रजिस्ट्री सं०डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
सममेव जयते
REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 31 ]
नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 24-जुलाई 30 , 2005 , शनिवार/ श्रावण 2- श्रावण 8 , 1927
No. 31 ]
NEW DELHI, JULY 24-JULY 30, 2005 , SATURDAY/SRAVANA 2-SRAVANA 8, 1927
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii ) PART II- Section 3-Sub- section ( ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2005 (आयकर )
का.आ. 2641.- एतद्वारा सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि नीचे दर्शाये गए संगठन को निर्धारित प्राधिकारी द्वारा आयकर नियमावली के नियम 6 के अंतर्गत आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ संस्था की श्रेणी के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है :-
1. यह संगठन अपने अनुसंधान कार्य - कलापों के लिए अलग बही-खाते रखेगा ।
2. प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए प्रति वर्ष 31 मई, को सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग, टैक्नोलॉजी भवन, न्यूमहरौली रोड़, नई दिल्ली-16 को अपने अनुसंधान कार्य-कलापों को वार्षिक आयकर विवरणी में प्रस्तुत करेगा ।
3.. यह आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा (1 ) के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गयी छूट एवं अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों और वार्षिक 'खातों एवं संदर्भित आय- व्यय को 2149 GI/ 2005
अपने क्षेत्राधिकार वाले आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) , सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग एवं आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के समक्ष प्रतिवर्ष 31 अक्टूबर को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।
संगठन का नाम
सेंटर फार रिसर्च इन रूरल एंड इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट, सेक्टर -19ए, मध्य मार्ग , चंडीगढ़ -160019
यह अधिसूचना दिनांक 1-4-1998 से 31-3-2001 तक के लिए प्रभावी है ।
नोट :
(1 ) संगठन उपरोक्त शर्त ( 1 ) का प्रयोग संस्था के रूप में नहींकरेगा ।
( 2) संगठन को सलाह दी जाती है कि वह अनुमोदन का समय बढ़ानेके लिए अपने क्षेत्राधिकार वाले आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) , आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के समक्ष एडवांस में तीन प्रतियों में आवेदन करे एवं उसे सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे 6 प्रतियों में अपना आवेदन भेजना चाहिए । [सं. 302/फा. सं. आ.म.नि. ( छूट) /पी-2/35( 1 ) ( iii )/89- आई टी ( ई ) ] नानक चन्द, आयकर अधिकारी ( छूट)
(8291) 8292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue) New Delhi , the 18th July, 2005
(INCOME TAX)
S.O. 2641. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization mentioned below has been approved by the prescribed authority under Rule 6 ofthe Income Tax Rules , for the purposes of clause ( iii) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 under the category " Institution " subject to following conditions :-
1. Theorganisation will maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities .
2. It will furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research " Technology Bhawan " , New Mehrauli Road , New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year by 31st May of each year ; and 3. It will submit to the ( a) Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) , ( b ) Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , and (c) Commissioner of Income-tax/Director ofIncome Tax (Exemption) , having jurisdiction over the organization, by the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income and Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of Income Tax Act , 1961 .
Name of the Organisation
Central for Research in Rural and Industrial Development, Sector- 19A, Madhya Marg , Chandigarh - 160019 .
This notification is effective for the period from 1-04-98 to 31-3-2001 ,
Notes:
(1) Condition ( 1 ) above will not apply to organization categorized as association .
(2) The organization is advised to apply in triplicate and well in advance for further extension of the approval , to the Director General of Income Tax (Exemption ) , New Delhi through the Commissioner of Income Tax/The Director of Income Tax (Exemption ) having jurisdiction over the organization . Six copies ofthe application for extension of approval should be sent directly to the Secretary. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.
[No. 302/F. No. DGIT (E) /P - 2/35 ( 1 ) ( iii )/89 - IT (E) ] NANAK CHAND, Income Tax Officer ( Exemption)
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )] ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2642.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना, 1970 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा १ की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड ( ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , वित्त मंत्रालय, आर्थिक कार्य विभाग, बैंकिंग प्रभाग की निदेशक सुश्री पी. बोलिना को तत्काल प्रभाव से एवं अगला आदेश होने तक, श्री सुभाष गर्ग के स्थान पर बैंक आफ महाराष्ट्र के निदेशक मंडल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[फा. सं. 9/11/2004-बी ओ- [ ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division ) New Delhi , the 20th July, 2005
S.O. 2642. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub - section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1970 , read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970. The Central Government . hereby nominates Ms. P. Bolina , Director, Ministry of Finance , Department of Economic Affairs , Banking Division as a Director on the Board ofDirectors ofBank of Maharashtra with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Subhash Garg.
[F. No. 9 / 11 /2004-Β.Ο.Ι ] G. B. SINGH , Under Secy.
सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2643.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 15 जून , 2005 , 20 जून , 2005 और 21 जून 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचनाओं के अनुसरण में और चलचित्रकी (प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, श्री जयमोन अयारकुन्नम, श्रेयास- टी.सी . 17/1795 ( 2 ) नेताजी लाइन, पुरा -22 बी तिरुवनंतपुरम को दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं . 809/9/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] पी.पी. नायर, डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
S.O. 2643. In continuation of this Ministry's notifications of even number dated 15th June , 2005 , 2oth June , 2005 and 21st June, 2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Jaimon [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Ayarkunnam . Shreyas - TC - 17 / 1795 ( 2 ) , Nethaji Line , Pura - 22B , Thiruvananthapuram , as member of the Thiruvananthapuram Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier, [F. No. 809/9/2004- F (C) ] P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005 का.आ. 2644.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 4 फरवरी , 2004 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अधिक्रमण और चलचित्रकी ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा पदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बंगलौर सलाहकार पैनल का गठन करती है और निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , उपर्युक्त पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव से नियुक्त करती है ।
1. शिवरामा क्रिश्ता
2. कोटिगनहल्ली रमैय्या
3. प्रमिला जोशी
4. अंकलिगी
5. एस. नारायण स्वामी
6. वाई. आर. जयराज
7. प्रो. ए. श्रीधर
8. जी. वेणु यादव
9. पद्मा श्रीनिवास
10. वी. ई . श्रीनिवास
11. एम. एस . रत्नाकर
12. हेमलता
13. टी. अमरनाथ
14. ए. एस . जयसिम्हा
15. सरोजा तुलसीदास
16. एम . ए. पाशा
17. आर. आशा
18. श्रीलता
बी. ई . श्रीदेवी
19.
20. राधा वेंकटेश
21. निर्मला जयराम
22. के. जी. सुब्रमण्यस्वामी
23 . मन्जुला राज
24. के. कृष्णअप्पा
25. गिरीजा महेशन
26. डा. देवाकटाक्षम गिडीयोन
27. ज्योति प्रसाद हेगड़े
28. महेन्द्र
29. एम.डी. पलब्वी
30. नागालक्ष्मी बाई
31. नहीद अताउल्लाह
32. टी.एन. सीताराम
8293
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
33. डा. सिद्धालिंगैय्या
34. प्रो. के. मरूअल सिद्धप्पा
35. प्रफुल्ला मधुकर
36. वाई . एच. विजय कुमार
37. टी. सुजाया लक्ष्मी अरसु
38. शैलजा रमेश
39. डा. गिरीजा महेशन
40. बसवराज उल्लगद्दी
41. डा. गायत्री कुर्तकोटी
42. सुजाता प्रदीप पाई
43. यशोधम्मा
44. मोहम्मद शफीउल्लाह
[फा. सं. 809/5/2004- एफ ( सी) ] पी.पी. नायर, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
S.O. 2644. In supersession of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 4th February, 2004 and exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematography ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to constitute the Eangalore advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification and to appoint the following persons as members of the said panel with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever isearlier.
1. Shivarama Krishta
2.. Kotiganahalli Romaiah
3. Pramila Joshey
4. Ankaligi
5 S. Narayana Swany
6 Y.R. Jairaj
7. Prof. A. Sridhar
& G. Venu Yadav
9. Padma Srinivas
10. V.E. Srinivas
11 . M.S. Ratnakar
12. Hemalatha
13 . T. Amarnath
14. A.S. Jayasimha
15. Saroja Tulsidas
16. M.A. Pasha
17 . R. Asha
18 . Sreelalitha
19. BÉ. Sridevi
20. Radha Venkatesh
21. Nirmala Jayaram
22. K. G. Subramanyaswamy
23 . Manjula Raj
24. K. Krishnappa
25. Girija Maheshan
26. Dr. Devakataksham Gideon
27. Jyothi Prasad Hegde
28. Mahender
29. M.D. Pallavi 8294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
30. Nagalakshmi Bai
31. Naheed Athaulla
32. T.N. Seetharam
33 . Dr. Sidhalingaiah
34. Prof. K. Marual Siddappa
35. Prafulla Madhukar
36. V. H. Vijay Kumar
37. T. Sujayalakshmi Arasu
38. Shylaja Ramesh
39. Dr. Girija Mahesan
40. Basavaraj Ullagaddi
41. Dr. Gayatri Kurtakoti
42. Sujatha Pradeep Pai
43. Yashodhamma
44. Mohammed Shafiulla
[F. No. 809/5/2004-F(C) ] P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2645.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी , 2005 , 7 जून , 2005 और 27 जून, 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचनाओं के अनुसरण में और चलचित्रकी ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, निम्नलिखित को दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : - 1 . श्री एस. एम. पलानिप्पन, 5/6 ए, अम्मान सन्नठी स्ट्रीट, किलासवालपट्टी, तिरुपतूर तालुक, सावागंगल जिला, तमिलनाडु ।
2. श्री एस. सुरेश, 23 , सर्वोदय नगर, नया इलिस नगर, मदुरई , तमिलनाडु ।
3. श्री.एम. कुमारेसन, 24, देवेन्तरपुरम, सालेम, तमिलनाडु ।
[फा. सं. 809/4/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] पी.पी. नायर, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
S.O. 2645. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 5th February, 2005, 7th June. 2005 and 27th June, 2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following as
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] members of the Chennai advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier:-
3 1. Shri S. M. Palanippan, 5/ 6A , Amman Sannathi Street , Kilaslvalpatti , Tirupattur Taluk, Savagangal Distt .. Tamil Nadu.
2. Shri S. Suresh , 23, Sarvodaya Nagar, New Ellis Nagar, Madurai , TamilNadu.
3. Shri M. Kumaresan , 24, Deventrapuram , Salem, Tamil Nadu .
[F. No. 809/4/2004 - F(C) ] P. P. NAIR , Desk Officer
वस्त्र मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2646-केन्दीय रेशम बोर्ड अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 61 ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अध्यधीन इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के सदस्यों के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों का नामांकन अधिसूचित करती है ।
उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4(3) (जे ) के अंतर्गत केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा नामित
1 बदरूद्दीन अंसारी , जे 3/50-51 , कटेहर (पीली कोठी ) , वाराणसी, उत्तर प्रदेश -221001
[फा. सं. 25012/56/99 -रेशम ] बसंत प्रताप सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF TEXTILES New Delhi , the 21st July, 2005
S.O. 2646. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub -section ( 3 ) of Section 4 of the Central Silk BoardAct, 1948 (61 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby notifies the nomination of the following persons to serve as members of the Central Silk Board for a period of three years from the date of this notification subject to the provisions of the said Act .
1. Shri Badruddin Ansari . J3/50-51, Katehar (Pilikothi) Varanasi , Uttar Pradesh - 221001 .
Nominated by the , Central Government under Section 4(3 ) (j ) of theAct .
[F. No. 25012/56/99 -Silk ] BASANT PRATAP SINGH . Jt . Secy.
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2005 .
का. आ. 2647.-मानक निर्धारण गतिविधियों में संलग्न सभी संबंधितों के लिए आचार संहिता
प्रस्तावना
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( भा मा ब्यूरो ) , भारत सरकार का राष्ट्रीय मानक निकाय पारदर्शी और सर्वसम्मति आधारित प्रक्रिया के माध्यम से राष्ट्रीय मानकों के विकास और प्रकाशन के कार्य में कार्यरत है । यह प्रक्रिया वाणिज्य, सरकार और समाज के सामने आने वाली चुनौतियों कासामना करने के लिए विश्वसनीय , अनुकूलतम और नवीनतम समाधान प्रदान करती है ।
आचार संहिता
मानक निर्धारण गतिविधियों में कार्यरत भा मा ब्यूरो के अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों तथा व्यापार, सरकार और समाज में मानक निर्धारण गतिविधियों से संबंधित सभी व्यक्ति, जो वाणिज्य हेतु समाधान प्रदान करते हैं, उन्होंने यह महसूस किया कि सभी रूचि रखने वाले पक्षों और आम जनता का विश्वास हासिल करने के लिए ये गतिविधियाँ नैतिक और पारदर्शी रूप से आयोजित करनी आवश्यक हैं । भा मा ब्यूरो सचिवालय सहित तकनीकी समिति और विभाग परिषद् के प्रत्येक सदस्य से यह आशा की जाती है कि वह इस आचार संहिता के अनुसार कार्य करे और भा मा ब्यूरो के हित में मानकीकरण प्रक्रिया में पूर्ण रूप से भाग ले । तकनीकी समितियों और सचिवालय के सदस्यों के लिए आवश्यक है किवे सचेत रहें, जिससे विश्व में तेजी से हो रहे प्रौद्योगिकीय विकास के फलस्वरूप समय रहते मानकों को अद्यतन किया जा सके , ताकि उपभोक्ता, उद्योग और राष्ट्र की प्राथमिकताओं को पूरा किया जा सके । हितोंके टकराव से बचाव के लिए भा मा ब्यूरो के सभी अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों तथा विभिन्न तकनीकी समितियों के सदस्यों को निम्नलिखित के द्वारा सभी स्टेकहोल्डर को स्वीकार्य राष्ट्रीय मानकों का विकास/अद्यतन करने के लिए प्रतिबद्ध रहना चाहिए:
इनपुट समय से और प्रभावशाली तरीके से आयोजित करना, राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर सभी संबंधित हितों का ध्यान रखना;
उपभोक्ताओं और समाज में शामिल अन्य पक्षों की सहभागिता को सुविधाजनक बनाने के लिए उपयुक्त उपाय करना;
उचित रीति और परिश्रमपूर्वक मानक निर्धारण' के लिए भा मा ब्यूरो द्वारा प्राधिकृत प्रक्रिया का दृढ़ता से पालन करना;
नएमानाकों के विकास और उनको अद्यतन करने के लिए बाजार की आवश्यकताओं और उपभोक्ता हितों को सुनिश्चत करना;
निर्धारित समय अवधिमें समिति के कार्य से संबंधित जिम्मेदारी पूरी करना;
समितियों के विचार -विमर्श और निर्णय को आत्मविश्वासपूर्ण
8295 और गोपनीयता से पर्यवेक्षित करना;
मानकीकरण की प्रक्रिया में काम कर रहे भा मा ब्यूरो के सभी अधिकारियों और तकनीकी समितियों के सदस्यों को आचार संहिता प्रदर्शित करनी चाहिए, क्योंकि इसका पालन न करने पर सदस्यता समाप्त हो सकती है ( अनुबंध 1 , मद 4);
भा मा ब्यूरो के सभी अधिकारियों और तकनीकी समितियों के सदस्यों को अनुबंध 1 के मद 5 में दिए सामूहिक उत्तरदायित्व के सिद्धांत का दृढ़ता से पालन करना चाहिए, क्योंकि इसका पालन न करने पर सदस्यता समाप्त की जा सकती है । भामा ब्यूरो के नाम और सत्यनिष्ठा की रक्षा करने के लिए सभी भा मा ब्यूरो अधिकारियों , कर्मचारियों और विभिन्न तकनीकी समितियों के सदस्य यह करें:
तकनीकी समितियों के कार्य के लिए नियुक्त अथवा नामित होने पर जब कार्य कर रहे हों, तब भा मा ब्यूरो की तरफ से अथवा इसके हित में पूरी तरह कार्य करें;
जब कापीराइट द्वारा संरक्षित भा मा ब्यूरो प्रकाशनों का पुनः उत्पादन अथवा वितरण किया जाए, तब भा मा ब्यूरो द्वारा निर्णित स्थितियों को लागू करना;
भा मा ब्यूरो प्रकाशनों की सामग्री की किसी भी रूप से अप्राधिकृत बिक्री/उपयोग को रोकना तथा भा मा ब्यूरो के नाम, मार्क और लोगों के उचित प्रयोग को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए सभी उपयुक्त कार्रवाई करना और उनको बनाने के लिए उपयुक्त प्रयत्न करना ।
अनुबंध 1
भामा ब्यूरो समितियों के तकनीकी समिति सदस्यों के चयन के लिए मार्गदर्शिका
( 1 ) सदस्यता-ब्यूरो की तकनीकी समिति का सदस्य सरकार में कार्यरत व्यक्ति, विशेषज्ञ, व्यावसायिक, संबंधित व्यक्ति, सार्वजनिक प्रतिनिधि, व्यावसायिक, स्वैच्छिक संगठन का प्रतिनिधि, क्षेत्र स्तर पर स्वैच्छिक संगठन का प्रतिनिधि, सरकार/उद्योग/वीसीओ/वैज्ञानिक/संगठन/विश्वविद्यालय में कार्यरत स्वैच्छिक संगठन का प्रतिनिधि हो, जिसकी सदस्यता अधिकतम कार्य अवधियों अर्थात् छः वर्ष हो सकती है । भा माब्यूरो तकनीकी समिति में कोई व्यक्ति सरकारी/विशेषज्ञ/ व्यावसायिक प्रतिनिधि के रूप में भा मा ब्यूरा अधिनियम 1986 के अंतर्गत भारतीय मानकों के निर्धारण के लिए स्वैच्छिक रूप से भाग ले सकता है , जिससे बिना किसी व्यक्तिगत वित्तीय लाभ अथवा अन्य प्रकार के लाभ के राष्ट्रीय/ सामुदायिक लाभ हो सके ।
इस प्रयोजन के लिए निम्नलिखित परिभाषाएँ लागू होंगीः ( 1) अधिकारी : वह व्यक्ति, जो वर्तमान में केन्द्रीय, राज्य अथवा स्थानीय स्तर पर सरकारी स्तर का व्यक्तिहो । विश्वविद्यालय/ 8296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
स्वायत निकायों में अध्यापक हो और केन्द्रीय या राज्य सरकारी संस्थाओं अथवा भारत सरकार के अन्य स्वायत संस्थाओं में अधिकारी हो ।
व्यावसायिक : वह व्यक्ति, जिसको संबंधित क्षेत्र में विश्वविद्यालय से कम से कम 5 वर्ष का प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त हो तथा स्नातक, इंजीनियरी डिग्री अथवा विज्ञान में स्नातकोत्तर डिग्री और इस क्षेत्र में कम से कम 5 वर्ष का प्रशिक्षण और अनुभवहो।
विशेषज्ञ : विशेषज्ञ व्यावसायिक होता है जिसको इस क्षेत्र में कमसे कम 15 वर्ष का संबद्ध अनुभव अथवा संबद्ध क्षेत्र में एडवांसडिग्री ( उदाहरणार्थ पीएचडी ) और कम से कम 10 वर्ष का संबद्ध अनुभव रखने वाला व्यावसायिक । संबंधित व्यक्ति: संबंधित व्यक्ति वह व्यक्ति है जो इस क्षेत्र में व्यावसायिक तो नहीं है , परंतु इस क्षेत्र में कम से कम 5 वर्षों से इस विषय में निरंतर अपनी रुचि प्रदर्शित की हो । सार्वजनिक प्रतिनिधि: सार्वजनिक प्रतिनिधि वह गैर- सरकारी व्यक्तिहै , जो वर्तमान में संसद, राज्य विधानमण्डल अथवा शहरी या ग्रामीण स्थानीय निकायों में विधायी रूप से चुना गयाहो।
व्यावसायिक स्वैच्छिक संगठन स्वैच्छिक संगठन वह संगठन है जो बिना किसी व्यक्तिगत , वित्तीय लाभ अथवा अन्य किसी लाभ की इच्छा के मुख्यतः स्वैच्छिक सेवाओं, विशेषकर गैरलाभ भोगी आधार पर कार्यरत है । व्यक्तियों की जीविका अन्य किसी जगह से अथवा अन्य गतिविधियों में संलग्न होने से होती है । इसलिए स्वैच्छिक संगठन की परिभाषा व्यक्तियों के संघ ( क ) संगठन की स्थापना और स्वैच्छिक कार्रवाई के कार्य को सुविधाजनक बनाना; अथवा ( ख) इसकी नियमित गतिविधियों के अतिरिक्त इस प्रकार के कार्य का उत्तरदायित्व लेना है ।
व्यावसायिक स्वैच्छिक संगठन निरंतर विकास के विषयों पर व्यवसायों को विभिन्न सेवाएं प्रदान करते हैं, जिसमें अनुसंधान, समुदाय , अन्य संस्थाओं अथवा सरकारी एजेंसी शामिल हैं । फील्ड स्तर पर व्यावसायिक स्वैच्छिक संगठन के प्रतिनिधि : स्वैच्छिक संगठन वह संगठन है , जो इस क्षेत्र में विभिन्न दीर्घकालीन विकास कार्यक्रमों के कार्यान्वयन में आरंभ से कार्यरत है तथा जो कुछ व्यावसायिक इनपुट की अपेक्षा रखते हैं अथवा नहीं रखते हैं ।
सक्रिय स्वैच्छिक संगठन प्रतिनिधि वह स्वैच्छिक संगठन जो सार्वजनिक जागरूकता बढ़ाने और हस्तक्षेप, विशेषकर दीर्घकालीन विकास मुद्दों पर नीति या न्यायिक हस्तक्षेप के लिए बल देता है । इस प्रकार की गतिविधियां विभिन्न व्यावसायिकों की सेवा की अपेक्षा रखती है या नहीं भी रखती । ( 2) कूलिंग समय: कोई व्यक्ति 3 वर्ष की कूलिंग अवधि प्रारंभ होने से पहले अधिकतम दो कार्यवधियों के लिए कार्य कर सकता है इस अपेक्षा में तभी छूट दी जा सकती है , जब इस
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] क्षेत्र में अन्य उपयुक्त योग्य व्यक्ति देश में उपलब्ध न हो । भारत सरकार के पदाधिकारी के लिए छूट दी जा सकती है । ( 3 ) बहुसदस्यता: भा मा ब्यूरो की एक से अधिक तकनीकी समितियों में किसी व्यक्ति को नामित किया जा सकता है या प्रतिनिधित्व दिया जा सकता है , यदि उसके पास अपेक्षित विशेषज्ञता हो ।
(4) रुचि का खुलासा करना चूँकि समिति में प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले सभी स्टेकहोल्डर का उस विषय से संबंधित किसी प्रत्यक्ष अथवा अप्रत्यक्ष रुचि से सामान्यतया सदस्यता पर रोक नहीं होनी चाहिए, जब तक कि ऐसी रुचि न हो जिससे संबंधित समितिमें यौक्तिक विचार- विर्मश न हो सके। इसलिए भूतकाल अथवा वर्तमान में रुचि का खुलासा समिति की नियुक्तिके समय शर्त है , जिससे पूर्ण पारदर्शिता सुनिश्चित होसके ।
( 5 ) रोक लगना/निकालना किसी व्यक्ति को तकनीकी समिति में सदस्यता से रोका जा सकता है जब वह किसी कारणवश आचार संहिता ( अनुबंध ' क' ) का पालन न कर सके अथवा सामूहिक उत्तरदायित्व के सिद्धांतों का पालन न कर सके । यह स्पष्ट है कि विभिन्न निकायों के सदस्य सामूहिक उत्तरदायित्व की अपेक्षा के अंतर्गत कार्य करेंगे । तदनुसार जब सदस्यों को निकायों के मौखिक अथवा लिखित विचार- विमर्श के दौरान अपने विचार रखने की पूर्ण स्वतन्त्रता है , जब वे वोट द्वारा अथवा अध्यक्ष के निर्णय द्वारा सर्वसम्मति से निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचते, तो इसका पालन होना चाहिए । निकाय की कार्यवाही में असहमति के नोट को रिकार्ड करने से सदस्य व्यक्ति को इस सिद्धांत के प्रभाव से छूट नहीं मिल सकती है । अगर कोई सदस्य बाद में सार्वजनिक वक्तव्य अथवा कानूनी कार्रवाही या अन्य महत्वपूर्ण कार्रवाई के माध्यम से समिति के निष्कर्ष को विफल करने की कोशिश करता है , जिस समिति में वह कार्य कर रहा है , तो भविष्य में भा मा ब्यूरो अधिदेश से तत्संबंधी अथवा उसके द्वारा निर्मित किसी अन्य समिति की सदस्यता से उसे स्थायी रूप से रोक दिया जाता है ।
(6 ) चयन की कार्यप्रणाली : यह भा मा ब्यूरो नियम और मानक निर्धारण मैनुअल में दी चयन की प्रक्रिया के अनुसार होगी ।
[सं. डी.डी.जी.टी./67/जी एन ] एस. दास गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ', उप महानिदेशक ( तकनीकी-1 ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 20th July, 2005
S. O. 2647. Code of Ethics for all concerned engaged in standard formulation activities
Preamble
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) , the National Standards Body of India is engaged in development and publication ofnational standards through transparent and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
consensus based processes . This process provides realistic, optimum and state of art solutions for meeting the challenges faced by the business , Government and the society.
