Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Prabhat Kumar Jha, J. dismissed a civil writ petition claiming employment in lieu of acquisition of land on the ground that there was no policy of the Indian Railways for the same.

The instant petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant appointment to the petitioner in Group-C or Group-D post in the East Central Railway as per her educational qualification since her land had been acquired for construction of Neura Daniyama rail line.

The Court noted that petitioner was granted a compensation of Rs 5,26,687.92 after acquisition of her land. She never raised any objection or filed any petition before the concerned authority for providing her a job. Also, she had moved this court after long delay of more than ten years from the date of acquisition of her land without any plausible explanation. 

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 where it was held that petitioner has no fundamental right to claim job in lieu of acquisition of his land for the purpose of completion of project, besides compensation for acquisition of the land. Admittedly, there was no policy for providing employment to the landlord whose lands had been acquired for completion of the aforesaid rail line project. In view thereof, it was held that the petitioner could not claim employment in lieu of acquisition of her land as a matter of right.[Neera Devi v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2328, decided on 05-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: In the instant case where question was raised upon the legality of the acquisition of State Bank of Travancore (SBT) by the State Bank of India (SBI), the Division Bench of Navaniti Prasad Singh,C.J. and Antony Dominic, J. held that the law of meeting is well settled on points as to where the decision of the Board of Directors is to be taken, except otherwise provided, a majority decision would be considered the ultimate decision of the Board of Directors. The Court observed that since the dissent by the two directors as to the acquisition of SBT by SBI were in gross minority, therefore it would not vitiate the ultimate decision of the Board of Directors who were in the favour of the process of acquisition.

Petitioners in the instant case contended that the SBT was created by an Act of Parliament i.e. The State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, thus, banking business of the SBT could not be taken over/ acquired by the SBI and only Parliament could have authorised such acquisition. However the Court rejected the argument stating that it is wrong to state and submit that the creation of the SBT under the 1959 Act meant that was a bank created by  Parliament. Moreover Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 authorises SBI to acquire business of any other Banks subject to conditions laid down in the Act.

Perusing the facts of the case and relevant statutory provisions the Court observed that the SBT was created as subsidiary of the SBI under the SBI Act, 1955. It was further observed that reports regarding the acquisition were placed before the Board of Directors of both the Banks and the scheme was approved by the Central government which thereby leaves no room for the Court to interfere in the matter. Thus, on the basis of all the arguments, the Court was unable to find any merit in the writ petitions and dismissed it. [Save SBT Forum v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 1257, decided on 23.03.2017]