35 years and provision of employment to more than the number of families affected supports dismissal of the petition.

Parties
Petitioners: Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others; Respondents: Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others; Respondents: Respondent No. 3 & 4; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 167 of 1992 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court of India Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Land Acquisition, Fundamental Rights, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Right to Livelihood, Article 21, Article 14, Promissory Estoppel
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Land Acquisition Fundamental Rights Rehabilitation and Resettlement Right to Livelihood Article 21 Article 14 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Others

Petitioners

Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others

Respondents

Respondent No. 3 & 4

Respondents

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 167 of 1992 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Supreme Court of India Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are bound to give employment to all erstwhile residents and their descendants displaced by the Rourkela Steel Plant land acquisition, or treat them preferentially for employment under Article 21.
  2. 2 Whether claim for employment of all members of displaced families and their descendants is maintainable under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to livelihood under Article 21 is not violated if the displaced persons by land acquisition were paid compensation and at least one member per family was provided employment as a matter of government policy. There is no constitutional or legal obligation to provide employment to every member or descendant of a displaced family, and claims to that effect are not maintainable. An inordinate delay of 35 years and provision of employment to more than the number of families affected supports dismissal of the petition.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed subject to observations regarding 247 identified persons eligible for employment per the respondent's scheme; Steel Authority of India Ltd. to expedite absorption of these persons by increasing their intake from 20% to 40% each year.
  • No order as to costs.