Code ofEthics
As a provider of solution to business , Government and the society all concerned including BIS officers and staff engaged in standard formulation activity recognize that it is imperative to conduct activities in an ethical and transparent manner to acquire the confidence of all interested parties and of general public . Each member of the technical committee and the Division Council iricluding BIS secretariat are expected to act in accordance with this Code ofEthics and in the interest of BIS , as a whole while participating the standardization process. Members of the technical committees and secretariat are essentially required to demonstrate - alertness to up-date the standards in time due to rapid technological advancement in the word to meetpriorities of consumers , industries and the nation .
To avoid conflicts of interest , all officers and staff of BIS and the members of various technical committees are committed to develop/up-date national standards acceptable to all stakeholders by :
-Organizing inputs in a timely and effective manner, taking into account all relevant interests at national level:
-Taking appropriate measures to facilitate the participation of consumers and other involved partics of civil society;
-Strictly adhering to BIS authorized procedures for standard formulation properly and diligently ;
-Ensuring that market needs and consumer interests are the driver for the development of. new standards and its up-dation:
-Performing their assigned duties in connection with functioning of the committee , within stipulated time period :
-Observing confidentiality and secrecy of deliberations and decisions of the committees;
-All BIS officials and members of the Technical Committees should demonstrate code of ethics while involved in the standardization process as non - adherence of the same could lead to debarring of membership ( Annex I , Item 4) .
-AJI BIS officials and members of the Technical Committees should strictly follow the Principle of Collective Responsibility as given under Item 5 of Annex 1 , as non - adherence of the same could lead to debarring of membership .
To Establish Solidarity to Protect BIS Name and Interity, all BIS officers , staff and the members of the various technical committees shall :
-Act on behalf of and in the interest of BIS as a whole, when serving by appointment or by
8297 nomination for functioning in the technical committees;
-Apply conditions decided by BIS when reproducing or distributing BIS publications protected by copyright;
-Make their best efforts and take all appropriate action to ensure the proper use of the BIS name, mark and logo and to prevent unauthorized sale/ use in any form of the text of BIS publication.
ANNEX I
Guidelines for Selection of Technical Committee Members on BIS Committees
(1) Membership : A member of BIS Technical Committee may be an official , expert , professional , concerned person, public representative , professional voluntary organization representative , filed level voluntary organization representative , activist voluntary organization representative from Government/ Industry /VCOs/Scientific Organizations/Universities for a maximum of two tenures i.e. six years . A person shall be on the BIS Technical Committee as a representative official/ expert/ professional in a voluntary capacity for the preparation of Indian Standard under BIS Act, 1986 for the benefit of the nation/community without any personal , financial ormaterial returns .
For the purpose , the following definitions would apply:
Official : A person who is currently a holder of a Government position at Central , State or Local level , persons holding faculty positions in Universities/ AutonomousBodies and persons holding Scientific positions in Central or State Government Institutions orother Autonomous Institutions of the Government ofIndia.
Professional : A person having at least 5 years of formal University training in the concerned discipline leading to a graduate , engineering degree or a post graduate degree in sciences and with at least 5 years oftraining and experience in the field.
Expert : An expert is a professional with at least 15 years of relevant experience in the field, or a professional with an advanced degree ( e.g. Ph. D.) in a concerned field and at least 10 years of relevant experience .
Concerned Person : Concerned Person is a person who is not professional in the field but has demonstrated sustained interest in the subject matter ofthe field for at least 5 years .
Public Representative : A Public Representative is a non-official who is currently elected to a legislative position in Parliament, State Legislature, or urban or rural local bodies .
8298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8. 1927
Professional Voluntary Organization Represen- tative: A VO which is primarily engaged in voluntary services, typically on non -profit basis , for the benefit ofothers without any personal , financial or material returns . The livelihood of persons so engaged are expected tobe generated from elsewhere or from other activities . A VO , therefore , can be defined as an association of persons ( a ) established to organize and facilitate the exercise of voluntary action ; or (b) assuming such functions in addition to its regular activities . A professional VO provides various services ofprofessionals , including research , to the community, other institutions , or Government agencies on sustainable development matters .
Field Level Voluntary Organization Representative :
A VO which is primarily engaged in implementation of various sustainable development programmes in the field , which may or may not require some professional inputs .
Activist Voluntary Organization Representative :
A VO which is primarily engaged in raising public awareness of, and/ or stimulating policy or judicial interventions , particular sustainable development issues. Such activities may or may not require the services of various professionals .
(2) Cooling Time : A person may serve for a maximum of two consecutive terms before cooling off for 3 years . This requirement may be relaxed only if other suitable qualified individual in the field are not available in the country and for the officials of the Government of India .
(3) Multiple Membership : A person can be nominated and represented in more than one Technical Committee of BIS provided he possesses the requisite expertise .
(4) Disclosure of Interest : Since all stakeholders are represented in Committees , any direct or indirect interest in the subject matter should not normally be a bar to membership unless the interest is such that it may not allow for rational deliberations in the concerned Committee . Thus , disclosure of interest , past or present shall be a condition of appointment to a Committee so as to ensure complete trans- parency.
(5) De - barring : A person may be debarred from a Technical Committee if for any reason he/ she does not follow the Code of Ethics ( Annex A) or does not adhere to the principle of collective responsibility. It should be clearly understood that members of various Bodies serve under a requirement of collective responsibility. Accordingly, while members have full freedom to urge their points of view during oral and written deliberations of the Bodies , they must, once an outcome is reached, whether by vote or consensus
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] asdetermined by the Chair, abide by such outcome . Recording of a Note of Dissent in the proceedings of the Body would not exempt the dissentors from operation ofthis principle . If a member subsequently attempts, through public statements , or legal action, or other significant actions , to frustrate the achievement of the outcomes of a Committee on which she/he has served . she /he may be permanently debarred from membership of any Committee constituted by or in relation to the mandate of the BIS in future .
(6) Methodology of Selection : The precise process of selection will be as given in the BIS Rules and Manual forStandards Formulation.
[No. DDGT/67/GN] S. DAS GUPTA, Scientist ' F ' Dy. Director General (Tech-1 )
रेल मंत्रालय
(रेलवे बोर्ड )
नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2648.-रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम, 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजन के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में दक्षिण मध्य रेलवे के गुंतकल मंडल के निम्नलिखित रेल कार्यालयों को , जहां 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।
दक्षिण मध्य रेलवे ( गुंतकल मंडल )
1. सहायक मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर/बॉक्स एन/गुत्ती 2. वरिष्ठ मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर/रेणिगुंटा
3. सहायक मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर/ब.ला./गुंतकल 4. सहायक मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर/मी.ला. /गुंतकल 5. क्षेत्र प्रबंधक/रेणिगुंटा
6. सहायक स्वास्थ्य अधिकारी/गुंतकल
7. सहायक मंडल सिगनल व दूरसंचार इंजीनियर/रेणिगुंटा 8. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर/सा./गुंतकल
9. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर/वी. का./गुत्ती
10. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर/वी.का./गुंतकल
11. सहायक इंजीनियर ( पीएससी ) /गुंतकल
[सं. हिंदी-2005/ रा. भा . 1/12/1 ]
एम. के. अग्रवाल, सचिव, रेलवे बोर्ड [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8299
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8, 1927
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RailwayBoard)
NewDelhi , the 8th July , 2005
S.O. 2648. Ministry of Railways (RailwayBoard), in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Lanuage Rules , 1976 ( use for the official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following Offices of Guntakal Division of South-Central Railway, where 80% or more Officers /Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :
South - Central Railway ( Guntakal Division)
1. ADME/Box ' N' /Gooty
2. Sr. DME/Renigunta
3. ADME/BG/Guntakal
4. ADME/MG/Guntakal
5. AreaManager/Renigunta
6. Asst. Health Officer/Guntakal
7. Asst. DSTE/Renigunta
8. ADEN/G/GTL
9. ADEN/ SW/Gooty
10. ADEN/ SW/GTL
11. AEN (PSC) /Guntakal
[No.Hindi -2005/O.L . 1/12/1 ] M. K. AGARWAL, Secy. , RailwayBoard
कोयला मंत्रालय
शुद्धि-पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई, 2005
का.आ. 2649.- भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 5 मार्च , 2005 के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में, पृष्ठ क्रमांक 2203 से 2208 परं प्रकाशित भारत सरकार, कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. 792 तारीख 24 फरवरी, 2005 में :
(1 ) पृष्ठ क्रमांक 2203 में, पंक्ति5 में " परिक्षेप " के स्थान पर " परिक्षेत्र " पढ़ें । (2) पृष्ठ 2204, स्पष्टीकरण ( 2 ) में, पंक्ति 8 में " संबंध में आपत्तयों " के स्थान पर " संबंध में आपत्तियों" पढ़ें ।
2149 Gl/05-2
(3) पृष्ठ 2205 , सीमा वर्णन में, रेखा क - ख , के अंतर्गत पंक्ति1 में " रेखा ग्राम " के स्थान पर " रेखा ग्राम जोबगा " पढ़ें ।
(4) अनुसूची " ख " के नीचे और तालिका से ऊपर " केतकी अर्डर ग्राउंड प्रोजेक्ट, विश्रामपुर क्षेत्र, जिला- सरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़ " पढें । (5) अनुसूची " ख " के अन्तर्गत तालिका में, ग्राम का नाम स्तंभ में क्रमांक संख्या 3 में- " छा " के स्थान पर " लाछा " पढ़ें ।
(6) पृष्ठ 2206 , में ग्राम जोबगा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक में - पंक्ति3 , में " 201 ( भाग ) , 20 ( भाग ) " के स्थान पर "201 ( भाग ) , 202 ( भाग ) " पढ़ें ।
(7 ) पृष्ठ 2207, में ग्राम लाछा( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक में, पंक्ति10, में 9001 से 908 " के स्थान पर " 900 से 908 " पढ़ें ।
[फा. संख्या 43015/9/ 2003- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]
बी. के. पण्डा, निदेशक MINISTRY OF COAL
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi , the 19th July, 2005
S.O. 2649.-In the notification of the Government of India in theMinistry of Coal number S.O: 792 dated 24th February, 2005 , published at pages 2209 to 2213 published inthe Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub -section ( ii ) dated 5th March, 2005 :
(1) at page 2212 ,
(i) in Line 11 for " 2 " , read " 3 " ;
(ii) in Line 14, for " 52 " read " 572 " ;
(iii) in Line 36 , for " 833 , 855 " read " 833 , 806 " .
(2) at page 2213, in Line 21 and 22 for " N -Q-P -Q" read "N-O-P-Q" .
[No.43015/9/2003 -PRIW] B.K. PANDA , Director
आदेश
नई दिल्ली, 19 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2650.- कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी कीगई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2977 तारीख 16 नवम्बर, 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 20 नवम्बर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी उक्त 8300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिकार कहा गया है ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे;
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का समाधान हो गया है कि साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, बिलासपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) सरकारी कम्पनी (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जो केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है, कि इस प्रकार निहित भूमि या उस पर के उक्त अधिकार तारीख 20 नंवम्बर, 2004 से केन्द्रीय सरकार इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए, निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अध्यधीन उक्त कंपनी में निहित हो जाएँगे , अर्थात्:
(1 ) उक्त कंपनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन अवधारित प्रतिकर ब्याज, नुकसानी और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए सभी संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ।
(2) उक्त कंपनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और अधिकरण की सहायता के लिएनियुक्त किए गए व्यक्तियों के संबंधों में उपगत सभी व्यय, कंपनी वहन करेगी और इस प्रकार, निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों, जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत सभी व्यय कंपनी वहन करेगी;
(3) उक्त कंपनी, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में, जो इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी । (4 ) उक्त कंपनी को, केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमि को अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्तिनहींहोगी; और
(5 ) उक्त कंपनी, ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रोंके लिए जाएँ या अधिरोपित की जाएँ, पालन करेगी । [फा. सं. 43015/18/2000- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]
[PART II-SFC. 3 ( ii) ] Part- II , Section- 3 , sub - section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India , dated 20th November, 2004 , issued under sub - section ( 1) ofSection 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the rights in or over the lands , described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said rights ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act .
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) , a Government Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 11 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the lands and rights in or over the said lands , so vested, shall with effect from the 20th November, 2004 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-
(1 ) The said Government Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions of the said Act. (2) A tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Company under condition (1) , and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals , etc. , for or in connection with the rights , in or over the said lands, so vesting shall also be borne by the said Government Company:
(3) The said company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in or over the said lands so vesting:
(4) The said company shall have no power to transfer the land to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government , and;
बी. के. पण्डा, निदेशक
ORDER
New Delhi , the 19th July, 2005
S.O. 2650.- Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Gvernment of India, in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 2977 dated the 16th November, 2004 in (5) The said company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands , as and when necessary.
[No. 43015/18/2000 -PRIW] B. K. PANDA , Director [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ] .
8301
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1 पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005
सुल्तानपुर का.आ. 2651.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में जगदीशपुर- हल्दिया. पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों 'का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमिके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में , श्री रामावतार पाल, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, बी-35 एवं 36 , सेक्टर- 1 , नोएडा-201301 ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) , को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला
तहसील गाँव
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षे.
(हेक्टेयर में)
4
1
2
3
5
284
0-18-00
गौरा खास
सुल्तानपुर मुसाफ्फिर खाना
0-00-98
291
283
0-14-40
280
0-02-12
291
0-04-08
293
0-00-64
294
297
0-00-15
274
0-19-44
0-04-08
299
300
0-07-92
273
0-00-52
301
0-12-43
302
271
0-00-76
586
0-20-16
4
2
3
5
0-15-86 खाना मुसाफ्फिर
587 570
0-00-68 गौरा खास (जारी)
569
0-14-14
568
0-00-72
567
0-06-83
0-00-12
565
0-00-98
554
543
0-06-10
542
0-01-95
0-16-22
544
546
0-00-96
553
0-17-41
551
0-23-46
526
0-12-00
525
0-02-40
875
0-20-76
0-02-40
521
0-08-96
876
877
0-07-06
879
0-10-38
0-01-71
893
894
0-10-13
895
0-11-82
898
896
0-19-70
0-02-56
897
0-09-28
900
902
0-29-90
0-01-96
907
906
0-00-58
903
0-10-59
905
0-00-82
0-04-30
912
0-09-07
911
0-00-63
913
0-05-15
919
920
0-01-82
918
0-01-43
917
916
0-11-90
0-03-83
922
0-08-84
934
0-05-14
1324
0-00-21
933
0-27-60
1326
0-01-64
1327
1366
0-14-60
0-02-95
1370
1367
0-01-06 8302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
2
4
5
1 1
1368
0-07-88 मुसाफ्फिर
सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर खाना
1369
0-30-19 गौरा खास (-जारी )
1371
0-01-20
1372
0-13-89
0-01-82
1373
1375
0-25-21
1374
0-00-79
0-00-31
1377
0-06-67
1400
1399
0-12-88
0-07-58
1404
0-06-26
1405
0-01-77
1408
1407
0-07-67
1406
0-01-12
0-22-82
1393
1752
0-02-69
0-37-56
1751
0-04-69
1758
0-11-03
1759
0-13-08
1777
1778
0-05-58
0-06-79
1944
0-05-85
1945
0-30-93
1947
1958
0-15-23
0-01-32
1957
0-11-63
1953
1954
1952
0-11-09
1950
0-04-10
7-82-98
कुल
0-07-60
सूखी बाजगढ़ 464
465
0-04-96
467
0-00-29
468
0-04-38
469
0-08-86
463
462
0-11-62
0-13-16
461
458
0-00-62
457
456
455
0-01-97
462
0-00-11
483
0-01-17
484
485
0-02-52
0-14-30
486
0-09-58
487
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3
4
2
5
0-06-18
450
मुसाफ्फिर खाना
सूखी बाजगढ़ (-जारी) 451
0-01-95
449
448
0-10-05
0-07-32
445
440
2
0-00-92
444
0-00-66
443
0-02-52
441
442
0-06-11
439
0-00-82
0-06-29
436
0-10-24
438
0-06-34
437
435
433
434
0-11-28
432
0-10-16
0-07-33
431
0-00-79
422
0-19-85
419
0-07-69
417
418
0-00-76
0-16-37
403
402
0-11-98
0-00-85
395
!
0-16-71
375
388
0-00-36
389
0-00-72
387
376
0-12-46
0-04-08
374
0-01-49
396
0-00-51
370
0-05-14
371
0-00-53
372
0-02-86
373
0-03-03
377
0-01-95
351
0-01-67
349
347
0-01-05
346
350
0-00-35
348
0-08-92
354
345
0-03-37
0-08-95
355
0-00-26
356
0-09-30
357
343 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-09-10 सुल्तानपुर मुसाफ्फिर
261
सुल्तानपुर खाना
262
0-01-62 सूखी बाजगढ़ (-जारी)
0-07-81
287
285
0-05-53
284
0-02-55
282
0-03-12
0-11-90
281
283
275
0-29-15
274
0-00-12
0-16-75
273
0-01-51
203
0-04-99
204
0-02-76
205
206
0-10-36
0-00-94
202
208
0-21-09
207
0-22-32
199
0-26-42
187
0-00-99
188
185
0-05-81
0-14-22
178
179
0-09-52
823
0-06-79
1165
0-01-32
1166
0-03-75
1162
0-01-60
1177
0-07-62
1176
0-02-70
1175
0-09-13
1178
0-10-93
0-02-21
1179
1182
0-02-37
1180
0-01-08
0-02-93
1183
1185
1184
0-29-69
1456
0-01-13
1477
0-01-84
1464
0-03-95
0-09-78
1459
0-00-37
1460
0-13-26
1476
1461
0-03-12
0-01-57
1473
1474
0-00-48
1475
0-09-22
1470
0-00-68
1469
0-04-97
8303 2
3
4
5
0-16-51
1465
खाना
1468
0-09-50 मुसाफ्फिर सूखी बाजगढ़ (-जारी )
0-02-04
1466
1467
1627
0-06-37
1629
0-00-12
007-00
1628
1630
0-21-10
1625
0-00-31
0-01-43
1631
1632
0-23-12
1622
0-10-48
1624
0-00-32
1623
0-08-30
1620
0-02-72
1616
0-02-10
0-09-53
1613
1615
0-04-63
1614
0-05-31
1612
0-07-03
1611
0-06-16
1610
0-15-65
8-40-09
योग
रेसी
330
0-03-18
321
340
0-01-36
339
0-05-77
338
0-03-90
337
0-10-24
336
0-00-88
0-27-77
331
332
0-08-94
433
0-00-65
613
0-02-42
295
291
288
0-15-20
289
0-11-00
287
0-11-25
285
0-25-94
286
0-00-92
280
0-04-19
0-34-47
529
528
0-01-06
527
0-01-43
526
0-08-22
525
0-10-55
524
0-06-45
521 8304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927.
5
2
3
4
1 1
520
मुसाफ्फिरखाना रेसी
सुलतान पुर
सुलतान पुर
0-05-57-
519
518
0-02-13
0-15-87
सरदा कैनाल
1839
0-01-26
1841
0-01-15
1932
0-10-25
1840
0-01-20
1839
0-16-89
0-05-59
1838
1837
0-08-67
1834
0-04-66
1826
0-00-64
1824
0-02-90
1823
0-14-04
1822
0-01-22
1821
0-01-27
1815
0-02-65
0-00-26
1813
1817
1820
0-14-22
1851
0-00-52
1952
0-01-94
1953
0-26-46
0-19-90
1954
0-00-56
1962
1965
1966
0-20-13
0-00-64
1967
1944
0-25-52
1987
0-08-29
1986
0-06-43
1985
2005
2006
2036
0-16-93
2037
0-01-09
2039
0-01-94
2038
0-20-70
2040
0-20-88
4-82-00
कुल
0-01-34
84
शाहपुर रेसी
85
0-21-48
86
0-15-31
93
0-02-40
95
0-10-33
0-02-45
96
0-01-20
98
0-12-24
99
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
4
5. 3
0-07-63 मुसाफ्फिर खाना शाहपुर रेसी 100
0-06-57
101
0-08-75
102
0-01-21
103
0-14-45
104
0-28-96
105
0-00-94
108
0-07-55 241(तिकरी जिला)
0-00-78
545
0-40-26
543
0-02-40
525
0-14-62
552
555
0-10-20
558
0-14-12
0-00-65
559
568
0-32-88
0-00-27
571
0-04-20
572
506
0-04-53
505
0-00-19
570
0-12-00
576
0-00-51
0-07-32
575
495
0-03-18
494
0-10-20
574
0-09-71
573
3-11-76
कुल
0-23-42
105
नदियावां
0-00-83
104 :
0-02-14
106
0-29-85
103
0-00-24
102
0-01-19
96
0-21-48
101
99
0-09-53
0-00-79
97
98
0-05-05
99
0-00-71
185
0-23-60
220
221
219
0-09-91
0-10-23
218
0-00-81
217
0-00-82
239
0-28-31
241
0-01-93
242
0-02-67
243.
8305 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
4
1
3
2
5
119
0-01-05
0-05-64 244
सुल्तानपुर मुसाफ्फिरनदियावां
सुल्तानपुर मुसाफ्फिर केशौपुर
खामा
211
0-01-03
खाना
582
0-01-14
0-06-75
205
401
0-09-23 204
0-05-35
410
0-06-75
0-03-55
203
409
0-17-07 202
0-02-05
407
0-03-09 206
0-15-63
408
0-00-16 686
0-02-14
406
0-15-92
0-02-38
689
424
0-00-75 687
0-11-49
425
0-05-88 688
0-26-23
428
690
427
0-00-47 831
0-14-19
426
0-06-26 832
0-09-68
576
0-02-87 833
0-02-30
570
0-00-72 673
569
834
568
0-08-55
0-02-40
838
567
566
0-00-84
2.8098
कुल
565
0-20-31 सुरपुरकाशीपुर 1164
563
0-06-17
0-01-46
1184
0-00-54
564
0-10-12 1185
0-65-02
562
0-03-91 1202
0-02-10
561
0-14-92 1223
(0-17-44
559
0-00-13 1203
0-07-06
583
0-04-81
0-42-68
1219
624
0-00-82 1218
0-07-07
625
0-00-25 1217
0-17-08
626
0-05-63 1245
627
0-09-65
0-01-06
1250
0-20-53
0-04-08
628
1251
0-15-65
629
0-06-75 1252
0-11-82
630
0-02-86
2-09-51
कुल
2-80-29
कुल
49
0-04-79
केशौपुर
48
0-00-87
458
सनहा
0-01-33
अमेठी
50
0-01-02
457-
0-41-49
0-01-36
51
471
0-01-20
52
0-18-78 .
472: 0-02-15
54
0-11-42
470/934 0-10-68
70
0-00-45
0-04-76
470
69
0-05-88
476
0-00-11
0-10-67
68
468
0-32-69
67
0-00-68
520
66
0-25-76
519
0-14-83
0-00-26
53
530
0-06-71
0-13-15
37
536
0-02-81
0-03-78
55
518
0402-22
0-02-55
57
485
56
0-01-02
517
0-31-55 8306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
2
3
1
4
5 अमेठी सनहा
541
0-04-21
सुल्तानपुर
अमेठी
533
0-10-92
सुल्तानपुर
रामशाहपुर
540
0-00-64
532
542
0-05-03
534
0-13-76 545
0-38-00
535
0-23-24 552
0-01-42
0-01-42
509
617
0-10-80
508
0-00-66 651
0-23-35
536
0-03-44 650
0-00-22
453
0-11-81 652
0-05-63
452
654
0-07-09
0-00-93
507
696
0-18-78
448
0-11-80 695
451
0-02-33
0-01-05
0-44-62 694
455
0-27-40
0-00-74 693
494
692
0-00-21
0-55-86
493
0-02-04 691
495
0-01-31
496
683
0-18-20
0-21-12
483
0-11-93 682
482
0-16-86 681
0-00-15
688
0-22-27
485
0-03-04
0-03-10 690
0-02-93
477
0-03-07
479
689
0-00-44
0-02-78 687
0-01-44
480
0-03-20
478
0-00-55
770
753
0-15-49
3-65-29
कुल
0-08-89
754
0-01-45
756
0-02-68
घटकौर 203
757
0-00-38
201
0-03-60 755
0-10-37
204
0-17-00
0-00-56
200
3-77-84
कुल
0-03-17
207
0-59-87
टिकरी
125
0-15-21
218
0-30-40
146
0-11-80
219
0-11-93
135
199
149
0-00-19
0-06-79
222
0-08-68
132
0-00-44
223
0-23-78
150
0-01-95
221
0-04-70
131
0-14-98
224
242
0-06-16
226
0-11-63
0-01-48
244
0-00-11
279
0-03-28
247
0-00-53
228
0-07-54
248
278
0-19-31 250
0-06-53
0-04-50
281
249
0-15-85
0-41-26
191
1-80--39
कुल
287
0-02-30
283
0-14-32 517
0-26-07
रामशाहपुर
0-02-60 516
286
0-08-58
0-35-65
0-06-65 529
285
0-08-15
0-02-92 514
284
288
513
0-32-56
0-03-92 8307 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
5
4
63
0-02-26
अमेठी
अमेठी घटकौर
294
0-05-45
हरीपूर
सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर
61
289
0-51-92
0-06-71
66
290
0-47-12
67
0-03-83
2-92-82
कुल
68
0-11-14
0-00-52
60
73
0-08-40
महना
0-00-76
71बी
75
0-09-84
76
0-05-10
0-16-87
74ए
243
0-04-83
74बी
0-02-28
0-29-38
244
53
0-11-26 236
0-24-90
0-01-30
75
237
0-03-17
77बी
0-23-68
235
0-06-65
78ए
234
0-06-49
78बी
0-12-49 233
0-08-40
0-01-35
79
0-04-89
232
81बी
0-01-30
200
111
0-00-23
0-02-60
81ए
112
0-32-36
0-02-84
95
0-02-60
142
0-01-89
97
0-02-60
143
0-17-91
98
0-05-64
144
0-26-72
100
145
0-14-83
101
146
0-16-88
102
141
2-06-85
कुल
147
0-03-95
133ए
परशूरामपूर
148
0-05-04
0-01-15
134
0-07-99
152
0-07-77
137
0-03-15
151
0-08-67
135
0-24-50
150
136
0-13-54 176
0-10-36
245
163
0-15-78
244
0-23-62
162
0-45-64
0-01-10
161
कुल
0-14-46
160
0-01-37
4
उसका
0-15-09
10
2-81-41
कुल
0-06-11
11
5
0-01-45
हरीपूर
0-02-31
17
4
0-01-37
0-01-10
18
3
0-03-83
16
0-01-48
6
0-11-38
15
0-03-12
10
0-00-78
13
0-02-80
0-02-58 9ए
14
19
9बी
0-03-28
0-03-13
18
8
0-10-60
20
7
0-00-91
0-00-25
22
0-02-21
12
0-00-15
29
65
0-03-07
0-00-87
21
0-02-98
13
0-03-21
30
0-12-55
64
2149 G1/05-3 8308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
1
3
4
5
1 अमेठी उसका
59
सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर
0-08-40
62
22
0-11-28
63
0-38-24
64
0-00-64
0-00-99
82
0-01-20
192
0-11-03
193बी
0-05-86
193ए
196
0-16-65
0-12-66
199बी
0-06-92
199ए
198
200
0-02-53
248
0-09-31
267
0-04-10
0-05-41
249
250
0-16-89
244
262
0-03-78
251
0-09-13
252
0-00-78
261
254
0-02-78
260
0-18-18
255
0-01-81
259
0-00-23
0-04-51
258
0-01-08
256
0-02-70
238बी
257
0-28-92
312
367
0-31-81
0-04-42
370
0-08-77
368
0-00-22
369
386
0-00-74
398
0-23-89
399
403
0-08-52
402
0-02-23
401
418
0-00-85
422
0-19-90
4-06-24
कुल
0-01-33 सकरा रामनगर 342
353
0-06-16
0-04-11
357ए
349
0-10-14
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3
4
5 2
अमेठी
0-01-10 सकरा रामनगर 358
0-00-55
348
0-35-38
364ए
367बी
0-26-16
0-01-52
368
0-44-85
388ए
1-31-31
कुल
0-03-67
319ए
कल्याणपुर
0-09-30
320ए
320बी 0-01-43
0-04-69
321ए
0-04-97
321बी
323 0-01-06
347
0-00-97
0-05-53
346
0-01-66
324
0-07-39
325
326
0-14-01
0-04-50
345
344
0-02-63
341
0-01-58
343
0-02-14
0-02-33
342
345
0-05-72
334
0-09-10
0-04-47
802ए
0-23-74
802बी
0-08-83
803
0-00-68
805
0-03-09
845
0-05-64
814
515
0-09-81
846
0-04-69
844
840
0-21-10
0-00-99
843
841
0-01-46
842
0-06-63
839
0-05-25
838
835
0-01-02
0-07-91
828
827
0-00-84
829
0-01-82
830
0-01-35
815
1-93-21
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
73
अमेठी भदॉव
सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर
442
0-00-11
445
0-05-83
446
0-00-15
444
0-07-21
443
0-02-89
448
449
0-01-25
450
0-01-98
0-04-15
451ए
453
0-01-18
455
452
0-06-85
0-08-72
456ए
456बी 0-10-13
434
0-04-23
433
457
0-01-39
458
0-01-09
0-11-96
460ए
461
462
0-01-41
501
0-02-68
0-00-12
509
500
0-02-99
499
0-10-05
470
514
0-01-34
498
0-05-52
0-03-96
497
514
0-22-40
490
0-02-08
522
49
523
0-06-02
0-17-65
524
0-03-27
525
526
0-03-57
0-04-86
529
0-01-58
491
0-00-76
490
488
606
0-02-30
0-00-53
605
0-08-53
530
531
0-02-97
0-01-67
605
0-00-41
608
0-05-47
603
0-00-64
601
8309 2
5 3
4
अमेठी भदाँव
598
0-36-50
788
0-01-06
740
0-22-00
741
0-00-14
742
0-12-87
0-05-50
743
0-02-25
739
0-00-47
662
0-04-74
683
685
0-13-97
686
687
0-11-30
689
0-09-75
688
0:00-21
694
695
0-02-18
696
0-12-44
698
0-04-94
0-02-26
722
723
0-02-98
0-11-41
721
720
0-12-61
719
0-04-48
718
0-09-54
0-00-79
715
0-00-67
727
0-05-09
732बी
0-05-31
732ए
0-19-19
1180
732ए
0-13-66
1179.
1178
733
0-21-96
1177
1128
0-00-63
1129
0-09-40
0-05-26
1130
0-01-89
1126
0-22-89
1132
0-05-23
1152
0-07-30
1151
1150
0-13-98
1148
0-04-42
1149
0-11-37
1147
0-03-82
1146
1145
0-12-04
1144
0-04-98
1138
1139
0-17-02 8310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
4
2
3
5
1 अमेठी
1140
0-11-09 भदाव
सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर
0-05-30
1356
0-01-36
1355
0-00-92
1354
0-16-50
1353
0-10-84
1361
0-04-35
1362
1363
0-00-74
0-34-30
1390
0-11-95
1385
0-08-16
1386
1387
0-00-61
0-05-07
1412/1485
0-06-34
1402
0-06-23
1403
1406
0-01-45
1404
0-01-17
1409
0-05-59
0-01-61
1408
1407
0-12-53
0-01-40
1410ए
0-01-35
1443
7-08-19
कुल
546
0-01-38 भोजपुर
0-13-34
272
0-01-84
274
0-22-01
273
292
0-16-50
286
0-00-79
275
0-00-53
281
0-00-16
282
0-00-13
285
0-12-28
284
0-00-42
0-11-20
287
528
0-11-17
529
0-16-25
527
526
0-00-58
518
0-11-26
519
0-12-56
517
0-13-16
515
0-02-17
497
0-15-27
496
0-00-31
475
0-00-84
435
0-09-74
436
0-25-08
438
0-00-62
451
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
4
3
2
5
अमेठी
444
0-09-15 भोजपुर
443
0-10-07
0-00-53
440
:
441
0-00-16
439
447
0-04-94
0-25-17
448
0-00-77
464
394
0-06-54
0-03-57
395
0-01-46
393
0-00-92
392/1292
0-24-09
392
0-02-09
390
0-06-94
391
385
0-15-97
0-01-56
390
387
0-00-98
386
0-00-23
0-08-96
398
0-12-68
720
0-00-13
380
0-02-88
384
0-20-12
721
0-03-83
382
0-00-86
383
0-09-60
371
3-74-12
कुल
0-06-24 पीपरपुर 1580
0-06-37
1581
0-00-52
1596
0-01-95
1594
0-29-87
1593
0-03-49
1585
0-00-56
1592
0-05-39
1590
0-01-21
1591
0-13-40
1607
1608
0-17-20
1609
0-00-86
1494
1493
0-03-03
0-29-49
1610
0-00-92
1491
0-04-96
1482
0-04-16
1478
0-02-27
1482.
0-00-78
1481
0-04-97
1479
0-03-64
1480 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
2
4
5
1
1477
अमेठी
0-10-22 सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर पीपरपुर
1576
0-00-16
1471
0-00-12
1475
0-07-25
1471
0-09-06
1473
0-01-72
1472
0-09-03
0-02-39
1681
1682
0-24-91
2185
0-02-68
2163
0-01-53
2178
0-45-65
2176
0-03-33
2203
0-02-98
0-01-61
2198
2200
0-13-50
2185 रास्ता 0-02-40
2201
0-07-81
0-09-39
2202
2196
2210
0-06-52
0-18-97
2211
2225
0-00-78
0-21-54
2212
0-00-16
2243
0-19-57
2644
0-02-12
2645
0-00-67
2646
2658
0-18-12
2659
0-10-24
2664
0-02-03
0-00-22
2660
2661
0-14-74
2635
2617
0-08-19
2616
0-17-38
0-01-06
2615
2609
0-01-74
2608
0-17-96
2605
0-07-01
0-08-15
2604
2606
0-19-42
2603
2490
0-00-98
2607
0-03-60
0-11-36
2484
2485
0-03-33
2586
0-13-56
2489
2490
8311 2
3
4
5 अमेठी
2492
0-14-64 पीपरपुर
2491
2493
0-18-34
0-08-26
2501
0-02-03
2500
0-08-92
2499
0-06-06
2502
0-33-00
2464
0-00-98
2465
2467
0-06-04
0-08-62
2454
0-40-66
2453
2445
0-00-15
0-21-01
3157
3158
0-15-86
0-06-90
3159
7-19-64
कुल
0-03-12 मरूई
1
21/458 0-14-13
0-05-03
21
59
0-02-44
63
0-04-60
62
0-17-19
61
0-04-44
84
0-02-10
90
0-03-27
89
0-08-65
0-03-64
92
86
0-00-79
0-14-76
88
86
0-02-96
0-04-79
87
95
0-01-09
0-38-71
212
0-08-35
211
220
0-04-11
219/456 0-00-96
319
0-01-94
0-01-97
318
0-00-28
317
0-02-53
216
213
0-00-33
0-00-15
214
0-09-85
215
243
0-05-52
0-00-77
329/460
325
0-04-07
328
0-01-35
0-12-90
329
0-38-49
336 8312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5 अमेठी
0-00-16
मरूई
348
सुल्तानपुर
342
0-25-95
0-26-17
341
340
0-08-41
377
0-15-98
379
0-06-41
376
0-05-36
380
0-00-78
383
0-02-81
384
0-21-74
385
0-09-65
3-48-70
कुल
0-07-52
82
खरगीपुर
83
0-14-29
0-05-38
84
86
0-24-00
87बी
0-00-16
0-12-61
88ए
88बी
0-12-96
104
0-01-07
0-00-52
110ए
0-02-68
110बी
0-22-38
108ए
0-03-26
108बी
0-00-93
107
106बी
0-02-15
1-09-92
कुल
0-03-63
18
रामचंद्रपुर
0-01-53
22
23
0-10-66
0-00-65
36
0-14-10
24बी
0-01-80
24ए
0-01-62
25
0-00-45
33
32
0-04-70
0-20-76
31
0-04-64
30
29
0-01-28
39
0-01-30
109
107
0-15-35
0-05-21
108
0-06-49
110
0-05-65
106
0-01-29
103
0-03-07
126
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3
1
2
5
4
अमेठी
0-14-86
सुल्तानपुर
रामचंद्रपुर 127
130
128
0-01-23
349
348
0-07-30
0-05-77
347ए
347बी 0-10-25
0-02-23
353बी
353/665 0-03-08
0-05-09
354
0-03-95
352ए
355
0-08-46
0-03-40
356
0-05-73
352बी
0-00-24
365ए
0-00-37
358
351
0-00-12
0-04-39
363
0-27-32
364ए
0-04-37
364बी
0-01-07
376
0-12-58
386ए
0-01-50
386बी
0-07-52
387
388
0-02-27
389
0-01-16
385
0-00-49
409
0-04-76
408ए
0-02-55
408बी
0-09-78
410ए
0-03-49
405
0-01-79
412बी
0-14-70
404
0-05-99
443
444
0-11-68
0-09-35
445
0-07-90
461
0-00-65
462ए
0-01-92
462बी
0-22-38
456ए
456बी 0-11-36
0-08-06
498
0-00-35
497
496
0-00-96
0-05-66
488
486
0-13-00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
4
1 2
5
522
0-01-21
अमेठी
सुल्तानपुर
रामचंद्रपुर
सुल्तानपुर
490
0-04-31
491
0-06-10
517
0-05-11
0-21-35
518
516
0-11-90
515
0-11-26
513
0-03-15
0-38-80
550
0-00-76
549
552
0-12-78
645
0-07-24
643
0-21-52
647
0-00-68
0-01-06
648
649
0-20-61
654
0-22-10
653
0-10-70
657
0-14-36
539
0-01-12
644
0-01-80
5-93-32
कुल
0-00-57
49
संसारीपुर
0-05-48
50
51
0-00-64
0-05-45
52ए
74
0-02-83
0-06-20
212ए
214बी 0-23-92
217
0-04-16
213
0-02-09
0-03-42
221बी
0-01-17
220ए
0-04-62
221ए
220बी 0-08-94
222
0-01-29
0-14-03
226ए
0-05-07
224ए
0-03-46
226बी
0-05-17
224बी
225
0-12-02
0-01-16
267
0-01-82
266बी
0-26-24
266ए
269
0-09-32-
270
0-00-76
0-09-66
271ए
8313 2
3
4
5
271बी
0-00-45 अमेठी संसारीपुर
0-02-84
514ए
0-05-02
514बी
0-02-40
513ए
513बी
0-05-93
0-05-61
515
516
0-00-98
517बी
0-01-34
518बी
0-01-50
519
0-02-26
520
0-01-97
521
0-00-73
522
0-00-94
523
0-01-21
1-92-67
कुल
0-17-57 त्रिसुंडी 184
185
0-10-93
754
0-03-69
0-12-85
458
459
0-03-10
481
0-17-71
482
0-10-18
483
0-02-72
484
0-01-96
0-02-74
485
486
0-02-24
0-01-04
487
0-01-12
488
489
0-02-18
480
0-08-89
479
0-01-20
490
0-00-17
478
0-17-15
476
0-16-01
493
0-00-78
494
0-03-91
495
0-19-76
0-07-78
909
910
999
0-03-20
1000
0-01-09
1001
0-30-62
1003
0-00-31
1002
0-03-43
1019
0-00-98
1020
0-08-32
0-10-71
1021
1022
0-30-81
1024
0-02-52 8314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
2
5
1
4
3
5 1023
अमेठी
0-01-63
225
0-05-90 सुल्तानपुर
त्रिसुंडी
सुल्तानपुर अमेठी भागीपुर
1026
0-05-02
226
0-05-90 1146
0-02-45
160
0-02-61 1147
0-01-71
159
0-04-65 1149
0-01-73
163
0-00-12 1152
0-00-16
164
0-00-44
165
1151
0-08-59
0-00-52 1150
227
0-04-16 1154
0-05-34
156
0-00-53
0-00-98 1155
168
1201
169
0-00-98
0-05-81 1199
0-13-50
158
1200
0-00-13
157
0-26-71
1198
155
0-20-62
1197
0-00-26
154
0-03-96
1196
0-24-12
141
1200
0-06-33
143
0-31-74
1191
0-12-30
93
1190
0-21-36
0-02-15
92
1265
86
0-10-50
1371
0-18-67
85
0-13-16
1372
0-08-47
83
0-06-10
1370
0-08-71
82
0-04-64
1369
80
0-15-18 1366
0-11-92
551
0-11-41
0-03-54
1365
0-00-05
553/1908
0-04-55
1364
552
0-04-39
0-01-38
553A
4-71-08
कुल
0-26-93
553B
0-01-90
दुल्हिनपुर 84
0-32-35
554
0-23-00
95
0-03-85
555
86
0-01-01
0-01-97
558
0-00-11
89
559
0-00-23
90
0-04-87
706
0-00-45
91
705
0-01-46
0-00-91
93
560
0-07-27 92
0-01-70
692
0-27-65
कुल
0-06-76
561
562
0-06-94 192
भागीपुर
563
0-08-93
0-11-61
191
564
0-15-08
0-13-55
189
565
0-18-89 188
669
0-21-81
208
566
0-04-24
0-06-71
209
0-09-83
628
0-21-56
210
627
0-01-20 211
626
0-00-77
212
632
0-08-92 223
0-02-50
224
633
0-00-65
0-05-38
0-08-95
634
0-13-39 222 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
5
1
3
1
635
अमेठी
0-00-35 सुल्तानपुर
भागीपुर
सुल्तानपुर
620
0-00-17
636
0-01-54
619
0-01-13
0-01-17
637
618
638
0-01-73
617
0-14-03
614
0-02-83
616
609
0-07-91
0-11-27
608
607
0-05-56
1796
1797
0-07-35
1806
0-02-06
1798
0-02-22
0-03-11
1799
0-02-23
1800
0-05-96
1801
0-05-48
1805
1806
0-02-18
1803
0-15-80
0-02-02
1804
0-20-97
1810
5-39-79
कुल
376
0-00-16 सुल्तानपुर जानीपुर
377
380
0-00-95
0-00-46
0-01-23
381
0-11-41
382
383
0-08-04
384
0-13-92
0-00-59
438
439
0-00-68
487
0-10-63
486
0-09-79
458
0-00-17
459
0-00-49
457
484
0-14-65
482
0-01-94
0-03-55
483
0-07-68
481
498
479
0-20-46
0-401-35
478
470
0-19-60
471
0-00-83
614
0-01-56
630
0-11-38
0-01-44
628
0-401-13
627
625
0-01-83
2149 G1 /054
8315
4
2
3
5
629
सुल्तानपुर जानीपुर
626
0-22-11
0-02-44
623
635
0-08-34
0-01-33
622
0-01-47
571
636
0-00-34
572
0-26-28
573
0-05-45
0-00-72
621
0-00-68
620
0-14-72
641
642
643
0-10-09
596
0-00-53
597
0-00-15
619
0-01-61
0-00-14
618
0-01-73
644
0-10-60
598
0-00-67
611
0-16-17
615
0-20-22
616
0-00-98
613
0-05-02
617
0-03-09
612
0-00-69
720
735
0-14-78
0-03-22
736
0-01-46
734
0-11-10
730
0-09-50
733
0-02-37
732
741
0-22-09
746
3-73-79
कुल
0-03-80
35ए
जूडापट्टी
35बी
0-06-89
0-06-47
36
38
39
0-03-71
40
0-02-60
0-24-47
कुल
0-02-97
401
भीखनपुर
400
0-01-56
0-04-53
कुल
0-01-13
2
दाऊदपट्टी
0-04-45
4
3
0-04-85
0-06-44
8
0-06-56.
10
0-05-77
13 8316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
4
2
3
5
14बी
0-10-30
252
0-01-05 सुल्तानपुर
दाऊदफ्ट्टी
सुल्तानपुर
सुल्तानपुर
दाऊदपट्टी
सुल्तानपुर
15
0-15-05
244
0-00-87 19
0-08-32
251
0-04-61
0-07-25
18
249
0-00-32
0-06-84
21
0-01-67
250
0-10-62
22
246
0-06-09 23
0-02-25
248
25बी
0-00-97
0-01-61
247
0-02-28 24
244
0-13-10
185
0-00-86 36बी
0-09-02
186
0-01-12 37
0-00-24
187
0-02-11 41
0-01-94
192
0-02-72
0-09-68
380
0-02-37
193
377
0-03-53
0-06-76
191
381
0-21-73
188
0-07-52
382ए
0-05-97
190
0-00-99
383
0-00-57
194
382बी
0-01-07
0-02-57
195
387
0-00-18
189
386
0-01-74
197
385
0-03-23
0-03-07
196
0-06-16
0-01-56
180
398
0-01-29
0-00-37
182
390
0-10-74
0-19-24
178
0-04-07
400
401
0-04-24
3-66-00
कुल
402
0-00-62
0-01-33
कुनिया पट्टी 56
405
0-11-16
0-18-49
57
404
0-07-46
0-12-89
61
408
0-00-99
0-02-03
62
409बी
0-00-52
0-00-81
53
0-06-05
410बी
59
0-14-43
410ए
98
0-01-84 411
0-02-18
63
0-01-23
0-05-16
412
0-15-81
94बी
0-00-13
414
95ए
0-01-66
बुन्द
0-06-22
95बी 264बो 0-03-11
0-18-49
93
263
0-04-40
0-08-32
76
262
0-00-71
0-01-50
77
258
0-06-45
0-15-95
92
259
0-07-29
0-01-57
90
261
89
0-07-65 260
0-01-88
88
257
0-03-79
0-00-67
80
0-12-52
235
0-09-19
87
256
0-02-11
1-24-11 255
0-05-10
कुल
0-01-51
236
[फा. सं. एल-14014/62/2003- जी. पी . ( भाग II ) ] 253
0-06-12
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1 MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
Sultanpur S.O. 2651.- Whereas it apears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Natural Gas from Jagdishpur- Haldia Pipeline Project in the State of Uttar Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India ) Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification :
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object inwriting to the laying ofthe pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Avtar Pal , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, B- 35 and 36 , Sector - 1 , Noida- 201 301 ( Uttar Pradesh).
SCHEDULE
District Tehsil
Area to be Village Survey No.
acquired
forROU
(inHectare)
3
4
1
2
5 Gaura
284
0-18-00 Musaffir
Sultanpur
0-00-98 Khana Khas
291
283
0-14-40
0-02-12
280
0-04-08
291
293
0-00-64
294
0-00-15
297
274
0-19-44
0-04-08
299
0-07-92
300
0-00-52
273
0-12-43
301
302
0-00-76
271
586
0-20-16
587
0-15-86
570
0-00-68
569
0-14-14
568
0-00-72
567
0-06-83
8317 2
3
4
5
0-00-12
565
Musaffir Gaura
Khana Khas
554
0-00-98
543
0-06-10
0-01-95
542
0-16-22
544
0-00-96
546
553
0-17-41
551
0-23-46
0-12-00
526
525
0-02-40
0-20-76
875
52.1
0-02-40
876
0-08-96
0-07-06
877
879
0-10-38
0-01-71
893
894
0-10-13
0-11-82
895
898
0-19-70
896
897
0-02-56
0-09-28
900
0-29-90
902
0-01-96
907
0-00-58
906
903
0-10-59
0-00-82
905
0-04-30
912
911
0-09-07
913
0-00-63
0-05-15
919
920
918
0-01-82
0-01-43
917
916
(0-11-90
922
0-03-83
934
0-08-84
0-05-14
1324
0-00-21
933
1326
0-27-60
0-01-64
1327
1366
0-14-60
0-02-95
1370
1367
0-07-88
0-01-06
1368
1369
0-30-19
0-01-20
1371
1372
0-13-89
0-01-82
1373
0-25-21
1375
0-00-79
1374
1377
0-00-31
0-06-67
1400
0-12-88
1399
0-07-58
1404
0-06-26
1405 8318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
0-01-77
Gaura
Musaffir
1408
Sultanpur
Khana Khas
1407
0-07-67
0-01-12
1406
1393
0-22-82
0-02-69
1752
0-37-56
1751
0-04-69
1758
1759
0-11-03
1777
0-13-08
0-05-58
1778
0-06-79
1944
1945
0-05-85
1947
0-30-93
0-15-23
1958
0-01-32
1957
1953
0-11-63
1954
1952
0-09-11
0-04-10
1950
7-82-98
Total
0-07-60
Sukhi
464
465
0-04-96
Bazgarh
467
0-00-29
0-04-38
468
469
0-08-86
463
462
0-11-62
461
0-13-16
458
0-00-62
457
456
455
462
0-01-97
483
0-00-11
0-01-17
484
485
0-02-52
486
0-14-30
487
0-09-58
0-06-18
450
451
0-01-95
449
448
0-10-05
445
0-07-32
440
0-00-92
444
0-00-66
443
0-02-52
441
442
0-06-11
0-00-82
439
0-06-29
436
438
0-10-24
437
0-06-34
435
433
0-11-28
434
432
0-10-16
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
1
5
0-07-33
431
Musaffir Sukhi
Sultanpur
Khana
0-00-79 Bazgarh 422
0-19-85
419
417
0-07-69
0-00-76
418
0-16-37
403
402
0-11-98
0-00-85
395
0-16-71
375
0-00-36
388
389
387
0-00-72
376
0-12-46
0-04-08
374
0-01-49
396
0-00-51
370
371
0-05-14
0-00-53
372
0-02-86
373
0-03-03
377
351
0-01-95
0-01-67
349
347
0-01-05
346
350
0-00-35
348
0-08-92
354
0-03-37
345
0-08-95
355
356
0-00-26
0-09-30
357
343
0-09-10
261
0-01-62
262
0-07-81
287
285
0-05-33
0-02-55
284
0-03-12
282
0-11-90
281
283
0-29-15
275
0-00-12
274
0-16-75
273
0-01-51
203
204
0-04-99
0-02-76
205
0-10-36
206
0-00-94
202
208
0-21-09
207
0-22-32
199
0-26-42
187
0-00-99
188
185
0-05-81
0-14-22
178
0-09-52
179 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
1
3
4
5
1
0-06-79
823
Sultanpur Musaffir Sukhi
8319
4
2
5 3
0-27-77 Musaffir Resi
331
Sultanpur
0-01-32
1165
Khana Bazgarh
1166
0-03-75
0-01-60
1162
0-07-62
1177
1176
0-02-70
1175
0-09-13
1178
0-10-93
0-02-21
1179
0-02-37
1182
0-01-08
1180
1183
0-02-93
1185
0-29-69
1184
0-01-13
1456
1477
0-01-84
1464
0-03-95
1459
0-09-78
0-00-37
1460
1476
0-13-26
0-03-12
1461
1473
0-01-57
1474
0-00-48
1475
0-09-22
1470
0-00-68
1469
0-04-97
1465
0-16-51
1468
0-09-50
0-02-04
1466
1467
1627
0-06-37
1629
0-00-12
1628
0-21-10
1630
1625
0-00-31
1631
0-01-43
0-23-12
1632
1622
0-10-48
0-00-32
1624
1623
0-08-30
1620
0-02-72
1616
0-02-10
0-09-53
1613
0-04-63
1615
0-05-31
1614
0-07-03
1612
0-06-16
1611
0-15-65
1610
8-40-09
Total
0-03-18
330
Resi
321
0-01-36
340
0-05-77
339
338
0-03-90
337
0-10-24
336
0-00-88 Khana
332
0-08-94
433
0-00-65
613
0-02-42
295
291
288
0-15-20
289
0-11-00
0-11-25
287
285
0-25-94
286
0-00-92
0-04-19
280
529
0-34-47
0-01-06
528
527
0-01-43
526
0-08-22
525
0-10-55
524
0-06-45
521
520
0-05-57
519
0-02-13
518
Sarda canal 0-15-87
0-01-26
1839
0-01-15
1841
0-10-25
1932
0-01-20
1840
0-16-89
1839
0-05-59
1838
0-08-67
1837
0-04-66
1834
0-00-64
1826
1824
0-02-90
0-14-04
1823
1822
0-01-22
1821
0-01-27
1815
0-02-65
0-00-26
1813
1817
0-14-22
1820
1851
0-00-52
0-01-94
1952
0-26-46
1953
0.1990
1954
0-00-56
1962
1965
0-20-13
1966
1967
0-00-64
1944
0-25-52
1987
0-08-29
1986
0-06-43
1985
2005
2006
0-16-93
2036
2037
0-01-09 8320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
1
2039
0-01-94 Sultanpur Musaffir Resi
Sultanpur Khana
2038
0-20-70
0-20-88
2040
4-82-00
Total
0-01-34 Shapur Resi 84
85
0-21-48
86
0-15-31
93
0-02-40
0-10-33
95
96
0-02-45
0-01-20
98
99
0-12-24
100
0-07-63
101
0-06-57
0-08-75
102
0-01-21
103
104
0-14-45
105
0-28-96
108
0-00-94
241
0-07-55
(Tikri Distt.)
545
0-00-78
543
0-40-26
0-02-40
525
552
0-14-62
555
0-10-20
0-14-12
558
0-00-65
559
568
0-32-88
571
0-00-27
572
0-04-20
0-04-53
506
505
0-00-19
570
0-12-00
576
0-00-51
0-07-32
575
495
0-03-18
494
0-10-20
574
573
0-09-71
3-11-76
Total
0-23-42 Nadiyawan 105
0-00-83
104
0-02-14
106
(0-29-85
103
0-00-24
102
0-01-19
96
0-21-48
101
(0-09-53
99
97
0-00-79
0-05-05
98
99
0-00-71
185
0-23-60
220
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5
221
Musaffir Nadiyawan
Khana
219
0-09-91
0-10-23
218
0-00-81
217
0-00-82
239
241
0-28-31
0-01-93
242
0-02-67
243
0-01-05
244
0-01-03
211
0-06-75
205
0-05-35
204
0-03-55
203
0-02-05
202
0-15-63
206
0-02-14
686
689
0-02-38
0-11-49
687
0-26-23
688
690
0-14-19
831
0-09-68
832
0-02-30
833
673
0-02-40
834
838
2-80-98
Total
0-01-46
1164
Surpur
0-00-54
1184
Kesipur
0-65-02
1185
0-02-10
1202
0-17-44
1223
0-07-06
1203
0-42-68
1219
0-07-07
1218
0-17-08
1217
0-01-06
1245
0-20-53
1250
0-15-65
1251
1252
0-11-82
2-09-51
Total
0-04-79
49
Kesopur
0-00-87
48
0-01-02
50
0-01-36
51
0-18-78
52
0-11-42
54
0-00-45
70
0-05-88
69
0-10-67
68
67
0-00-68
0-25-76
66
0-00-26
53
0-13-15
37
0-03-78
55 8321 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
4
5
1
3
5 1
2
2
0-02-55
57
617
0-10-80
Amethi Sanha
Sultanpur
Sultanpur Musaffir Kesopur
56
0-23-35
0-01-02
khana
651
119
0-05-64
650
0-00-22
0-01-14
0-05-63 582
652
0-09-23
401
654
0-00-93
0-06-75
410
696
0-18-78
0-17-07
409
695
0-02-33.
407
0-03-09
694
0-27-40 408
0-00-16
693
406
0-15-92
692
0-00-21 424
0-00-75
691
0-01-31
0-05-88
425
683
0-18-20 428
682
427
0-00-47
681
0-00-15 426
0-06-26
688
0-22-27
576
0-02-87
690
0-02-93 570
0-00-72
689
0-00-44 569
687
0-01-44 568
0-08-55
770
0-00-55 567
753
0-15-49 566
0-00-84
754
0-08-89
0-20-31
565
756
0-01-45 563
0-06-17
0-00-38
757
564
0-10-12
755
0-10-37
0-03-91
562
3-77-84
Total 561
0-14-92
Tikri
0-59-87
125
559
0-00-13
0-30-40
146
583
0-04-81
135
0-11-93
0-00-82
624
0-00-19
149
625
0-00-25
0-08-68
132
626
0-05-63
0-23-78
150
0-09-65
627
131
0-04-70 628
0-04-08
0-06-16
242
629
0-06-75
244
0-01-48 630
0-02-68
0-03-28
247
2-80-29
Total
0-07-54
248
458
0-01-33
Amethi Sanha
250
0-06-53 457
0-41-49
249
0-15-85 471
0-01-20
1-80-39
Total 472
0-02-15
0-26-07
0-10-68
470/934
Ramshahpur 517
516
0-08-58
0-04-76
470
0-35-65
529
476
0-00-11
0-08-15
514
0-32-69
468
0-32-56
513
520
533
0-14-83
0-10-92 519
532
0-06-71
530
0-13-76
534
536
0-02-81
535
518
0-02-22
0-23-24
509
0-01-42 485
508
0-00-66 517
0-31-55
536
0-04-21
0-03-44 541
453
0-00-64
0-11-81 540
542
452
0-05-03
0-38-00
545
507
0-07-09
448
552
0-01-42
0-11-80 8322
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
5
1
4
2
3
4
5
1
0-32-36
112
0-01-05
Amethi Mahna
Sultanpur
Sultanpur Amethi Ramshahpur 451
0-02-60
455
0-44-62
142
0-02-60
143
0-00-74
494
0-05-64
144
0-55-86
493
495
145
0-02-04
496
146
0-21-12
141
483
0-11-93
482
147
0-16-86
0-05-04
148
485
0-03-04
477
0-07-99
0-03-10
152
479
0-03-07
151
0-03-15
150
0-24-50
480
0-02-78
478
176
0-03-20
163
0-15-78
3-65-29
Total
0-23-62
162
0-02-68
Ghatkaur 203
0-01-10
161
0-03-60
201
160
0-14-46
204
0-17-00
2-81-41
Total
200
0-00-56
0-03-17
207
0-01-45
5
Haripur
4
218
0-15-21
0-01-37
0-11-80
219
3
199
6
0-01-48
0-06-79
222
0-03-12
10
0-00-44
223
0-02-80
9A
221
0-01-95
0-03-28
9B
224
0-14-98
8
226
0-11-63
7
0-00-91
279
0-00-11
0-02-21
12
228
0-00-53
0-03-07
65
278
0-19-31
0-02-98
13
0-04-50
281
0-12-55
64
0-41-26
191
0-02-26
63
287
0-02-30
61
283
0-14-32
66
0-06-71
0-02-60
286
0-03-83
67
0-06-65
285
68
0-11-14
0-02-92
284
60
0-00-52
0-03-92
288
0-00-76
71B
0-05-45
294
74A
0-16-87
289
0-51-92
0-02-28
74B
0-47-12
290
53
0-11-26
0-01-30
75
2-92-82
Total
77बी
73
0-08-40
Mahna
0-06-65
78ए
75
0-09-84
0-12-49
78बी
76
0-05-10
0-01-35
79
243
0-04-83
81बी
244
0-29-38
0-02-60
81ए
0-24-90
236
0-02-84
95
237
0-03-17
0-01-89
97
0-23-68
235
0-17-91
98
0-06-49
234
0-26-72
100
233
0-08-40
0-14-83
101
0-04-89
232
0-16-88
102
0-01-30
200
2-06-85
0-00-23
111
Total 8323 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
5
1
2
4
5 1
4
3
0-03-95
367
0-31-81
Amethi Uska
Parasurampur 133A
Sultanpur Amethi
Sultanpur
370
0-01-15
0-04-42 134
0-07-77
368
0-08-77 137
0-08-67
135
369
0-00-22
0-13-54
136
386
0-00-74 245
0-23-89
0-10-36
398
399
244
0-08-52
403
0-45-64
Total
402
4
0-01-37
Uska
0-02-23
401
10
0-15-09
418
0-00-85 11
0-06-11
422
0-19-90 17
0-02-31
4-06-24
Total
18
0-01-10
0-03-83
16
Sakra
0-01-33
342
15
0-11-38
0-06-16
353
Ramnagar
0-00-78
13
0-04-11
357A
0-02-58
14
349
0-10-14 19
0-01-10
358
18
0-03-13
0-00-55
348
0-10-60
20
0-35-38
364A
0-00-25
22
0-26-16
367B
0-00-15
29
368
0-01-52
0-00-87
21
0-44-85
388A
0-03-21
30
1-31-31
Total
59
0-03-67
319A
Kalyanpur
62
0-08-40
0-09-30
320A
22
0-11-28
0-01-43
320B
63
0-38-24
0-04-69
321A
64
0-00-64
0-04-97
321B
0-00-99
82
0-01-06
323
0-01-20
192
0-00-97
347
193B
0-11-03
0-05-53
346
0-05-86
193A
0-01-66
324
196
0-16-65
0-07-39
325
0-12-66
199B
326
0-14-01
0-06-92
199A
0-04-50
345
198
0-02-63
344
200
0-02-53
0-01-58
341
0-09-31
248
343
0-02-14 267
0-04-10
0-02-33
342
249
0-05-41
0-05-72
345
250
0-16-89
334
0-09-10 244
0-04-47
802A
262
0-03-78
0-23-74
802B
0-09-13
251
0-08-83
803
252
0-00-68
805
261
0-00-78
0-03-09
845
0-02-78
254
0-05-64
814
260
0-18-18
515
255
0-01-81
0-09-81
846
0-00-23
259
0-04-69
844
0-04-51
258
0-21-10
840
256
0-01-08
0-00-99
843
238B
0-02-70
841
257
0-28-92
0-01-46
842
312
2149 GI/05--5 8324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
5
1
1
2
4
5
3
0-06-63
Bhaday 608
Amethi
0-00-41 Kalyanpur 839
Sultanpur Amethi
Sultanpur
0-05-25
838
0-05-47
603
835
601
0-01-02
0-00-64
0-36-50
828
0-07-91
598
827
0-00-84
0-01-06
788
829
0-01-82
0-22-00
740
830
0-01-35
741
0-00-14
815
742
0-12-87
743
0-05-50
Total
1-93-21
0-02-25
739
73
Bhadav
662
0-00-47
0-00-11
442
683
0-04-74
445
0-05-83
685
0-13-97
446
0-00-15
686
444
0-07-21
687
0-11-30
443
0-02-89
0-09-75
689
448
688
449
0-01-25
694
0-00-21
450
0-01-98
695
0-02-18
0-04-15
451A
696
0-12-44
453
0-01-18
0-04-94
698
455
0-02-26
722
452
0-06-85
0-02-98
723
456A
0-08-72
0-11-41
721
5B
0-10-13
0-12-61
720
434
0-04-23
0-04-48
719
433
0-09-54
718
457
0-01-39
0-00-79
715
458
0-01-09
0-00-67
727
0-11-96
460A
732B
0-05-09
461
732A
0-05-31
462
0-01-41
0-19-19
1180
0-02-68
501
732A
509
0-00-12
0-13-66
1179
0-02-99
500
1178
499
0-10-05
0-21-96
733
470
1177
514
0-01-34
0-00-63
1128
498
0-05-52
0-09-40
1129
497
0-03-96
0-05-26
1130
514
0-01-89
1126
490
0-22-40
0-22-89
1132
522
0-02-08
0-05-23
1152
49
0-07-30
1151
523
0-06-02
1150
0-17-65
524
0-13-98
1148
0-03-27
525
0-04-42
1149
526
0-03-57
0-11-37
1147
0-04-86
529
0-03-82
1146
0-01-58
491
1145
0-00-76
490
1144
0-12-04
488
0-04-98
1138
606
0-02-30
0-17-02
1139
605
0-00-53
0-11-09
1140
0-08-53
530
0-05-30
1356
531
0-02-97
0-01-36
1355
0-01-67
605 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8325
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
4
3
5
1
1354
0-00-92 Amethi Bhadav
Sultanpur
Sultanpur
1353
0-16-50
1361
0-10-84
0-04-35
1362
1363
0-00-74
1390
0-34-30
1385
0-11-95
1386
0-08-16
0-00-61
1387
0-05-07
1412/1485
1402
0-06-34
1403
0-06-23
1406
0-01-45
1404
0-01-17
1409
0-05-59
1408
0461
0-12-53
1407
0-01-40
1410A
1443
0-01-35
7-08-19
Total
546
0-01-38 Bhojpur
272
0-13-34-
274
0-01-84
273
0-22-01
292
0-16-50
0-00-79
286
0-00-53
275
281
0-00-16
282
0-00-13
285
0-12-28
0-00-42
284
0-11-20
287
528
0-11-17
529
0-16-25
527
526
0-00-58
0-11-26
518
519
0-12-56
517
0-13-16
0-02-17
515
0-15-27
497
496
0-00-31
475
0-00-84
435
0-09-74
436
0-25-08
438
0-00-62
451
0-09-15
444
443
0-10-07
0-00-53
440
441
0-00-16
439
447
0-04-94
0-25-17
448
464
0-00-77
394
0-06-54 2
5 3
4
395
0-03-57 Amethi Bhojpur
393
0-01-46
392/1292 0-00-92
0-24-09
392
390
0-02-09
0-06-94
391
385
0-15-97
0-01-56
390
387
0-00-98
386
0-00-23
398
0-08-96
0-12-68
720
380
0-00-13
384
0-02-88
721
0-20-12
382
0-03-83
0-00-86
383
371
0-09-60
Total
3-74-12
0-06-24
1580
Piperpur
0-06-37
1581
0-00-52
1596
0-01-95
1594
0-29-87
1593
0-03-49
1585
0-00-56
1592
0-05-39
1590
0-01-21
1591
0-13-40
1607
0-17-20
1608
1609
0-00-86
1494
0-03-03
1493
0-29-49
1610
1491
0-00-92
0-04-96
1482
0-04-16
1478
1482
0-02-27
0-00-78
1481
0-04-97
1479
0-03-64
1480
0-10-22
1477
1576
0-00-16
1471
0-00-12
0-07-25
1475
1471
0-09-06
0-01-72
1473
0-09-03
1472
1681
0-02-39
0-24-91
1682
0-02-68
2185
2163
0-01-53
0-45-65
2178
0-03-33
2176
0-02-98
2203
0-01-61
2198 8326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC , 3 ( ii ) ] 4
2
3
5
1
3
4
5 1
2
2200
0-13-50
0-02-10
84
Amethi Marui
Sultanpur
Amethi Piperpur
Sultanpur
90
0-03-27 2185 (Rasta) 0-02-40
2201
0-08-65
0-07-81
89
0-09-39
2202
0-03-64
92
0-00-79 2196
86
2210
0-06-52
88
0-14-76
0-18-97
86
0-02-96 2211
2225
0-00-78
0-04-79
87
0-21-54
2212
95
0-01-09 2243
0-00-16
212
0-38-71 2644
0-19-57
211
0-08-35 2645
0-02-12
0-04-11
220
2646
0-00-67
219/456 0-00-96 2658
0-18-12
319
0-01-94
0-10-24
2659
318
0-01-97 2664
0-02-03
0-00-28
317
2660
0-00-22
0-02-53
216
2661
213
0-00-33 2635
0-14-74
0-00-15
214
2617
0-08-19
0-09-85
215
2616
0-17-38
0-05-52
243
2615
0-01-06
0-00-77
329/460
0-01-74
2609
325
0-04-07
0-17-96
2608
0-01-35
328
2605
0-07-01
0-12-90
329
2604
0-08-15
336
0-38-49 2606
0-19-42
0-00-16
348
2603
0-25-95
342
2490
0-00-98
0-26-17
341
0-03-60
2607
340
0-08-41 2484
0-11-36
377
0-15-98 2485
0-03-33
379
0-06-41
0-13-56
2586
0-05-36
376
2489
380
0-00-78 2490
0-02-81
383
2492
0-14-64
384
0-21-74 2491
385
0-09-65 2493
0-18-34
3-48-70
Total
0-08-26
2501
0-07-52 2500
0-02-03
Khargipur 82
0-14-29
83
0-08-92
2499
0-05-38
0-06-06
84
2502
0-24-00
86
2464
0-33-00
0-00-16
0-00-98
2465
87B
0-12-61
0-06-04
88A
2467
0-12-96
88B
2454
0-08-62
0-01-07
0-40-66
104
2453
0-00-52 2445
0-00-15
110A
0-02-68 3157
0-21-01
110B
0-22-38 3158
108A
0-15-86
0-03-26 3159
0-06-90
108B
0-00-93
107
7-19-64
Total
0-02-15
106B
T
0-03-12
Marui
1-09-92
Total
21/458 0-14-13
0-03-63
0-05-03
21
Ramachan- 18
0-01-53
0-02-44
22
59
drapur
0-10-66
0-04-60
23
63
0-00-65
36
62
0-17-19
24B
0-14-10 61
0-04-44 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8327
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
1
0-01-80 Amethi Ramachan- 24A
Sultanpur
Sultanpur
0-01-62
25
drapur
33
0-00-45
32
0-04-70
31
0-20-76
30
0-04-64
29
39
0-01-28
109
0-01-30
107
0-15-35
108
0-05-21
0-06-49
110
106
0-05-65
0-01-29
103
126
0-03-07
0-14-86
127
130
128
0-01-23
349
0-07-30
348
0-05-77
347A
0-10-25
347B
0-02-23
353B
353/665 0-03-08
0-05-09
354
0-03-95
352A
0-08-46
355
0-03-40
356
0-05-73
352B
0-00-24
365A
0-00-37
358
0-00-12
351
0-04-39
363
0-27-32
364A
0-04-37
364B
376
0-01-07
0-12-58
386A
0-01-50
386B
387
0-07-52
388.
389
0-02-27
385
0-01-16
409
0-00-49
0-04-76
408A
0-02-55
408B
410A
0-09-78
405
0-03-49
0-01-79
412B
0-14-70
404
443
0-05-99
444
0-11-68
0-09-35
445
461
0-07-90
462A
0-00-65
462B
0-01-92
456A
0-22-38
0-11-36
456B
498
0-08-06 2
3
4
5
0-00-35 Ramachan- 497
Amethi
0-00-96 drapur 496
488
0-05-66
486
0-13-00
522
0-01-21
490
0-04-31
0-06-10
491
517
0-05-11
518
0-21-35
516
0-11-90
515
0-11-26
513
0-03-15
550
0-38-80
549
0-00-76
552
0-12-78
645
0-07-24
643
0-21-52
647
0-00-68
0-01-06
648
649
0-20-61
0-22-10
654
0-10-70
653
657
0-14-36
0-01-12
539
644
0-01-80
Total
5-93-32
0-00-57
49
Sansaripur
0-05-48
50
0-00-64
51
0-05-45
52A
74
0-02-83
0-06-20
212A
214B
0-23-92
217
0-04-16
213
0-02-09
221B
0-03-42
0-01-17
220A
221A
0-04-62
220B
0-08-94
222
0-01-29
0-14-03
226A
0-05-07
224A
226B
0-03-46
0-05-17
224B
0-12-02
225
267
0-01-16
266B
0-01-82
0-26-24
266A
269
0-09-32
270
0-00-76
271A
0-09-66
0-00-45
271B
514A
0-02-84
514B
0-05-02
0-02-40
513A
0-05-93
513B
0-05-61
515
0-00-98
516
0-01-34
517B 8328,
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-01-50 Sultanpur Sultanpur Amethi Sansaripur 518B
519
0-02-26
520
0-01-97
0-00-73
521
522
0-00-94
523
0-01-21
1-92-67
Total
Trisundi 184
0-17-57
185
0-10-93
0-03-69
754
458
0-12-85
0-03-10
459
481
0-17-71
482
0-10-18
483
0-02-72
484
0-01-96
485
0-02-74
486
0-02-24
487
0-01-04
488
0-01-12
0-02-18
489
480
0-08-89
479
0-01-20
490
0-00-17
478
0-17-15
476
0-16-01
493
0-00-78
494
0-03-91
495
0-19-76
0-07-78
909
910
0-03-20
999
0-01-09
1000
1001
0-30-62
1003
0-00-31
0-03-43
1002
0-00-98
1019
0-08-32
1020
1021
0-10-71
1022
0-30-81
1024
0-02-52
1023
0-01-63
0-05-02
1026
0-02-45
1146
1147
0-01-71
1149
0-01-73
0-00-16
1152
0-08-59
1151
1150
0-05-34
1154
1155
1201
1199
0-13-50
0-00-13
1200
0-26-71
1198
1197
0-20-62
1196
0-03-96
1200
0-31-74
1191
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
5
0-21-36
1190
Amethi Trisundi
1265
0-10-50
1371
0-13-16
1372
0-06-10
1370
0-04-64
1369
0-11-92
1366
0-03-54
1365
1364
0-04-55
4-71-08
Total
0-01-90 Dhulhinpur 84
0-23-00
95
86
0-01-01
0-00-11
89
0-00-23
90
0-00-45
91
0-00-91
93
92
0-27-65
Total
192
Bhagipur
0-11-61
191
0-13-55
189
188
0-21-81
208
0-06-71
209
0-21-56
210
211
0-00-77
212
0-02-50
223
0-05-38
224
0-08-95
222
0-05-90
225
226
0-05-90
0-02-61
160
0-04-65
159
163
0-00-12
0-00-44
164
0-00-52
165
0-04-16
227
0-00-53
156
0-00-98
168
0-00-98
169
0-05-81
158
157
155
0-00-26
154
0-24-12
141
0-06-33
143
0-12-30
93
0-02-15
92
86
0-18-67
85
0-08-47
83
82
0-08-71
0-15-18
80
0-11-41
551
553/1908 8329 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
2
3
5 1
5
4
0-10-63
552
0-04-39
Bhagipur
Sultanpur Amethi
Sultanpur Sultanpur Gyanipur 487
486
553A
0-09-79
0-01-38
458
0-00-17
553B
0-26-93
554
0-32-35
459
0-00-49
0-03-85
555
457
0-14-65
0-01-97
558
484
0-01-94
559
482
0-03-55
0-04-87
706
483
0-07-68
705
0-01-46
481
560
0-07-27
498
0-20-46
692
0-01-70
479
478
0-01-35
561
0-06-76
562
0-19-60
0-06-94
470
563
471
0-00-83
0-08-93
0-01-56
564
0-15-08
614
565
0-18-89
630
0-11-38
628
0-01-44
669
627
566
0-04-24
0-01-13
628
625
0-01-83
0-09-83
0-01-20
629
627
626
626
0-22-11
623
0-02-44
632
0-08-92
0-08-34
633
0-00-65
635
634
622
0-01-33
0-13-39
0-01-47
635
571
0-00-35
636
0-00-34
620
0-00-17
0-26-28
636
572
0-01-54
0-05-45
573
619
0-01-13
621
0-00-72
637
0-01-17
0-00-68
620
618
0-01-11
0-14-72
0-01-73
638
641
642
617
0-14-03
0-10-09
643
0-02-83
614
0-00-53
596
616
597
0-00-15
609
0-07-91
0-01-61
608
0-11-27
619
0-00-14
618
607
0-01-73
0-05-56
644
1796
0-10-60
598
1797
0-07-35
0-00-67
611
0-02-06
1806
0-16-17
615
0-02-22
1798
616
0-20-22
1799
0-03-11
0-00-98
613
1800
0-02-23
617
0-05-02
0-05-96
1801
612
0-03-09
1805
0-05-48
720
0-00-69
1806
0-02-18
0-14-78
735
1803
0-15-80
0-03-22
736
1804
0-02-02
0-01-46
734
1810
0-20-97
0-11-10
730
Total
5-39-79
733
0-09-50
0-00-16.
376
732
0-02-37 Sultanpur Gyanipur
377
0-00-46
741
0-00-95
380
746
0-22-09
0-01-23
381
3-73-79
Total
382
0-11-41
0-03-80
35A
JudaPatti
0-08-04
383
35B
0-06-89
0-13-92
384
36
0-06-47
0-00-59
438
38
0-00-68
439 8330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
2
4
5 1
5
1
3
39
0-03-71
0-03-79 Sultanpur Sultanpur Juda Patti
Sultanpur Sultanpur Daudpatti 257
40
0-02-60
-Contd .
0-12-52
-Contd. 235
256
0-02-11
0-24-47
Total
255
0-05-10
0-02-97
401
Bhikanpur
0-01-51
236
400
0-01-56
0-06-12
253
Total
0-04-53
0-01-05
252
0-00-87
244
0-01-13
Daudpatti 2
0-04-61
251
4
0-04-45
3
0-04-85
0-00-32
249
0-06-44
0-01-67 8
250
0-06-56
0-06-09
246
10
0-05-77
13
0-02-25
248
0-10-30
14B
247
0-01-61
0-15-05
15
244
0-02-28
0-08-32
19
185
0-00-86
0-07-25
18
0-01-12
186
0-06-84
21
0-02-11
187
22
0-10-62
0-02-72
192
23
0-02-37
193
25B
0-00-97
0-06-76
191
24
0-13-10
188
0-09-02
36B
0-05-97
190
37
0-00-24
0-00-57
194
41
0-01-94
0-02-57
195
380
0-09-68
189
0-03-53
377
197
0-21-73
381
0-03-07
196
0-07-52
382A
0-01-56
180
0-00-99
383
0-00-37
182
382B
178
0-19-24
0-01-07
387
0-00-18
Total
3-66-00 386
0-01-74
0-01-33
56
385
0-03-23
Kuniya
0-18-49
57
0-06-16
384
Patti
0-12-89
61
0-01-29
398
0-02-03 399
0-10-74
62
0-00-81
0-04-07
400
53
0-04-24
401
59
0-00-62
402
0-01-84
98
405
0-11-16
0-01-23
63
404
0-07-46
0-15-81
94B
408
0-00-99
95A
0-00-52
409B
0-06-22
95B
0-06-05
410B
0-18-49
93
0-14-43
410A
76
0-08-32
0-02-18
411
0-01-50
77
0-05-16
412
0-15-95
92
414
0-00-13
90
0-01-57
0-01-66
Bund
89
0-07-65 264B
0-03-11
88
263
0-04-40
0-00-67
80
0-00-71
262
87
0-09-19
0-06-45
258
1-24-11
Total
0-07-29
259
261
[F. No. L- 14014/62/2003 - G.P. ( Part I) ]
0-01-88
260
SWAMI SINGH , Director [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1 नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005
प्रतापगढ़ का.आ. 2652. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में जगदीशपुर- हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाये जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनूसूची मे वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन केभीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने जाने के संबंध में श्री रामावतार पाल सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इडिया ) लिमिटेड, बी -35 एवं 36 , सेक्टर -1 नोएडा -201301 ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
तहसील गाँव
जिला
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
अर्जित करने
के लिए क्षेत्र
(हेक्टेयर में)
5
2
4
1
3
0-09-45 पट्टी
प्रतापगढ़
तीबीपूर कुशाह 37
41
0-00-86
72
0-30-43
0-16-84
74
0-11-71
109
0-01-27
108
71
0-12-66
0-48-25
110
0-05-53
440
0-37-47
441
0-07-55
442
443
436
0-00-22
0-13-67
434
0-01-50
433
0-00-87
421
0-30-58
406
403
0-07-32
0-00-19
402
0-05-10
404
0-00-63
405
0-06-20
398
2149 005-6
8331
4
2
3
5
0-12-34 पट्टी तीबीपूर कुशाह 400
399
0-04-38 (-जारी)
546
0-17-88
547
0-08-42
548
0-00-71
588
0-00-48
0-21-55
567
566
0-01-45
568
0-00-67
0-26-19
570
580
579
0-06-93
578
0-11-86
0-04-24
577
602
0-01-37
605
606
0-19-20
03-87-15
कुल
0-06-57 धौरहरा
127
128
0-05-32
0-00-87
135
0-01-01
136
0-09-61
138
140
0-13-93
0-13-98
141
0-04-51
148
0-03-61
149
150
0-07-31
153
151
0-04-17
0-02-91
152
0-06-17
153
155
0-02-48
154
0-83-26
कुल
0-27-17 पूरेदलपत शाह 20
0-00-45
21
0-07-02
24
0-05-30
25
0-03-43
26
0-03-76
31
0-10-20
141
0-05-26
140
139
0-00-78
0-00-62
142
0-02-42
143
0-02-03
144
0-20-20
148
0-01-60
147
149
0-09-63.
0-16-62
150
0-11-79
151
0-08-01
129 8332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
3
2
+
5
2
5
1
4
0-05-27 प्रतापगढ़
प्रतापगढ़ पट्टी
शाह 1.30
पट्टी
0-01-88
0-00-88
136बी
विक्रमपट्टी 135 (-जारी)
पूरे दलपत (-जारी ) 131
0-00-55
0-32-17
132
138
154
133
0-11-28
0-28-94
0-06-23
104
160
0-04-82
0-00-88
105
161
0-07-75
0-12-63
162
106
167
0-09-83
107
0-11-01
0-02-01
108
163
0-07-94
0-00-77
89
2-35-21
कुल
58
0-18-60
0-23-64
32
कबीरपुर
59
0-19-58
36
0-09-75
60
35
0-02-19
61
0-08-23
0-01-06
34
66
0-00-45
62
65
0-11-20
0.02-68
61
0-08-65
65/857
59
49
0-00-76
0-00-47
58
0-10-54
48
57
0-01-39
0-16-35
47
56
0-02-30
0-00-77
623
55
0-03-08
0-00-74
624
0-02-99
54
0-04-73
710
39
0-06-94
10-00-45
44
0-01-03
715
0-05-62
53
714
0-05-17
0-04-70
52
713
0-02-12
51
0-08-61
712
0-02-77
69
0-01-77
711
0-00-37
211
710
0-61-66
212
709
0-05-86
0-16-87
205
705
0-00-71
204
707
0-05-02
202
0-33-35
708
0-03-61
0-00-46
201
0-14-41
698
0-23-60
200
697
0-05-81
0-33-00
194
0-47-39
696
0-02-65
192
0-12-61
693
0-12-49
191
692
0-11-20
183
691
0-03-19
0-05-18
361
690
0-01-60
363
0-00-24
4-18-81
0-02-17
369
कुल
368
0-17-75
7
विक्रमपट्टी
0-09-99
370
0-17-06
8
377
0-00-98
20
0-01-20
0-01-74
379/425
0-40-27
27
0-10-97
382
0-01-18
28
0-02-69
379
30
0-00-46
380
42
0-00-37
0-03-36
381
0-19-69
14
0-17-83
383
0-06-07
43
0-08-73
384
0-00-85
46
0-00-46
385
52
0-36-71
386
0-17-20
134 [ भोग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
388
0-04-06 पट्टी
प्रतापगढ़ प्रतापगढ़
389
0-01-23
कबीरपुर (-जारी)
03-54-88
कुल
0-05-02
54
338
0-07-78
339
0-03-13
340
337
0-09-83
341
0-03-23
342
0-21-51
347
0-53-37
0-00-74
353
361
0-18-27
362
0-15-67
363
0-62-82
366
0-00-93
367
0-11-48
371
0-16-97
370
0-10-20
01-81-85
कुल
0-01-92
174
उदईशाहपुर
0-02-59
171
146
0-17-28
170
0-01-10
147
0-08-01
148
0-02-36
152
159
0-01-64
0-06-28
168
167
0-20-65
164
0-34-57
165
0-17-69
163
0-01-55
0-01-30
160
161/685 0-01-95
161
0-02-97
248
0-00-54
622
0-04-94
620
0-02-48
619
0-01-30
623
0-01-97
627
0-02-08
629
0-21-55
626
0-10-35
625
0-10-82
0-14-26
624
0-02-24
635
775
0-42-29
774
0-01-20
0-38-52
771
770
0-00-77
765
761
0-00-47
8333 2
3
4
5
0-04-07 पट्टी उदईशाहपुर 758
759
0-09-93 (-जारी)
756
0-00-57
816
0-49-61
817
0-01-93
818
0-12-35
819
823
0-12-35
0-09-28
820
0-03-90
821
822
0-00-68
832
0-01-43
843
0-00-18
840
0-09-25
839
0-14-71
833
0-00-14
838
0-06-88
837
0-02-66
836
845
0-01-51
848
0-01-93
847
0-09-10
850
0-00-86
846
0-02-86
835
0-07-41
1091
0-18-35
0-15-65
1092
0-05-24
1105
1106
0-06-46
1107
0-11-10
0-01-62
1111
1110
0-12-16
0-01-10
1108
1109
1112
0-05-22
1121
0-00-25
0-28-03
1120
0-00-81
1124
0-18-51
1125
5-67-71
कुल
करौंदहा 233
0-01-44
0-00-28
232
225
0-01-88
226
0-00-51
0-22-49
228
0-00-65
229
255
0-14-68
0-00-78
256
0-03-31
273
257
0-32-33
0-20-57
272
271
0-34-81
270
0-00-57
269
0-00-38 8334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1
264
0-00-43 करौंदहा
पट्टी
प्रतापगढ़
प्रतापगढ़
0-00-86
284.
285
0-00-97
0-02-48
291
290
0-13-90
0-04-62
289
0-16-27
288
286
0-10-61
312
0-13-35
304
0-03-20
316
0-04-36
02.0572
कुल
137
0-01-21 काशीपुर
0-03-21
138
139
0-13-29
140
0-41-53
145
146
0-20-57
0-01-23
147
148
0-02-40
0-83-50
कुल
45
0-08-45 परहत खास
46
0-00-34
0-03-02
98
0-35-05
126
0-03-77
127
0-01-02
99
97
0-00-88
98
100
0-24-61
101
0-10-48
0-09-85
102
103
0-02-49
105ए
0-06-19
104
95
71
0-08-10
0-12-10
72
73
0-17-33
94
0-08-42
0-13-90
224
225
0-13-75
0-13-76
226
86
227
0-09-10
231
0-01-52
0-01-03
231ए
0-04-13
228
0-00-58
93
0-03-45
229
0-05-15
92
2-29-51
कुल
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
5 2
3
5
0-01-61 पट्टी भनईपूर
6
0-04-88
0-04-10
7
0-11-61
8
9 0-407-53
0-07-46
129
0-07-14
128
10
11
127
0-407-93
126
0-05-41
0-06-47
124
0-00-44
122
123
0-07-92
0-02-06
137
0-04-73
121
0-01-45
118
0-03-02
120
0-01-47
119
0-00-61
118
0-17-18
117
0-00-69
33
199
0-02-87
200
0-19-46
201
0-00-91
202
0-01-62
205
0-28-03
206
207
0-00-14
0-00-56
252
0-14-71
253
251
0-00-88
0-12-86
257
0-04-14
257/935
0-02-52
261
452
0-15-23
0-00-35
453
0-12-26
470
0-05-39
469
0-02-65
471
0-06-06
472
476
0-00-11
474
0-03-38
473
0-02-28
468
0-01-42
475
0-03-59
0-18-43
478
0-10-17
479
480
0-02-09
0-19-44
526
0-01-49
525
524
0-01-91
0-15-81
523
0-14-33
522
0-11-96
519 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8335
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
518
0-03-50 प्रतापगढ़ पट्टी भनईपूर
प्रतापगढ़
517
0-05-12
404
0-01-57
3-51-92
कुल
89
0-23-08 चन्दवाडीह
90
0-22-01
94
0-00-82
95
0-33-96
104
0-15-56
106
0-11-44
107
0-14-96
109
0-00-58
110
0-00-54
113
0-26-53
116
0-01-11
117
0-00-37
132/2005 0-00-52
132
0-20-95
133
0-20-73
394
134
0-02-10
135
0-05-48
0-11-78
136
0-01-76
394
138
0-19-46
140
0-07-24
141
0-05-32
387
0-27-93
142
0-02-22
143
0-04-65
144
0-04-04
145
0-18-99
360
0-03-92.
146
0-14-32
340
0-11-52
357
343
0-58-26
0-08-15
340
341
0-31-31
4-31-69
कुल
0-01-17 धरौली मुफरिद 88
83
0-18-33
84
0-13-01
85
0-20-67
91
0-19-57
92
0-04-56
93
0-34-66
97
0-34-25
96
0-33-09
0-02-75
98
99
101
0-19-79
102
0-00-79 2
4
3
5
0-39-02 पट्टी
103
धरौली मुफरिद
0-01-36.
82
0-00-65
37
0-00-14
112
0-04-55
111
0-00-34
110
0-28-73
114
0-01-06
112
0-26-86
36
0-00-96
117
0-29-09
32
130
0-33-00
0-04-99
131
0-08-59
133
0-06-58
132
3-90-56
कुल
438
सिकरी कानूपुर
733
0-01-42
0-05-77
734
0-38-39
735
739
0-00-66
730
0-02-52
728
729
0-00-46
715
0-02-56
720
0-08-43
727
0-07-35
723
0-01-72
722
0-07-82
721
0-12-80
720
708
0-21-79
688
0-01-91
455
0-01-36
456
476
0-07-10
707
0-06-35
478
0-27-63
484
0-07-90
485
0-05-48
512
0-04-28
513
0-05-87
514
0-03-67
0-03-92
515
516
0-01-16
517
0-11-57
523
0-02-38
0-14-50
524
0-17-85
525
527
0-24-38
587
589
0-11-70
0-00-66
588
0-56-64
601 8336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
1
2
4
1
5
0-07-52 प्रतापगढ़ पट्टी
प्रतापगढ़
598
सिकरी कानूपुर
602
0-15-50
644
0-02-50
0-01-40
643
604
0-31-53
0-26-75
630
629
0-00-43
627
0-25-41
626
0-00-25
628
0-01-70
4-46-74
कुल
4
भीटी कलॉ
0-12-44
3
0-06-88
5
0-02-95
0-11-62
11
10
0-17-07
0-05-54
6
7
0-20-37
9
0-08-53
8
0-32-58
17
28
0-10-69
24
0-05-70
27
0-03-27
0-05-68
29
23
0-15-27
0-01-37
172
227
0-00-68
228
0-12-92
229
0-16-74
0-02-71
230
233
0-15-14
0-01-04
234
236
0-14-23
241
0-00-94
0-01-79
255
256
0-08-80
253
0-09-37
0-18-97
251
0-14-34
250
257
0-03-59
269
0-03-61
270
0-05-51
250
0-02-01
271
274
0-26-51
0-21-06
276
272
0-16-95
0-01-21
288
0-63-89
287
0-02-58
279
4-25-53
कुल
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
5 2
3
4
परसन्डा
134
0-17-58 पट्टी
135
0-01-90
0-04-23
136
125
0-04-10
0-05-07
137
0-08-67
124
0-04-24
122
128
0-13-72
0-08-90
121
0-04-41
146
249
0-00-73
255
0-13-41
0-07-35
254
253
258
0-00-34
259
0-05-48
252
0-04-81
270
0-07-39
246
0-11-70
245
0-11-24
0-06-76
271
0-00-25
384
386
0-02-57
387
0-03-17
0-02-14
388
0-00-55
395
0-01-17
394
396
0-15-82
393
(0-12-25
1-80-03
कुल
0-02-51 वारी कलाँ 891
0-17-07
889
0-12-34
890
0-11-05
884
0-24-14
883
881
0-01-50
879
0-15-40
0-00-65
878
0-07-54
877
876
(0-11-35
875
0-01-53
908
0-21-09
-915
920
0-09-90
916
0-04-80
919
0-01-95
917
0-18-58
918
1-61-52
कुल
0-11-68 बहाउद्दीनपुर 33
0-00-66
34
0-03-84
35
0-10-61
36
0-01-77
40
0-28-56
कुल [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8337
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
1
5
प्रतापगढ़
0-06-51 प्रतापगढ़ पट्टी शेषपुर अधारगंज 265ए
259
0-01-99
258
0-15-09
0-15-43
257
256
0-00-82
0-48-68
17
0-00-69
18
0-28-70
32
33
0-10-26
0-03-56
28
0-12-91
34
0-03-95
39
0-01-15
40
41
0-03-15
0-14-45
38
37
0-32-16
0-08-59
36
0-00-88
बुन्द
63बी
0-10-45
0-07-76
64
0-19-00
96
65
0-01-98
0-00-38
227
219
0-11-76
0-00-82
218
217
0-03-90
216
0-58-69
0-01-55
213
0-01-68
215ए
0-08-18
215बी
74
0-02-93
0-00-34
178
186
0-52-40
0-15-33
185
4-06-10
कुल
चौमरी
0-01-27
281
0-04-68
282
0-07-82
283
284
0-11-60
0-10-08
285
286
0-02-56
287
0-01-20
0-00-66
288
0-06-44
311
0-09-51
312
0-03-40
321
0-02-77
313
0-00-88
314
0-00-52
317
0-63-39
कुल
0-04-88
8
बरहूपुर
0-00-22
9
0-18-25
10
2
4
5 3
0-00-65
14
पट्टी बरहूपुर
15
0-06-54
0-12-97
16
17
0-15-79
0-35-77
18
0-04-46
19
0-04-97
20
21
0-05-57
22
23
0-06-45
24
0-01-07
0-09-53
27
0-15-27
28
29
0-08-03
0-10-76
30
0-09-96
31
0-01-12
299
0-03-07
291
0-01-41
292
0-07-99
297
0-28-69
298
371
0-30-91
370
0-07-92
0-42-79
369
0-08-14
368
366
0-08-48
364
0-09-63
356
0-02-72
0-00-35
331
332
0-00-46
362
0-03-09
361
360
0-07-09
0.0710
355
357
0-04-41
506
0-02-93
0-0010
507
3-49-89
कुल
0-00-54 पेन्डरा
17
18
0-04-98
0-00-67
19
0-00-24
20
21
25
0-40-44
26
0-08-61
0-07-51
24
0-01-34
28
27
0-05-23
0-17-52
46
0-30-76
47
48
0-00-25
0-01-01
92
0-19-27
91
90
0-04-01
89
0-03-98 8338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
4
1
2
5
1 पेन्डरा
86
0-04-21
प्रतापगढ़ प्रतापगढ़ पट्टी
87
0-04-27
85
0-00-22
63
0-12-13
62
64
0-09-48
65
0-09-48
66
0-01-18
81
0-14-86
0-05-15
80
78
0-02-07
0-03-01
76
0-16-65
73
0-00-82
79
0-07-29
0-05-69
312
0-02-15
313
314
0-07-11
317
0-15-54
0-02-80
316
0-16-23
318
0-04-46
319
320
0-00-88
321
0-12-63
353
0-00-39
358
0-12-44
354
0-04-11
0-01-06
357
355
0-26-01
356
0-15-62
349
3-65-39
कुल
0-06-32
164
मरहा
0-35-57
163
166
0-10-98
0-00-72
174
173
0-30-57
0-06-36
172
0-03-31
171
170
0-14-37
168
0-04-95
210
226
0-09-19
225
0-14-19
0-05-60
211
212
0-13-93
213
0-16-45
0-20-55
202
0-03-14
214
327
0-01-03
338
0-21-31
0-01-85
345
0-15-68
344
0-03-17
342
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
5 .
0-03-56
343
मरहा
पट्टी
349
0-40-66
373
0-00-23
374
0-03-56
379
0-05-62
354
0-14-90
353
356
0-10-86
368
0-01-13
369
0-34-59
0-00-75
615
0-00-36
609
610
0-20-81
0-01-12
610/630
0-01-69
611
0-08-94
613
0-22-39
612
602
0-08-15
601
0-08-35
598
600
0-05-16
0-07-69
616
626
0-29-38
627
0-11-00
4-99-65
कुल
43
रामपुर बेला
0-12-95
44
0-08-37
45
46
0-15-94
66
0-10-82
67
0-00-65
65
0-13-12
64
0-20-25
0-00-83
61
55
0-05-31
0-08-87
56
0-02-77
54
57
0-32-30
0-01-18
59
0-00-85
58
1-36-22
कुल
0-12-02 अन्देवरी
564
565/613 0-00-75,
565/624 0-00-21
565/625 0-03-98
0-14-52
565
566
0-12-80
567
0-19-90
568/616 0-01-20
0-07-63
568
569
0-07-13
0-15-56
570
571
0-08-36 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
5
4
1 अन्देवरी
0-09-92
563
प्रतापगढ़ पट्टी
प्रतापगढ़
0-19-38
561
0-06-32
362
0-00-15
559
558
0-19-65
557
0-29-24
556
586
0-01-57
587
0-01-55
580
0-01-39
588
585
0-02-82
583
0-01-41
0-00-85
584
596
0-23-68
598
0-01-66
599
600
0-02-80
0-07-77
597
601
2-43-12
कुल
0-04-57
573
बींद
0-23-73
583
579
0-05-51
0-02-35
576
577
0-00-83
0-12-28
582
0-21-36
580
0-00-76
606
0-28-23
632
0-20-57
625
618
0-42-18
723
0-01-04
0-21-66
807
0-28-64
805
0-08-40
804
0-33-52
803
0-03-98
801
0-01-75
802
0-01-01
785
0-18-09
795
0-03-95
791
0-00-52
790
0-04-32
792
0-12-15
789
0-01-54
793
0-08-68
1044
978
0-22-45
0-03-09
979
0-02-20
983
0-01-50
984
0-03-07
1018
1021
0-04-47
0-06-39
1020
1019
0-33-05 2149 GI/05-7
8339
5 3
4
2
बींद
1017
पट्टी
1016
0-02-18
1015
0-03-42
1013
0-24-71
1014
1012
0.00-42
1011
0-08-31
0-16-23
1010
994
0-16-74
0-21-27
995
4-81-14
कुल
27
0-00-42 औराइन
0-12-08
28
29
0-04-22
27
26
0-12-47
0-06-30
25
0-05-44
24
22
0-26-32
19
0-11-98
0-21-12
18
0-04-83
55
59
0-02-92
0-00-74
58
0-00-35
133
0-07-72
140
0-08-08
139
0-07-28
138
0-06-78
137
0-05-73
136
0-22-24
126
0-02-79
143
142
141
0-01-64
144
0-02-30
145
0-05-15
146
0-13-32
147
0-03-45
148
0-13-81
108
0-04-01
987
0-14-36
107
0-00-55
988
0-12-83
991
0-01-21
993
1016
0-27-64
1017
0-15-38
1018
1009
0-17-99
1019
1172
0-01-49
1176
0-01-61
1174
0-31-89
1175
0-05-35
1185 8340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] 2
3
4
5
New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
0-02-27
1182
प्रतापगढ़
औराइन
पट्टी
1184
0-06-20
0-24-96
1186
1315
0-01-60
S.O. 2652. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas from Jagdishpur- Haldia Pipeline Project in the State of Uttar Pardesh , a Pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India) Ltd.;
1317
0-00-18
1314
1313
0-02-02
1312
0-03-86
1311
0-14-41
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said Pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
1310
0-01-54
1319
0-01-12
0-32-20
1333
1334
0-05-32
1335
0-19-04
1302
0-02-71
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declare its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein;
1336
0-35-47
0-01-91
1336/1517
1337
0-22-80
0-02-06
1361
1362
0-03-15
1360
0-23-14
0-29-22
1359
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Avtar Pal , Competent Authority, GAIL ( India) Limited, B -35 & 36, Sector Noida-201 301 (Uttar Pradesh) .
1352
0-04-76
SCHEDULE
1353
0-04-10
1348
0-12-29 District
Tehsil Village Survey No. Area to be
1351
0-04-85
Acquired
0-00-81
forROU
1347
0-08-66
1349
(InHectare)
0-04-34
1347
2
3
4
5
1
6-27-98
कुल
0-09-45
Tibipur 37
Pratapgarh Patti
6
0-14-09
अकारीपुर
0-00-86
41
Kushah
8
0-03-52
0-30-43
72
9
0-03-32
74
0-16-84
0-07-32
11
109
0-11-71
0-61-39
10
0-01-27
108
79
0-01-02
71
0-12-66
80
0-00-68
0-48-25
107
110
0-16-63
0-05-53
106
0-41-27
440
103
0-00-81
0-37-47
441
102
0-07-55
442
97
0-21
443
98
0-03-04
0-00-22
436
95
0-08-45
434
0-13-67
0-09-44
92
0-01-50
433
136
0-50-63
0-00-87
421
0-02-47
134
406
0-30-58
0-03-20
135
137
0-07-32
0-13-08
403
139
0-02-40
402
0-00-19
138
404
0-05-10
0-00-63
405
2-65-46
कुल
0-06-20
398 [फा. सं . एल-14014/62/03- जी.पी. ( भाग -1 ) ]
400
0-12-34
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
4
2
1
3
5
399
0-04-38 Pratapgarh Patti Tibipur
8341 -2
3
4
5
130
0-01-88 Patti
Pratapgarh
0-17-88
Kushah 546
547
0-08-42
0-00-71
548
588
0-00-48
567
0-21-55
566
0-01-45
0-00-67
568
570
0-26-19
580
579
0-06-93
578
0-11-86
577
0-04-24
602
605
01-37
606
0-19-20
Total 03-87-15
0-06-57
Daurhara 127
0-05-32
128
0-00-87
135
136
0-01-01
0-09-61
138
140
0-13-93
141
0-13-98
0-04-51
148
0-03-61
149
0-07-31
150
153
151
0-04-17
0-02-91
152
0-06-17
153
155
0-02-48
154
0-83-26
Total
0-27-17 PureDalpat Shah 20
21
0-00-45
24
0-07-02
0-05-30
25
0-03-43
26
31
0-03-76
0-10-20
141
0-05-26
140
0-00-78
139
142
0-00-62
0-02-42
143
0-02-03
144
0-20-20
148
0-01-60
147
0-09-63
149
0-16-62
150
0-11-79
151
129
0-08-01 PureDalpat 131
0-00-55 Shah
132
133
0-11-28
0-06-23
104
0-04-82
105
106
0-07-75
107
0-11-01
108
0-07-94
89
0-00-77
58
0-18-60
59
0-19-58
60
0-09-75-
61
0-08-23
0-00-45
66
65
0-11-20
65/857
0-08-65
49
0-00-76
48
0-10-54
47
0-16-35
623
0-00-77
624
0-00-74
717
0-04-73
716
0-00-45
715
714
0-05-17
713
0-02-12
712
0-08-61
711
0-01-77
710
709
0-05-86
705
707
0-05-02
708
0-03-61
698
0-14-41
697
0-05-81
696
0-47-39
693
0-12-61
692
0-03-19
691
690
0-01-60
4-18-81
Total
0-17-75 Vikrampatti 7
8
0-17-06
0-01-20
20
27
0-40-27
0-01-18
28
30
42
0-00-37
44
0-19-69
43
0-06-07
46
0-00-85
52
0-36-71 8342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4
1
2
3
4
5 2
3
5
1
0-17-20
Patti Kabirpur 386
Pratapgarh Patti Vikrampatti 134
Pratapgarh
0-04-06
0-05-27
388
135
0-01-23
0-00-88
136
389
138
0-32-17
3-54-88
Total
154
0-05-02
Gobindpur 54
160
0-28-94
338
0-07-78
0-00-88
161
339
0-03-13 162
0-12-63
340
167
0-09-83
337
0-09-83 163
0-02-01
0-03-23
341
Total
2-35-21
342
0-21-51 32
0-23-64
347
0-53-37 Kabirpur
36
0-00-74
353
35
0-02-19
361
0-18-27 34
0-01-06
0-15-67
362
0-02-82 62
363
0-02-68
61
366
0-00-93 59
367
0-11-48 58
0-00-47
371
0-16-97
0-01-39
57
370
0-10-20 56
0-02-30
Total 01-81-85 55
0-03-08
0-01-92
174
Udaishahpur
54
0-02-99
0-02-59
171
39
0-06-94
0-17-28
146
0-01-03
44
170
0-01-10 53
0-05-62
0-08-01
147
0-04-70
52
0-02-36
148
51
152
0-02-77
69
0-01-64
159
211
0-00-37
0-06-28
168
212
0-61-66
0-20-65
167
0-16-87
205
0-34-57
164
0-00-71
204
0-17-69
165
202
0-33-35
0-01-55
163
0-00-46
201
160
0-01-30
0-23-60
200
0-01-95
161/685
0-33-00
194
0-02-97
161
0-02-65
192
0-00-54
248
191
0-12-49
0-04-94
622
183
0-11-20
0-02-48
620
361
0-05-18
0-01-30
619
363
0-00-24
0-01-97
623
0-02-17
369
627
0-02-08 368
0-21-55
629
0-09-99
370
0-10-35
626
0-00-98
377
0-10-82
625
0-01-74
379/425
0-14-26
624
382
0-10-97
635
0-02-24
0-02-69
379
0-42-29
775
0-00-46
380
0-01-20
774
381
0-03-36
0-38-52
771
383
0-17-83
0-00-77
770
0-08-73
384
765
385
0-00-46 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
1
4
5
0-00-47 Pratapgarh Patti
Pratapgarh
Udaishahpur 761
758
0-04-07
759
0-09-93
756
0-00-57
816
0-49-61
817
0-01-93
818
0-12-35
819
823
0-12-35
820
0-09-28
821
0-03-90
822
0-00-68
832
0-01-43
843
0-00-18
840
0-09-25
839
0-14-71
833
0-00-14
838
0-06-88
837
0-02-66
836
845
0-01-51
848
0-01-93
847
0-09-10
850
0-00-86
846
0-02-86
835
0-07-41
1091
0-18-35
0-15-65
1092
1105
0-05-24
1106
0-06-46
1107
0-11-10
0-01-62
1111
1110
0-12-16
0-01-10
1108
1109
1112
0-05-22
1121
0-00-25
1120
0-28-03
0-00-81
1124
1125
0-18-51
Total
5-67-71
0-01-44
Karaundaha 233
232
0-00-28
0-01-88
225
226
0-00-51
228
0-22-49
229
0-00-65
0-14-68
255
256
0-00-78
273
0-03-31
0-32-33
257
272
0-20-57
271
0-34-81
270
0-00-57
8343 2
3
4
5
0-00-38 Karaundaha 269
Patti
264
0-00-43
0-00-86
284
0-00-97
285
0-02-48
291
290
0-13-90
289
0-04-62
0-16-27
288
286
0-10-61
312
0-13-35
304
0-03-20
316
0-04-36
2-05-72
Total
0-01-21 Kasipur 137
138
0-03-21
139
0-13-29
140
145
0-41-53
0-20-57
146
147
0-01-23
148
0-02-40
Total 0-83-50
0-08-45 Parhat Khas 45
46
0-00-34
98
0-03-02
126
0-35-05
127
0-03-77
99
0-01-02
97
98
0-00-88
0-24-61
100
0-10-48
101
0-09-85
102
103
0-02-49
105A
0-06-19
104
95
71
0-08-10
72
0-12-10
0-17-33
73
0-08-42
94
224
0-13-90
225
0-13-75
226
0-13-76
86
0-09-10
227
0-01-52
231A
231
0-01-03
228
0-04-13
0-00-58
93
229
0-03-45
92
0-05-15
Total
2-29-51 8344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
1
0-01-61 Patti
Pratapgarh
[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ] 3
2
4
5
0-03-50
Pratapgarh
Bhanaipur 5
6
0-04-88
7
0-04-10
8
0-11-61
9
0-07-63
129
0-07-46
128
0-07-14
10
11
0-07-93
127
126
0-05-41
124
0-06-47
0-00-44
122
123
0-07-92
137
0-02-06
121
0-04-73
118
0-01-45
120
0-03-02
0-01-47
119
0-00-61
118
0-17-18
117
33
0-00-69
199
0-02-87
200
201
0-19-46
202
0-00-91
0-01-62
205
206
0-28-03
0-00-14
207
252
0-00-56
253
0-14-71
251
0-00-88
257
0-12-86
0-04-14
257/935
261
0-02-52
452
0-15-23
453
0-00-35
470
0-12-26
469
0-05-39
471
0-02-65
472
0-06-06
476
0-00-11
474
0-02-38
473
0-03-28
468
0-01-42
475
(0-03-59
478
0-18-43
479
0-10-17
480
0-02-09
526.
0-19-44
525
0-01-49
524
0-01-91
523
0-15-81
0-14-33
522
519
0-11-96 Patti
518
Bhanaipur
0-05-12
517
0-01-57
404
Total
3-51-92
0-23-08 Chanduwadiha 89
90
0-22-01
0-00-82
94
95
0-33-96
0-15-56
104
0-11-44
106
107
0-14-96
0-00-58
109
0-00-54
110
0-26-53
113
0-01-11
116
117
0-00-37
132/2005 0-00-52
132
0-20-95
133
0-20-73
394
134
0-02-10
135
0-05-48
136
0-11-78
0-01-76
394
138
0-19-46
0-07-24
140
141
0-05-32
387
0-27-93
142
0-02-22
0-04-65
143
144
0-04-04
145
0-18-99
360
0-03-92
146
0-14-32
340
0-11-52
357
343
0-58-26
0-08-15
340
341
0-31-31
4-31-69
Total
0-01-17 Dharauli Mufrid 88
0-18-33
83
0-13-01
84
0-20-67
85
0-19-57
91
0-04-56
92
0-34-66
93
0-34-25
97
96
0-33-09
0-02-75
98
99
0-19-79
101
102
0-00-79 8345 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
4
5
2
3
1
5
1
0-01-40
0-39-02
Patti
643
Pratapgarh
Sikri Kanupur
Pratapgarh Patti Dharauli Mufrid 103
604
0-31-53 82
0-01-36
0-26-57
630
37
0-00-65
629
0-00-43 112
0-00-14
627
0-25-41
0-04-55
111
626
0-00-25 110
0-00-34
628
0-01-70 114
0-28-73
112
0-01-06
4-46-74
Total
0-26-86
36
Bhiti Kalan 4
0-12-44
0-00-96
117
3
0-06-88 32
0-29-09
0-02-95
5
0-33-00
130
0-11-62
11
131
0-04-99
0-17-07
10
133
0-08-59
6
0-05-54
132
0-06-58
7
0-20-37
9
3-90-56
Total
8
0-08-53 438
Sikri Kanupur
17
0-32-58 733
0-01-42
0-10-69
28
0-05-77
734
24
0-05-70 735
0-38-39
27
0-03-27 739
0-00-66
0-05-68
29
730
23
0-15-27 728
0-02-52
172
0-01-37 729
0-04-46
227
0-00-68 715
0-02-56
228
0-12-92 720
0-08-43
229
0-16-74 727
0-07-35
0-02-71
230
0-01-72
723
233
0-15-14 722
0-07-82
234
0-01-04
0-12-80
721
236
0-14-23 720
0-00-94
241
708
0-21-79
0-01-79
255
688
0-01-91
256
0-08-80 455
0-01-36
0-09-37
253
456
0-18-97
251
476
0-07-10
250
0-14-34 707
0-06-35
257
0-03-59 478
0-27-63
269
484
0-07-90
270
0-03-61 485
0-05-48
250
0-05-51 512
0-04-28
0-02-01
271
513
0-05-87
0-26-51
274
514
0-03-67
276
0-21-06
0-03-92
515
272
0-16-95 516
0-01-16
0-01-21
288
517
0-11-57
0-63-89
287
523
0-02-38
0-02-58
279
524
0-14-50
4-25-53
Total 525
0-17-85
0-17-58
134
527
Parsanda
587
0-24-38
135
0-01-90
0-04-23
136
589
0-11-70
0-04-10
125
588
0-00-66
0-05-07
137
0-56-64
601
0-08-67
124
0-07-52
598
0-04-24
122
602
0-15-50
128
0-13-72
0-02-50
644 8346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0-10-26
121
Parsanda
0-08-90
Patti
Patti
Pratapgarh
Pratapgarh
Sheshpur 33
146
0-04-41
0-03-56
Adarganj 28
249
0-00-73
34
0-12-91
255
0-13-41
39
0-03-95
254
0-07-35
40
0-01-15
253
41
0-03-15
258
0-00-34
0-14-45
38
259
0-05-48
0-32-16
37
252
0-04-81
36
0-08-59
270
0-07-39
0-00-88
Bund
246
0-11-70
63B
0-10-45
245
0-11-24
0-07-76
64
0-06-76
271
0-19-00
96
384
0-00-25
65
0-02-57
386
0-01-98
387
0-03-17
227
0-00-38
388
0-02-14
0-11-76
219
0-00-55
395
0-00-82
218
0-01-17
394
217
0-03-90
396
0-15-82
0-58-69
216
393
0-12-25
0-01-55
213
Total
1-80-03
0-01-68
215A
0-02-51
0-08-18 Vari Kalan 891
215B
889
0-17-07
74
0-02-93
890
0-12-34
0-00-34
178
0-11-05
884
0-52-40
186
883
0-24-14
185
0-15-33
881
0-01-50
4-06-10
Total
879
0-15-40
0-00-65
878
0-01-27
Chaumuri 281
877
0-07-54
0-04-68
282
876
0-11-35
283
0-07-82
875
0-11-60
284
908
0-01-53
0-10-08
285
915
0-21-09
0-02-56
286
920
0-01-20
287
916
0-09-90
0-00-66
288
919
0-04-80
0-06-44
311
917
0-01-95
0-09-51
312
918
0-18-58
321
0-03-40
Total
1-61-52
0-02-77
313
33
Bahaud-
0-11-68
0-00-88
314
34
0-00-66
dinpur
0-00-52
317
35
0-03-84
0-63-39
Total
36
0-10-61
8
0-04-88
Barhupur
0-01-77
40
0-00-22
9
!
0-28-56
Total
0-18-25
10
265A
0-06-51
0-00-65 Sheshpur
14
259
0-01-99
0-06-54 Adarganj
15
1
258
0-15-09
0-12-97
16
257
0-15-43
0-15-79
17
256
0-00-82
0-35-77
18
17
0-48-68
0-04-46
19
18
0-00-69
20
0-04-97
32
0-28-70
21 8347- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927.
4
1
2
3
4
5
2
5
1
3
0-05-57
65
0-09-48
Pendra
Barhupur 22
Pratapgarh Patti
Patti
Pratapgarh
66
23
0-06-45
0-01-18
0-01-07
24
0-14-86
81
0-05-15
27
80
0-09-53
78
0-15-27
0-02-07
28
0-03-01
77
0-08-03
29
76
0-16-65
0-10-76
30
0-00-82
0-09-96
73
31
79
299
0-07-29
0-01-12
0-05-69
312
0-03-07
291
0-02-15
313
0-01-41
292
297
0-07-11
0-07-99
314
317
0-15-54
0-28-69
298
316
0-02-80
371
0-30-91
318
0-16-23
370
0-07-92
0-04-46
319
0-42-79
369
0-00-88
320
0-08-14
368
366
321
0-12-63
0-08-48
0-00-39
364
353
0-09-63
0-12-44
0-02-72
356
358
0-04-11
0-00-35
354
331
0-01-06
357
332
0-26-01
355
0-00-46
362
0-15-62
356
0-03-09
361
360
349
0-07-09
355
0-07-10
3-65-39
Total
357
0-04-41
0-06-32
164
Marha
0-02-93
506
0-35-57
163
507
0-10-98
166
3-59-89
Total
0-00-72
174
0-30-57
173
0-00-54
17
Pendra
0-06-36
172
0-04-98
18
0-03-31
171
0-00-67
19
0-14-37
170
0-00-24
20
168
21
0-04-95
210
0-40-44
25
0-09-19
226
26
0-08-61
225
0-14-19
0-07-51
24
0-05-60
211
28
0-01-34
0-31-93
212
27
0-05-23
0-16-45
213
46
0-17-52
0-20-55
202
47
0-30-76
0-03-14
214
0-00-25
48
0-01-03
327
0-01-01
92
0-21-31
338
0-19-27
91
0-01-85
345
90
0-04-01
0-15-68
344
89
0-03-98
342
0-03-17
86
0-04-21
0-03-56
343
0-04-27
87
349
85
0-00-22
0-40-66
373
0-12-13
63
0-00-23
374
62
0-03-56
379
64
0-09-48
2149 G1 /05-8 8348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] 1
2
3
4
2
4
5
1
3
5
354
0-05-62
Marha
0-19-65
Andavari 558 Pratapgarh Patti
Pratapgarh Patti
0-29-24
353
557
0-14-90
356
556
0.10-86
586
368
0-01-13
0-01-57
587
369
0-34-59
0-01-55
580
615
0-00-75
0-01-39
588
609
0-00-36
0-02-82
585
610
0-20-81
0-01-41.
583
610/630 0-01-12
0-00-85
584
0-01-69
611
0-23-68
596
613
0-08-94
598
612
0-22-39
0-01-66
599
602
0-02-80
600
0-08-15
601
0-07-77
597
598
0-08-35
601
600
0-05-16
616
0-07-69
2-43-12
Total
626
0-29-38
0-04-57
573
Beind
627
0-11-00
0-23-73
583
0-05-51
579
Total
4-99-65
0-02-35
576
43
Rampur
0-00-83
577
1.1
0-12-95
Bela
582
0-12-28
15
0-08-37
0-21-36
580
1-15-94
0-00-76
606
0-10-82
0-28-23
632
67
0-00-65
0-20-57
625
65
0-13-12
0-42-18
618
0-20-25
64
0-01-04
723
0-00-83
61
807
0-21-66
55
0-05-31
0-28-64
805
56
0-08-87
804
0-08-40
0-02-77
54
803
0-33-52
0-32-30
57
0-03-98
801
0-01-18
59
0-01-75
802
0-00-85
58
785
0-01-01
1-36-22
Total
0-18-09
795
0-12-02
Andavari 564
0-03-95
791
565/613 0-00-75
0-00-52
790
565/624 0-00-21
0-04-32
792
0-03-98
565/625
789
0-12-15
0-14-52
565
0-01-54
793
566
0-08-68
0-12-80
1044
0-19-90
567
0-22-45
978
0-01-20
0-03-09
979
568/616
568
0-07-63
0-02-20
983
0-07-13
569
0-01-50
984
570
0-03-07
0-15-56
1018
0-04-47
0-08-36
571
1021
563
0-06-39
1020
0-09-92
0-33-05
0-19-38
561
1019
0-06-32
562
1017
1016
0-02-18
0-00-15
559 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8349
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5 1
Beind
1015
0-03-42 Pratapgarh Patti
3
4
5 2
1184
0-06-20 Aurain
Patti
Pratapgarh
1013
1014
0-24-71
1012
0.00-42
1011
0-08-31
1010
0-16-23
994
0-16-74
0-21-27
995
4-81-14
Total
0-00-42
Aurain
27
28
0-12-08
29
27
0-04-22
12-47
26
25
030
0-05-44
24
0-26-32
22
19
0-11-98
0-21-12
18
0-04-83
55
59
0-02-92
58
0-00-74
133
0-00-35
140
0-07-72
0-08-08
139
0-07-28
138
0-06-78
137
136
0-05-73
126
0-22-24
0-02-79
143
142
141
0-01-64
144
145
0-02-30
0-05-15
146
147
0-13-32
0-03-45
148
0-13-81
108
0-04-01
987
107
0-14-36
0-00-55
988
0-12-83
991
0-01-21
993
1016
0-27-64
1017
0-15-38
1018
1009
0-17-99
1019
1172
1176
0-01-49
0-01-61
1174
0-31-89
1175
1185
0-05-35
0-02-27
1182
0-24-96
1186
0-01-60
1315
1317
1314
0-00-18
1313
0-02-02
0-03-86
1312
0-14-41
1311
1310
0-01-54
1319
0-01-12
1333
0-32-20
1334
0-05-32
0-19-04
1335
1302
0-02-71
1336
0-35-47
1336/1517 0-01-91
1337
0-22-80
1361
0-02-06
1362
0-03-15
0-23-14
1360
1359
0-29-22
0-04-76
1352
1353
0-04-10
1348
0-12-29
0-04-85
1351
0-00-81
1347
1349
0-08-66
1347
0-04-34
6-27-98
Total
6
0-14-09 Akaripur
8
0-03-52
0-03-32
9
0-07-32
11
0-61-39
10
-79
0-01-02
0-00-68
80
0-16-63
107
0-14-27
106
0-00-81
103
0-00-75
102
0-21-16
97
0-03-04
98
0-08-45
95
0-09-44
92
0-50-63
136
0-02-47
134
0-03-20
135
0-13-08
137
0-02-40
139
138
2-65-46
Total
[File No. L- 14014/62/'03 -G.P. (Part- II)]
SWAMI , SINGH, Director 8350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1 नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005
जौनपुर का.आ. 2653.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में जगदीश पुर- हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसचूना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशंय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) में अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसचूना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री रामावतार पाल, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, बी-35 एवं 36, सैक्टर -1 , नोएडा-201301 ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) , को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला
तहसील गाँव
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्र (हेक्टेयर में )
4
2
3
5
मछली
1
जौनपुर
घूसकूरी
0-08-59
12
शहर
11
0-00-18
0-06-06
29
0-13-24
23
0-00-84
24
25
0-03-57
26
0-08-41
27
0-02-20
37
40
0-03-52
42
0-01-44
0-01-66
39
53
0-00-71
38
0-01-79
50
0-12-90
0-00-89
51
0-01-65
59
0-00-15
43
48
0-06-36
44
0-01-02
46
0-05-31
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3
4
5 2
45
0-03-32 घूसकूरी
0-10-45
47
मछली शहर
0-05-52
100
0-00-15
99
98
0-28-80
0-01-66
72
0-09-47
91
0-00-14
70
0-05-97
73
75
0-10-95
90
0-00-82
0-29-12
76
0-01-57
0-94-73
कुल
16
0-0-12 रामकोला
17
0-11-29
18
0-04-09
0-00-58
20
0-14-76
25
0-25-49
24
23
0-02-11
89
0-00-58
83बी
0-06-51
0-01-39
83ए
86
0-10-19
87
0-01-02
88
0-00-29
85
0-00-36
117
0-21-70
0-18-28
120
0-00-36
123
0-02-57
122
0-00-97
149
157
0-37-91
0-00-57
158
0-18-53
206ए
207
0-11-98
0-07-20
206बी
0-26-77
205
0-01-57
200
0-01-82
197
0-07-90
199
198
0-01-38
220
0-22-37
222
0-00-72
223
0-01-31
218
0-00-15
228
0-17-43
224
0-05-84
226
0-19-96
225
3-06-53
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8351
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
1
2
4
5
1
6
0-40-77 मछली
जौनपुर
जौनपुर
तिवारीपुर
7
शहर
0-03-20
41
0-00-72
0-16-20
84बी
83
0-01-42
85
0-12-57
82
81
0-01-51
78
0-01-02
0-03-38
77
0-26-07
76
75ए
0-04-08
75बी
0-03-51
0-07-75
73
66
0-01-15
0-07-01
67ए
69
0-00-19
68बी
0-05-01
0-02-58
68ए
0-00-68
101
155ए
155बी
0-09-52
156
0-01-18
0-07-23
157ए
177
0-00-68
178
0-01-51
179
0-02-45
180
0-09-31
0-01-22
187/207
0-01-97
154ए
139बी
183
0-09-15
0-01-13
182
0-05-55
184
185
186
0-00-86
194
0-11-22
193
0-00-97
0-01-69
192
0-01-59
191ए
188
0-02-27
189
0-02-07
190ए
0-00-47
190बी
0-00-83
203
2-15-36
कुल
134
0-01-04
आशापुर
0-03-85
142
133
0-00-12
0-20-97
143
0-42-34
144
145
0-18-58
0-86-90
कुल
3
2
4
5
366
मछली कैलबल
0-01-05
0-00-69 शहर
372
373
0-02-80
374
375
0-21-49
399
0-14-40
398
0-11-60
397
0-04-24
502
501
0-29-15
499
0-52-15
600
0-01-30
601
0-00-31
607
0-07-94
609
0-02-66
610
614
0-17-18
617
0-00-43
615
616
0-03-68
0-05-67
620
0-11-97-
624
629
0-06-45
623
0-01-06
622
1-98-36
कुल
0-32-18 समोधपुर खुर्द 44
0-02-42
45
46बी
0-01-24
47
48
0-01-92
57
0-00-63
0-00-59
60ए
60बी
0-00-43
0-10-96
61ए
0-00-18
62ए
0-03-72
61बी
63
0-22-89
0-77-29
कुल
0-03-40 समोधपुर कला 77
78
0-01-35
76
0-09-40
79
0-13-57
75.
0-09-26
74
0-03-09
72
81
0-01-62
0-00-27
84
0-02-67
85ए
0-07-86
86ए
86बी
0-01-40
104
0-00-96
105
0-04-18 8352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
5
4
मछली
0-06-15 जौनपुर
समोधपुर कलाँ 106ए
जौनपुर
0-02-94
106बी
शहर
0-02-52
103
107
0-01-46
108
0-00-83
0-00-42
109
112
0-14-14
0-00-58
113ए
114
0-31-26
0-36-20
115
116
0-13-86
1-69-44
कुल
0-03-59
कोबा
1
2
0-26-85
0-08-63
3
4
0-07-42
153
0-01-20
152
0-21-55
0-10-26
150
0-00-62
149
148
0-07-44
0-00-57
141
0-08-25
165
0-00-46
164
0-02-70
149
0-03-43
155
0-14-19
156
0-00-73
157
0-14-47
158
0-01-20
159
1-33-57
कुल
862
0-19-82
सीड़
0-25-42
863
0-00-49
864
866
0-13-86
867
0-24-38
0-01-82
852
0-44-88
848
915
843
0-01-15
0-00-84
918
838
0-03-06
1-87-26
974
0-42-86
973
0-00-24
972
0-33-64
990
9-02-26
989
0-03-21
988
0-03-59
961
0-02-13
991
0-02-23
992
0-08-13
993
994
0-03-75
4-25-81
कुल
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1
4
5 2
3
0-14-25 मछली चारो
22ए
0-01-37
22बी
शहर
0-13-10
21
0-16-20
20ए
0-03-01
20बी
0-07-88
23
263
0-03-31
255
0-05-08
254
0-00-88
256
0-03-38
246
253ए
0-12-70
0-07-71
247ए
248
0-33-76
223 ए
0-04-20
222
0-00-78
221
0-06-94
218
219
0-01-31
217
0-06-73-
212
0-05-02
213
0-00-85
214
0-18-58
211ए
0-15-51
209
0-01-44
207
0-07-39
206
0-01-77
205
204
0-01-02
203
0-00-95
202
10-02-02
201
0-01-27
349
0-08-51
350ए
350बी 0-03-37
0-02-78
351 ए
354
0-01-54
0-00-87
364ए
364बी
0-12-38
365
366
0-00-17
368
0-02-09
0-05-07
370
0-05-36
371ए
371बी
(0-02-41
0-04-94
373/294
372
0-00-31
374
0-409-91
373
0-407-58
360
2-68-71
कुल
0-06-80
21
फत्तूपुर
0-07-21
20
0-02-68
22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
1
4
5
1
0-28-66 मछली
23ए
जौनपुर जौनपुर
फत्तूपुर
26
0-00-81 शहर
28
0-01-78
0-19-78
29
0-00-66
31
32
0-00-52
36
.-0-06-61
35
0-02-63
54
36
0-03-92
37
0-02-27
53
0-11-77
0-05-71
41
0-44-86
49
42
0-02-17
1-48-93
कुल
0-04-52 गोन्दालपुर 103
0-27-76
93ए
93बी
0-04-53
107
0-00-33
0-02-89
108
92
0-05-54
0-15-26
91
86
0-20-50
0-01-67
89
83
0-00-70.
0-04-52
66ए
81
0-12-56
0-12-20
80ए
79
78
0-01-62
0-01-55
0-00-48
75
0-09-30
73
0-00-74
70बी
70ए
71
0-25-50
0-00-88
259
258
0-13-92
251
0-00-22
250
0-02-51
0-00-92
249
0-09-08
232
231
0-07-22
0-05-96
230
0-00-17
228ए
228बी 0-02-18
227
0-06-49
0-03-50
210
0-07-47-
211
212
0-02-93
0-19-28
209
208ए
208बी 0-01-99
8353 2
3
4
5
204
0-33-94 मछली गोन्दालपुर
676
0-04-71 शहर
710
0-07-07
0-29-86
709
0-06-40
711
825
0-10-82
826
0-19-97
824
0-07-89
0-01-82
834
0-01-77-
835
0-01-08
857.
836
0-00-45
0-03-20
828
0-11-19
837
0-02-94
857
0-00-33
848
847
0-12-20
846
0-05-58
906
0-37-39
903
0-01-08
0-02-43
904
0-00-11
905
897
0-01-17
907
0-03-63
908
0-01-65
909
0-05-31
910
0-07-41
914
4-58-84
कुल
0-22-61
586
लमहन
588
0-04-39
589
0-01-10
0-01-25
590
592
0-00-33
591
0-04-78
619
0-02-27
595
0-02-62
597
598
0-04-26
607
0-02-68
599
0-10-24
0-01-35
600
0-06-20
..601
0-20-04
603
616
0-02-22
619
0-03-42
618
0-00-72
622
665/870 0-01-33
0-9244
कुल
0-25-85 आराजी सवंसा 7ए
0-02-88
28
26
0-08-99 8354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
4
5
1
1 मछली आराजी सवंसा 49
0-03-88 जौनपुर
जौनपुर
48
शहर
23
0-13-94
50
0-62-76
53
54
1-19-71
कुल
सवंसा
0-13-89
117
0-05-29
118
334
0-0073
335
0-22-07
337
0-16-27
338
0-18-81
345
0-15-49
0-01-27
350
348
0-19-79
349
0-07-36
771
0-01-64
769
0-27-90
830
0-00-65
770
0-00-27
779
831
0-29-35
0-05-79
829
780
0-00-71
0-01-95
831/1034
828
0-31-10
820
0-03-47
0-13-86
787
0-07-63
788
789
0-07-40
790
0-10-16
0-05-24
785
0-16-03
791
0-10-76
793
0-15-88
794
0-03-28
795
0-05-46
809
0-14-46
807
0-04-78
808
3-38-75
कुल
253
सदर चकदौदहा
260
0-02-53
261
0-08-65
262
0-04-33
263
0-00-11
270
276
0-00-99
277
0-16-92
कुल
7
0-05-93 जौनपुर रसिकापुर
6
0-12-28
0-00-94
64
0-19-15
कुल
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3
5 2
4
0-13-62
16
जौनपुर सराय विभार
0-09-77
12
13
0-01-43
0-08-37
14
21
0-06-81
0-08-13
25ए
0-00-32
25बी
24
0-00-47
26
0-00-84
27
0-01-17
28
0-20-10
29
38
0-13-05
29
0-1142
58
0-13-26
59
0-00-68
60
0-19-94
64
0-11-34
65
67
0-09-19
0-06-47
68
0-01-66
69
0-00-87
68
0-00-64
101
0-09-26
100ए
0-11-68
990
0-06-25
104ए
0-04-82
104बी
0-04-63
105ए
0-17-19
108
0-00-49
109
0-10-49
112
0-07-12
114
0-00-58
137
0-02-07
119
0-01-94
120
0-00-59
121
0-03-16
118
0-03-48
117
0-04-80
116
122
0-01-39
0-16-51
128
0-00-26
131
0-22-60
132
0-17-70
134ए
0-00-17
135
136
0-13-12
203ए
0-02-85
203बी
0-22-89
202
200
0-21-81
0-01-50
198
0-01-91
199
3-71-16
कुल [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8355
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
4
3
5
1 1
0-10-70 जौनपुर जौनपुर
59
जोनपुर मुइनउद्दीनपुर
60
0-04-16
0-11-09
61
62
63
0-03-50
62
0-04-47
64
0-05-70
67
0-05-04
68
0-03-97
70
0-03-99
0-18-70
66
71
0-21-40
107
0-01-12
105
0-04-74
0-02-83
106
107
0-16-22
104
108
0-01-80
0-00-78
103
0-00-38
101
0-09-49
102
0-00-48
190
0-06-54
188ए
0-16-67
189
0-00-56
259
258
0-10-98
0-03-44
257ए
0-00-34
255ए
0-32-66
198
0-00-46
252
0-01-91
246ए
672
0-04-40
673
0-03-47
0-01-08
247
0-08-56
245
242
0-17-84
0-00-62
237
238
0-00-36
0-00-57
683
0-00-23
240
0-06-39
241
692
0-00-14
567
0-00-49
568
0-19-80
0-20-20
569
570
0-03-91
0-00-73
572
2-72-34
कुल
0-03-32
69ए
ऊदपुर
70
0-00-46
71
0-37-24
72
0-10-51
0-24-71
73
0-76-24
कुल
2149 GI/05-9
3
4
5 2
22
0-03-64 जौनपुर इनामीपुर
0-02-57
23
24
0-05-52
0-03-31
21
0-08-30
25ए
0-01-97
31
30
0-02-04
26
0-09-57
32ए
0-14-38
29
116
0-02-66
123ए
0-00-86
123बी
0-08-29
135
0-02-73
133
125
0-06-19
132
0-10-95
0-02-49
131
129
128
136
0-12-00
0-15-32
140बी
141
0-09-12
0-18-17
142
175
0-15-83
143ए
143बी
0-08-44
151
0-02-67
150
0-02-65
144
0-03-30
146
147बी 0-00-97
0-01-52
147ए
0-01-78
148ए
0-03-73
149ए
0-06-68
152
0-00-48
153
158
0-01-02
0-01-71
159
0-01-63
160
0-00-32
149ए
0-00-85
161
166
0-01-81
167
0-01-88
0-04-81
168
173
0-01-09
0-00-64
172
0-00-17
171
0-04-91
169
0-02-31
165
0-03-09
164
0-04-88
170
0-00-28
174(नाला)
2-20-04
कुल 8356
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
0-01-80
जौनपुर
183
जौनपुर बहाऊद्दीनपुर
188
0-32-40
177
0-02-25
175
0-26-70
165
0-00-63
0-23-72
162ए
156
0-01-20
S.O. 2653. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas from Jagdishpur- Haldia Pipeline Project in the State of Uttar Pardesh , a Pipeline should be laid by the GAIL (India) Ltd.; And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is propesed to be laid and which is
0-20-93
154ए
described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
155
0-06-32
152
0-18-36
148
134
0-12-80
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and MineralsPipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby decleared its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
0-29-55
121बी
0-01-44
121ए
120
0-03-98
0-03-98
118ए
118बी 0-15-10
119
0-04-13
2-09-62
कुल
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty -one days from the date onwhich the copies of the notification issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Ram Avtar Pal , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, B- 35 and 36 , Sector - 1 , Noida-201301 (UttarPradesh).
267
0-02-46
दिलशादपुर
SCHEDULE
0-03-87
265
0-02-84 District Tehsil Village Survey
24
0-09-29
268
0-00-22
No. Area to be Acquired forROU (InHectare)
0-06-22
254/498
3
4
5
1
.2
254/497 0-02-15
252
0-00-53
Guskuri
1
Jaunput
251/499 0-08-42
12
0-08-59
Mach- hlishahr
0-00-18
11
251
0-02-50
0-06-06
29
0-09-79
250
0-13-24
23
249
0-06-22
0-00-84
24
249/500 0-00-86
25
0-03-57
248
0-03-22
26
0-08-41
247
0-03-51
27
246
0-28-15
0-02-20
37
0-03-52
0-19-70
300
40
0-01-44
42
298
0-14-21
0-01-66
299
39
0-00-71
53
430
0-01-25
0-01-79
38
439
0-22-96
0-12-90
50
440
0-00-35
0-00-89
51
441
0-00-19
0-01-65
59
442
0-00-15
43
443
0-05-76
0-06-36
48
449
0-01-20
0-01-02
44
46
0-05-31
1-45-48
कुल
45
0-03-32 [फा. सं. एल -14014/62/03 -जी.पी. ( भाग-1 ) ]
47
0-10-45
0-05-52
100
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
99
Mach- Guskuri
0-00-15 Jaunpur
Jaunpur
0-28-80
98
hlishahr
0-01-66
72
91
0-09-47
70
0-00-14
0-05-97
73
0-10-95
75
90
0-00-82
77
0-29-12
76
0-01-57
1-94-73
Total
Ramkola 16
0-00-12
0-11-29
17
0-04-09
18
20
00-58
25
0-14-76
0-25-49
24
0-02-11
23
89
0-00-58
0-06-51
83B
0-01-39
83A
86
0-10-19
87
0-01-02
0-00-29
88
0-00-36
85
0-21-70
117
120
0-18-28
0-00-36
123
0-02-57
122
149
0-00-97
157
0-37-91
0-00-57
158
206A
0-18-53
207
0-11-98
0-07-20
206B
0-26-77
205
0-01-57
200
197
0-01-82
199
0-07-90
198
220
0-01-38
222
0-22-37
223
0-00-72
0-01-31
218
228
0-00-15
0-17-43
224
0-05-84
226
225
0-19-96
3-06-53
Total
0-40-77 Tiwaripur 6
0-03-20
7
0-00-72
41
84B
0-16-20
0-01-42
83
8357
4
5 2
3
Mach- Tiwaripur 85
hlishahr
82
0-12-57
81
0-01-51
78
0-01-02
0-03-38
76
0-26-07
0-04-08
75A
75B
0-03-51
73
0-07-75
66
0-01-15
67A
0-07-01
69
0-00-19
68B
0-05-01
68A
0-02-58
0-00-68
101
155A
0-09-52
155B
156
0-01-18
0-07-23
157A
177
0-00-68
178
0-01-51
179
0-02-45
180
0-09-31
187/207 0-01-22
0-01-97
154A
139B
183
0-09-15
0-01-13
182
0-05-55
184
185
0-00-86
186
0-11-22
194
0-00-97-
193
0-01-69
192
0-01-59
191A
188
0-02-27
189
190A
0-02-07
0-00-47
190B
0-00-83
203
2-15-36
Total
0-01-04 Ashapur 134
142
0-03-85
0-00-12
133
143
0-20-97
144
0-42-34
145
0-18-58
0-86-90
Total
366
0-01-05 Kailbal
0-00-69
372
373
0-02-80
374
375
0-21-49
399
0-14-40 8358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
4
5
3
1
398
0-11-60 Kailbal
Mach-
Jaunpur
Jaunpur
397
0-04-24 hlishahr
502
501
0-29-15
0-52-15
499
0-01-30
600
601
0-00-31
607
0-07-94
609
0-02-66
610
614
0-17-18
0-00-43
617
615
0-03-68
616
620
0-05-67
624
0-11-97
629
0-06-45
623
0-01-06
622
1-98-36
Total
0-32-18 Samodpur 44
45
Khurd
0-02-42
46B
47
0-01-24
48
0-01-92
57
0-00-63
60A
0-00-59
0-00-43
60B
0-10-96
61A
62A
0-00-18
0-03-72
61B
63
0-22-89
0.77.29
Total
0-03-40 Samodpur 77
0-01-35
78
Kalan
76
0-09-40
79
0-13-57
75
74
0-09-26
0-03-09
72
0-01-62
81
84
0-00-27
0-02-67
85A
0-07-86
86B
86B
0-01-40
104
0-00-96
0-04-18
105
0-06-15
106A
0-02-94
106A
0-02-52
103
107
0-01-46
108
0-00-83
109
0-00-42
112
0-14-14
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
5 2
0-00-58
113A
Mach- Samodpur
0-31-26
114
hlishahr Kalan
115
0-36-20
116
0-13-86
1-69-44
Total
0-03-59 Koba
1
0-26-85
2
0-08-63
3
0-07-42
4
0-01-20
153
0-21-55
152
0-10-26
150
0-00-62
149
0-07-44
148
0-00-57
141
0-08-25
165
0-00-46
164
0-02-70
149
0-03-43
155
156
0-14-19
0-00-73
157
0-14-47
158
0-01-20
159
1-33-57
Total
0-19-82 Sied
862
863
0-25-42
864
0-00-49
866
0-13-86
0-24-38
867
0-01-82
852
0-44-88
848
915
843
0-01-15
0-00-84
918
0-03-06
838
974
1-87-26
0-42-86
973
0-00-24
972
990
0-33-64
0-02-26
989
0-03-21
988
0-03-59
961
0-02-13
991
0-02-23
992
0-08-13
993
0-03-75
994
4-25-81
Total
0-14-25
22A
Charo
22B
0-01-37
0-13-10
21
0-16-20
20A
0-03-01
20B
0-07-88
23 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
263
Mach- Charo
Jaunpur
Jaunpur hlishahr
255
0-03-31
254
0-05-08
256
0-00-88
246
0-03-38
0-12-70
253A
0-07-71
247A
248
0-33-76
223A
222
0-04-20
0-00-78
221
218
0-06-94
219
217
0-01-31
212
0-06-73
213
0-05-02
214
0-00-85
211A
0-18-58
209
0-15-51
207
0-01-44
206
0-07-39
205
0-01-77
204
0-01-02
203
202
0-00-95
201
0-02-02
349
0-01-27
350A 0-08-51
350B
0-03-37
351A
0-02-78
354
0-01-54
364A
0-00-87
364B
365
0-12-38
366
0-00-17
368
0-02-09
370
0-05-07
371A
0-05-36
371B
0-02-41
373/294 0-04-94
372
0-00-31
374
0-09-91
373
360
0-07-58
Total
2-68-71
0-06-80 Fattupur 21
0-07-21
20
22
0-02-68
0-28-66
23A
26
0-00-81
0-01-78
28
0-19-78
29
0-00-66
31
32
0-00-52
8359
4
2
5 3
0-06-61 Mach- Fattupur 36
35
0-02-63 hlishahr
54
36
0-03-92
0-02-27
37
0-11-77
53
0-05-71
41
0-44-86
49
0-02-17
42
Total
1-48-93
0-04-52
103
Gondalpur
0-27-76
93A
0-04-53
93B
0-00-33
107
108
0-02-89
0-05-54
92
0-15-26
91
86
0-20-50
0-01-67
89
83
0-04-52
66A
81
0-12-56
80A
0-12-20
79
0-01-62
78
0-01-55
75
0-00-48
0-09-30
73
0-00-74
70B
70A
0-25-50
71
259
0-00-88
258
0-13-92
0-00-22
251
250
0-02-51
249
0-00-92
0-09-08
232
0-07-22
231
0-05-96
230
0-00-17
228A
0-02-18
228B
0-06-49
227
0-03-50
210
0-07-47
211
0-02-93
212
209
0-19-28
208A
0-01-99
208B
204
0-33-94
0-04-71
676
0-07-07
710
0-29-86
709
0-06-40
711
825
0-10-82 8360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 Mach-
0-19-97
826
Jaunpur
Gondalpur
Jaunpur hlishahr
824
0-07-89
834
0-01-82
835
0-01-77
857
0-01-08
836
0-00-45
0-03-20
828
837
0-11-19
857
0-02-94
848
0-00-33
847
0-12-20
846
0-05-58
906
0-37-39
903
0-01-08
904
0-02-43
905
0-00-11
897
907
0-01-17
908
0-03-63
909
0-01-65
910
0-05-31
914
0-07-41
4-58-84
Total
586
Lamhan
0-22-61
588
0-04-39
589
0-01-10
0-01-25
590
592
0-00-33
591
0-04-78
619
0-02-27
595
597
0-02-62
0-04-26
598
0-02-68
607
0-10-24
599
600
0-01-35
0-06-20
601
0-20-04
603
0-02-22
616
0-03-42
619
618
622
0-00-72
665/870 0-01-33
Total
0-92-44
0-25-85
7A
Arazi
0-02-88
28
Sawansa
0-08-99
26
0-03-88
49
48
0-13-94
23
50
0-62-76
53
54
Total
1-19-71
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 2
3
4
5 Sawansa
Mach-
117
0-13-89 hlishahr
118
0-05-29
334
0-00-73
335
0-22-07
337
0-16-27
338
0-18-81
345
0-15-49
350
0-01-27
348
0-19-79
349
0-07-36
771
0-01-64
769
0-27-90
830
0-00-65
770
779
0-00-27
0-29-35
831
829
0-05-79
780
0-00-71
0-01-95
831/1034
828
0-31-10
820
0-03-47
0-13-86
787
0-07-63
788
789
0-07-40
790
0-10-16
0-05-24
785
0-16-03
791
0-10-76
793
0-15-88
794
795
0-03-28
0-05-46
809
0-14-46
807
0-04-78
808
3-38-75
Total
253
Sadar Chak-
260
daudaha
0-02-53
261
0-08-65
262
0-04-33
263
270
0-00-11
276
0-00-99
277
0-16-92
Total
0-05-93
7
Jaunpur Rasikapur
6
0-12-28
0-00-94.
64
0-19-15
Total
(0-13-62 Sarai Vibhar 16
0-09-77
12
0-01-43
13
14
0-08-37
21
0-06-81
25A
0-08-13 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8361
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
5
1
2
1
0-00-32 Sarai Vibhar 25B
Jaunpur Jaunpur
Jaunpur
24
0-00-47
26.
0-00-84
27
0-01-17
28
0-20-10
29
0-13-05
38
29
58
0-11-42
59
0-13-26
60
0-00-68
64
0-19-94
65
0-11-34
67
0-09-19
68
0-06-47
69
0-01-66
68
0-00-87
0-00-64
101
0-09-26
100A
99A
0-11-68
104A
0-06-25
0-04-82
104B
0-04-63
105A
108
0-17-19
0-00-49
109
112
0-10-49
114
0-07-12
137
0-0058
0-02-07
119
120
0-01-94
0-00-59
121
0-03-16
118
0-03-48
117
0-04-80
116
0-01-39
122
128
0-16-51
131
0-00-26
0-22-60
132
0-17-70
134A
0-00-17
135
136
203A
0-13-12
0-02-85
203B
0-22-89
202
200
0-21-81
198
0-01-50
199
0-01-91
3-71-16
Total
0-10-70
Muinuddinpur 59
60
0-04-16
0-11-09
61
62
63
0-03-50
0-04-47
62
4
2
3
5
0-05-70 JaunpurMuinuddin pur 64
0-05-04
67
68
0-03-97
70
0-03-99
0-18-70
66
71
0-21-40
0-01-12
107
105
0-04-74
0-02-83
106
107
0-16-22
104
0-01-80
108
0-00-78
103
101
0-00-38
0-09-49
102
190
0-00-48
0-06-54
188A
0-16-67
189
259
0-00-56
258
0-10-98
0-03-44
257A
255A
0-00-34
198
0-32-66
252
0-00-46
246A
0-01-91
672
0-04-40
673
0-03-47
247
0-01-08
245
0-08-56
242
0-17-84.
237
0-00-62
0-00-36
238
0-00-57
683
240
0-00-23
0-06-39
241
0-00-14
692
567
0-00-49
568
0-19-80
569
0-20-20
0-03-91
570
572
0-00-73
2-72-34
Total
69A
0-03-32 Udpur
0-00-46
70
71
0-37-24
72
0-10-51
0-24-71
73
0-76-24
Total
0-03-64
22
23
0-02-57
24
0-05-52
0-03-31
21
25A
0-08-30 8362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-01-97 Jaunpur Jaunpur Enamipur 31
Jaunpur
30
0-02-04
26
0-09-57
32A
29
0-14-38
116
0-02-66
123A
123B
0-00-86
135
0-08-29
133
0-02-73
125
0-06-19
132
0-10-95
0-02-49
131
129
128
136
0-12-00
140B
0-15-32
141
0-09-12
142
0-18-17
175
0-15-83
143A
143B
151
0-08-44
150
0-02-67
144
0-02-65
0-03-30
146
0-00-97
147B
0-01-52
147A
0-01-78
148A
149A
0-03-73
152
0-06-68
153
0-00-48
158
0-01-02
159
0-01-71
0-01-63
160
149B
0-00-32
0-00-85
161
0-01-81
166
0-01-88
167
168
0-04-81
0-01-09
173
172
0-00-64
0-00-17
171
0-04-91
169
165
0-02-31
0-03-09
164
0-04-88
170
0-00-28
174(Nala)
2-20-04
Total
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 2
3
4
5.
0-01-80 Jaunpur Bahauddin 183
188
0-32-40 pur
177
0-02-25
175
0-26-70
165
0-00-63
0-23-72
162A
156
0-01-20
154A
0-20-93
155
0-06-32
152
0-18-36
148
0-12-80
134
0-29-55
121B
0-01-44
121A
120
0-03-98
118A
0-03-98
118B
0-15-10
119
0-04-13
Total
2-09-62
0-02-46
267
Dilshadpur
266
0-03-87
265
0-02-84
264
0-00-29
268
0-00-22
254/498 0-06-22
0-02-15
254/497
252
0-00-53
251/499 0-08-42
251
0-02-50
250
0-09-79
0-06-22
249
249/500 0-00-86
248
0-403-22
0-03-51
247
246
0-28-15
300
0-19-70
298
0-14-21
299
0-01-25
430
439
0-22-96
440
0-00-35
441
0-0019
442
443
0-05-76
0-01-20
449
1-45-48
Total
[F. No. L- 14014/62/'03 -G.P. ( Part -1) ]
SWAMI SINGH , Director.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1 नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2005
रोहतास का.आ. 2654.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि बिहार राज्य में जगदीशपुर- हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमिके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में , श्री वी. एन. अखोरी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (बिहार व झारखंड ) , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, चतुर्थ तल, प्रधान टॉवर, मेन रोड, राँची, झारखंड को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला
गाँव
सर्वे नं.
तहसील
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करनें के लिए क्षेत्र (हेक्टेयर में)
4
5 1
2
3
डिहरी
मकरेन
5-37-14 रोहतास
नदी/914
434
0-01-86
0-28-29
433
0-19-85
435
439
0-01-14
0-08-22
438
436
0-04-30
437
0-02-10
405
404
0-04-94
0-03-08
रोड/403
368
0-06-33
369
0-12-31
370
0-16-29
0-24-14
371
0-05-90
372
373
0-12-98
0-01-16
374
2149 GV05-10
8363
5 2
3
4
363
0-12-09 डिहरी मकरेन
360
0-11-33
0-06-58
358
0-14-38
359
357
0-04-60
रोड/351
7-42-02
कुल
0-05-14
906/रोड
अहिबरनपुर
0-06-05
901
0-03-41
899
0-07-48
902
0-04-04
900
0-07-05
903
0-00-52
898
0-03-70
883
882
0-02-01
0-01-33
813
814
0-00-45
0-04-08
812
800
0-14-19
0-02-03
802
0-00-51
801
799
0-06-78
0-04-09
755
0-03-49
745
0-00-28
490
0-04-56
491
492
0-09-58
0-13-70
493
0-09-12
495
0-00-49
497
0-11-17
498
0-01-47
494
0-12-16
501
0-00-27
504
0-06-80
505
0-07-45
506
0-03-92
516
0-02-73
405
406
0-01-09
416
417
0-00-56
517
0-03-71
404
0-06-18
403/रोड
0-02-67
402
0-07-01
398
0-06-90
397
0-07-69
393
0-03-78
392
0-04-75
391
0-14-55
389
0-03-68
387
0-03-87
388 8364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
1
0-07-67 रोहतास डिहरी
रोहतास अहिबरनपुर 386
382
0-06-58
287
0-01-29
0-07-45
288
0-15-25
289
290
0-10-76
0-12-47
291
294
0-01-14
295
0-06-67
271
237
0-03-53
0-00-31
189
186
0-06-04
185
0-03-16
0-04-70
184
0-06-63
175
0-05-51
174
0-06-75
173
0-07-52
172
0-05-29
160
0-02-44
963
0-06-86
158
150
0-00-67
155
0-07-60
0-02-95
152
रोहतास
151
0-19-17
0-05-81
144
0-02-82
100/रोड
0-07-70
127
0-07-98
128
0-01-78
129
133
131
0-04-36
130
0-05-16
119
0-05-15
118
0-07-07
113
0-10-05
111
0-08-48
112
7
0-03-06
4-62-84
कुल
0-03-66
415
अकोड़ीगोला मथुरापुर
0-12-61
383
0-07-21
287
0-03-77
286
0-01-26
285
0-25-31
288
0-00-81
293
0-13-38
292
0-04-59
291
0-09-10
290
0-05-95
289
0-10-55
266
0-07-24
267
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
5 2
263
0-05-67 अकोड़ीगोला मथुरापुर
0-00-21
264
268
0-10-38
246
0-01-30
249
0-06-60
0-03-28
247
250
0-15-33
0-01-96
233
0-19-73
253
0-14-31
232
0-00-13
255
0-07-58
231
230
0-01-51
0-07-69
229
0-06-99
208
31
0-01-07
30
0-10-97
32
0-10-08
28
0-12-35
27
0-00-76
23
0-08-63
22
0-03-42
21
2-56-16
कुल
0-05-93
4887
अकोड़ीगोला बंक
0-09-69
4880
4879
0-11-16
0-02-28
4878
0-04-83
4877
4875
4876
0-00-94
0-14-50
4821
0-01-82
4820
0-01-72
4817
4819
4818
0-11-35
0-00-79
4815
0-04-62
5219
0-09-66
4814
0-10-91
4813
0-00-66
4799
0-09-48
4783
0-05-66
47812
0-07-50
4782
0-00-17
4784
$3-02-00
4780
0-00-88
4779
0-00-88
4777
0-03-98
4776
0-05-42
4775
4763
0-00-13
0-07-15
4774
0-06-08
4764
4765 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
2
4
5
1
4766
0-09-84 रोहतास रोहतास अकोड़ीगोला बंक
4767
0-01-03
1-52-57
कुल
468
उगरा
0-17-55
472
0-14-96
473
0-02-78
448
0-18-14
447
0-05-99
450
0-00-39
451
0-12-44
446
0-00-16
0-05-63
442
441
0-06-45
03-26
394
391
383
0-01-40
0-00-93
382
0-03-85
385
0-04-20
381
0-05-50
386
0-06-62
457
0-06-67
0-00-75
251
0-21-04
252
253
0-32-16
254
0-34-14
255
0-13-84
नहर/229
0-64-17
185
0-04-48
184
0-18-13
183
0-03-33
187
0-00-48
181
0-07-90
182
0-11-53
168
169
0-02-83
177
175
0-03-80
176
0-02-86
174
0-04-39
171
0-02-13
172
0-05-19
173
0-06-36
0-00-43
170
0-05-51
138
26
0-35-52
10
0-71-33
0-01-83
9
40
0-82-69
39
0-43-38
0-11-68
3
0-38-70
1
2
0-00-49
6-48-99
कुल
8365 3
2
4
5
0-64-41
277
अकोड़ीगोला बहोरनपुर
0-21-35
282
0-29-12
281
271
0-01-90
267
0-18-80
1-35-58
कुल
0-14-33
867
गोवर्धनपुर
870
0-02-74
869
0-06-50
868
871
0-02-60
872
0-06-98
876
0-01-72
873
0-08-90
875
0-01-12
874
0-05-89
835
0-04-60
0-17-34
834
0-04-06
833
0-03-22
832
0-05-76
802
877
0-04-60
2
0-00-95
433
0-08-32
434
0-10-33
436
437
0-04-40
438
0-02-07
439
0-04-88
442
0-12-50
441
0-08-32
443
0-05-30
448
0-02-95
449
0-00-88
447
0-03-22
450
0-01-20
0-08-95
446
478
0-03-19
477
0-00-86
476
0-01-40
479
0-02-15
480
0-04-40
475
0-01-28
0-04-63
481
482
0-04-98
0-03-37
484
483
0-00-64
502
0-03-82
485
0-00-63
501
486
0-05-50
500
0-00-39
487
0-02-04
488
0-02-80 8366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
4
5
2
1
1
0-03-37 रोहतास
रोहतास
489
अकोड़ीगोला गोवर्धनपुर
0-02-12
491
494
0-03-99
0-03-76
490
0-04-79
492
0-06-79
320
321
0-06-43
322
0-06-89
0-06-88
323
324
0-02-22
318
0-20-03
0-04-88
305
0-05-35
306
0-04-54
294
0-10-17
287
0-05-06
288
276
0-08-80
0-01-16
275
289
0-00-15
274
0-03-44
277
0-01-02
272
0-05-14
0-09-26
271
127
158
0-11-01
2180
159
0-02-92
156
0-07-10
0-08-11
157
155
0-03-86
0-01-59
160
0-02-44
165
0-24-40
164
166
0-07-41
169
0-18-12
170
0-74-82
0-19-66
145
150
0-04-57
0-03-74
149
0-00-13
147
148
0-02-87
0-00-81
145
144
0-02-27
131
5-41-02
कुल
0-02-52
नाला/1722
रामपुर
0-03-36
1651
1652
0-04-59
0-03-63
1668
0-04-16
1653
1669
1656
0-01-96
1657
0-03-32
0-11-24
1720
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5
1662
अकोड़ीगोला रामपुर
1716
0-00-73
1717
0-04-46
1718
0-00-57
1713
0-00-62
0-03-39
1714
0-00-81
1712
0-04-83
1710
1711
0-00-93
-1708
0-06-14
1707
0-12-56
0-05-91
1706
1705
0-04-83
1671
0-03-14
0-02-44
1704
0-08-77
1672
0-02-13
1703
1702
0-00-81
1673
0-08-05
0-07-90
1674
1559
0-06-76
1558
0-03-33
0-03-11
1557
0-00-35
1560
0-20-66
1564
0-18-72
1566
0-01-77
1569
0-05-33
1568
0-05-77
1567
0-15-30
1447
0-06-06
1546
0-17-99
1541
0-16-37
1537
1536
1526
0-03-50
1525
0-06-54
0-03-22
1524
0-01-18
1523
0-02-79
1532
0-02-73
1529
0-01-51
1522
1512
0-10-14
0-10-59
1513
0-09-36
1515
1517
0-01-11
0-05-83
1516
0-06-77
909
0-05-22
908
0-04-45
905
0-08-66
903
0-03-32
900
0-09-20
898
0-06-25
895
0-01-18
896
892
0-02-30 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
4
3
2
5
1
891
रोहतास
0-02-41 रोहतास अकोड़ीगोला रामपुर
796
0-06-96
275
0-07-73
273
0-01-58
274
0-01-22
1812
0-03-59
277
0-02-18
278
0-14-14
279
0-11-77
280
0-03-06
283
0-01-15
282
0-09-15
281
0-06-46
288
0-04-52
289
0-02-55
346
0-10-89
345
0-00-43
353
0-04-81
352
0-08-85
347
0-00-62
351
0-06-69
0-10-57
354
357
0-08-77
356
0-03-55
0-02-45
355
1
0-21-69
372
373
0-05-73
401
402
0-01-92
0-03-65
403
0-00-47
369
0-06-26
423
0-04-95
425
426
0-05-05
428
0-08-27
429
0-02-20
430
450
0-06-40
451
0-06-93
453
0-04-21
460
0-02-46
0-02-85
459
463
0-01-93
464
0-09-19
0-07-01
466
465
0-00-32
467
0-06-61
495
0-05-28
496
497
0-01-96
0-04-02
502
499
0-03-54
0-04-42
500
0-05-91
501
8367 2
3
4
5
505
0-02-40 अकोड़ीगोला रामपुर
506
0-02-49
510
0-15-40
2
0-08-16
6-63-45
कुल
सेमरा
सासाराम
117/रोड 0-09-95
0-28-18
111
103
0-01-93
0-08-25
105
109
0-01-18
106
0-24-33
107/रोड 0-02-23
0-76-15
कुल
0-02-14
585/रोड
डुमरिया
572
0-00-76
571
0-20-58
0-03-05
570
546/रोड 0-01-78
0-01-45
51/बांध
0-04-97
328
0-02-87
329
330
0-12-34
323
0-14-49
0-07-29
322
321
0-12-03
342
343
0-01-24
344
320
(0-09-88
261
0-01-52
251
0-10-55
250
0-00-23
0-03-87
252
258
0-02-48
257
0-03-42
254
0-00-98
0-02-02
255
256
0-03-24
224
0-03-21
225
0-06-80
0-07-79
226
236
0-00-42
0-02-81
228
0-06-64
227
0-06-62
217
229
0-04-83
212
0-16-03
0-01-45
216
0-00-11
211
209
0-03-35
0-01-17
208
0-02-89
207
174
0-00-64 8368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA & . 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
173
रोहतास सासाराम
0-01-83 रोहतास
डुमरिया
172
0-10-43
177
0-01-71
178
0-00-81
0-07-95
168
179
0-08-56
167
166
0-08-19
0-08-34
165
0-05-49
163
0-04-06
162
0-17-03
161
160
0-06-60
158/रोड 0-04-84
2-04-83
कुल
0-04-01
पटिया 541/रोड
539
0-51-42
535
0-18-13
524
0-05-11
531
0-08-29
530
0-19-51
240
0-13-44
0-07-37
239
238
0-19-58
237
0-07-79
0-15-16
236
0-06-68
235
233
0-03-64
232
0-04-23
230
0-11-73
0-05-33
225
224
0-06-29
223
0-07-22
0-02-55
218
0-04-40
217
0-06-75
216
0-02-73
215
0-02-64
210
0-00-84
228
0-02-40
209
208
0-06-15
0-11-25
205
0-03-77
154
0-02-06
148
0-06-67
149
0-00-75
134
0-04-31
133
0-03-99
151
42
0-07-62
43
0-09-35
44
0-04-95
0-04-49
39
48
0-05-17
38
0-01-74
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]
4
2
3
5 सासाराम पटिया
50
0-07-39
51
0-08-42
52
0-09-42
3-34-74
कुल
0-04-34 चौबिया 101
102
0-09-47
0-11-64
108
0-06-54
109
0-07-50
110
0-11-72
117
119
0-03-63
120
0-04-52
124
0-00-27
123
0-01-44
122
0-04-33
68
0-02-12
0-01-07
67
66
0-00-59
72
0-02-28
65
0-05-73
0-01-58
61
60
0-03-40
51
0-04-20
0-04-40
50
43
0-06-63
26
25
0-02-18
27
0-00-28
0-06-65
24
23
0-04-78
0-01-21
22
2
0-04-17
3
0-02-12
4
0-02-94
1
0-03-83
1-28-56
कुल
0-12-33 बिसनपुर 123
0-16-51
121
0-06-27
119
120
0-11-40
117
0-06-13
112
113
0-01-45
0-01-33
109
0-01-60
110
0-05-62
111
0-05-10
105
0-05-06
100
0-01-61
688
98
0-07-18
0-09-25
96
0-04-33
95
0-01-25
94 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1 रोहतास सासाराम
93
0-02-96 रोहतास बिसनपुर
0-07-16
92
88
0-06-37
87
0-01-55
86
0-01-86
76
0-03-58
71
0-02-16
72
0-02-62
69
0-09-12
68
0-03-12
0-02-14
62
61
0-09-24
59
0-04-35
58
0-07-31
57
0-03-33
55
0-02-69
56
0-00-87
50
49
0-02-10
48
0-03-19
47
0-04-98
46
0-09-91
45
0-07-88
43
0-06-24
41
0-02-04
40
0-02-48
44
39
0-01-88
38
0-04-59
37
0-04-64
35
0-10-85
0-04-89
691
0-03-87
34
0-03-68
690
0-03-64
33
32
0-04-63
0-04-50
31
0-00-85
29
0-02-56
30
24
0-03-34
0-01-52
25
0-00-83
22
0-03-82
23
0-01-04
17
0-01-21
18
19
0-02-62
16
0-02-30
15
0-02-52
14
9
0-08-75
0-07-18
8
0-06-03
5
4
0-10-52
0-02-80
1/रोड
3-16-82
कुल
8369
4
2
3
5
236/रोड 0-02-48 सासाराम शाहपुर
95
0-09-05
0-07-82
96
97
0-09-77
0-08-80
98
0-10-16
91
0-05-07
88
0-04-22
87
0-04-90
78
0-02-05
79
0-06-37
74
0-05-48
73
0-05-95
58
0-04-06
59
60
0-01-45
54
0-06-51
0-05-77
52
53
0-00-98
0-04-85
50
51
0-06-65
0-01-07
48
44
0-02-38
45
0-02-61
40
0-03-49
39
0-05-70
38
0-04-17
37
0-01-19
0-02-51
36
0-04-12
35
0-01-29
34
33
0-04-12
0-02-35
29
0-01-74
28
0-05-32
27
25
0-05-30
24
0-05-01
0-04-84
21
0-13-19
15
0-06-17
14
0-08-65
13
0-01-59
12
0-02-04
11
0-03-28
10
0-03-18
9
0-07-73
6
0-02-26
1
2-17-69
कुल
0-01-82 बागाडीह 584
0-04-56
590/रोड
0-08-99
583
1-09-38
581
0-09-28
570
571
569
0-07-52 8370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 रोहतास सासाराम
566
बागाडीह
0-09-51 रोहतास
593
594
565
0-75-23
597
0-01-78
598
0-11-34
649
0-03-22
650
0-06-65
643
0-04-93
648
0-05-11
644
0-02-60
645
0-03-62
541
0-03-65
640
0-04-66
628
0-02-77
627
0-03-40
675
0-02-64
676
0-03-22
678
0-02-99
679
0-04-33
680
0-03-27
0-02-43
681
682
0-08-30
722
0-03-02
0-07-68
723
724
0-06-32
728
0-06-62
729
0-09-41
730
0-02-61
732
0-02-03
0-03-34
733
734
0-24-40
765
0-03-39
0-01-63
766
767
675
0-20-59
188
0-09-88
0-00-86
77
78
76
0-01-94
72
0-04-44
0-00-96
71
0-01-71
70
69
0-01-56
68
0-00-13
64
0-03-16
53
0-02-69
0-03-26
25
0-02-28
36
37
0-02-98
24
0-02-33
23
0-01-25
20
0-03-01
19
0-03-41
18
0-14-84
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
5 सासाराम बागाडीह 9
0-01-49
15
0-02-68
14
0-01-35
10
0-02-40
186
0-01-81
3-69-91
कुल
186
0-03-17 तेंदुआ
0-09-17
180
178
0-02-45
177
0-05-75
174
0-05-25
171
0-00-32
172
0-04-38
0-05-84
169
0-06-88
164
161
0-02-74
159
0-04-22
158
0-04-39
157
0-01-05
155
0-03-80
153
0-03-42
152
0-02-89
148
0-06-42
147
0-05-54
0-09-89
146
145
0-02-06
144
0-02-69
143
0-03-02
142
0-01-88
141
0-03-18
139
0-02-38
138
0-01-51
136
0-05-30
131
0-06-62
135
0-00-18
134
0-00-18
133
0-00-58
132
120
0-06-26
0-03-06
119
0-04-48
121
0-05-57
122
0-02-17
118
117
0-01-22
116
0-02-12
0-02-60
115
113
0-11-39
0-07-11
112
101
0-07-93
0-26-90
99
0-08-84
98
97
0-15-60
74
0-03-19
75 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-03-14 रोहतास सासाराम
73
रोहतास तेंदुआ
71
0-02-40
68
0-03-34
67
0-03-02
0-03-96
64
63
0-04-75
0-01-60
58
59
0-03-94
56
0-03-67
55
0-00-94
54
0-02-62
52
0-02-15
51
0-02-72
50
0-02-88
48
0-02-29
47
0-01-13
44
0-03-12
39
0-03-28
40
0-00-43
38
36
0-02-96
33
0-05-95
0-03-79
32
25
0-02-38
26
0-01-79
23
0-03-32
22
0-06-74
19
0-02-99
17
0-04-52
18
14
0-03-96
8
0-08-22
7
0-01-35
3-31-70
कुल
गोत्पा
1314
0-01-40
0-01-59
1313
1359
0-04-22
1356
0-03-38
1357
0-02-86
1358
0-01-36
1346
0-06-61
0-05-87
1347
0-07-65
1345
1362
0-11-33
0-03-31
1344
1367
0-02-19
0-02-25
1339
0-02-22
1338
0-02-71
1337
0-02-98
1368
0-03-08
1370
0-07-78
1336
1335
0-08-83
1334
2149 GI/05-11
8371 2
3
4
5
1323
सासाराम गोत्पा
0-10-29
0-09-82
1322
0-02-68
1316
0-03-75
रोड 1295
1292
0-12-64
0-01-61
1294
1293
0-01-84
0-19-95
1281
1275
0-15-51
1274
0-03-82
0-04-92
1268
0-06-02
1265
0-05-05
1254
0-15-43
1255
0-02-36
1259
0-03-56
1258
1257
0-08-56
0-00-69
1260
1240
0-07-82
0-06-92
1228
1227
0-18-50
1226
0-01-63
1215
0-04-50
1211
1212
0-01-07
0-08-66
1209
0-26-30
1207
1206
0-06-50
1203
0-13-03 ,
0-00-25
1204
0-01-36
1197
0-01-62
1196
0-01-47
1214
1194
0-02-16
0-05-19
1192
0-08-84
1193
0-13-90
1188
0-06-93
1187
1099
0-01-69
1101
0-05-77
1185
0-04-01
1184
0-03-43
1102
0-03-58
1182
0-04-35
1103
0-01-74
रोड 1104
0-01-45
रोड 1149
0-04-35
1110
0-01-86
1111
1112
0-02-39
0-03-04
1113
0-05-33
1114
0-18-30
1115
0-10-53
1116 8372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
4
3
5
1 गोत्पा
सासाराम
1117
0-04-36 रोहतास रोहतास
0-02-67
1118
1122
0-03-10
1123
0-02-77
1124
0-03-23
0-05-24
1125
1126
0-04-89
1128
0-04-04
1129
0-02-81
1130
0-07-21
1-133
0-07-50
1148
0-04-29
1147
0-02-35
रोड 1146
0-03-20
4-76-44
कुल
790
0-04-36 कटडिहरी
0-00-92
746
0-01-26
747
767
0-07-47
768
0-07-77
769
0-03-53
748
0-01-11
766
0-03-79
765
0-04-59
762
0-03-64
761
0-03-91
0-03-96
758
749
0-02-36
757
0-07-52
750
0-04-42
856
0-03-23
752
0-01-97
0-02-26
751
0-07-56
604
605
0-04-58
0-01-53
857
0-01-93
606
607
0-22-25
595
609
0-02-73
588
0-02-78
587
0-02-91
0-00-24
611
612
0-01-73
586
0-02-78
0-06-32
585
0-00-16
626
415
0-17-10
414
0-01-23
0-02-08
416
0-02-16
413
417
0-04-73
0-08-87
412
410
0-07-03
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
5 सासाराम कटडिहरी 411
0-01-74
395
0-01-87
394
0-01-50
396
0-04-11
392
0-08-04
0-5-15
390
0-01-60
391
286
0-04-13
287
0-05-28
0-05-35
283
0-03-07
282
0-02-98
280
0-05-97
279
270
0-06-29
266
0-06-45
265
0-04-41
0-05-37
255
0-04-67
256
162
0-08-30
0-03-80
161
157
0-04-18
0-03-05
156
0-02-44
154
0-02-60
149
148
0-03-35
147
0-00-19
0-04-40
146
0-04-65
143
0-05-01
141
136
0-03-09
0-04-36
135
0-01-77
132
0-01-53
131
0-03-62
134
133
0-06-25
0-01-85
126
0-07-37
125
0-01-16
रोड/ 123
0-04-72
122
0-10-97
121
0-09-16
120
117
0-07-92
0-16-37
116
0-08-08
48
47
0-07-72
0-06-35
29
0-01-67
30
31
0-04-59
28
0-01-80
27
0-03-32
26
0-06-53
24
0-05-32
17
0-02-94
16 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
4
3
5
1 रोहतास
7
सासाराम
0-09-80
कटडिहरी
रोहतास
रोड/25
0-28-34
1
0-15-29
5
4
0-07-95
3
0-07-62
2
0-14-18
रोड/62
0-01-90
5-03-23
कुल
828
0-19-98
पिपरी
645
0-00-62
0-20-60
कुल
करमडिहरी रोड/383 0-02-15
288
0-13-66
0-10-26
289
0-04-22
290
0-03-65
344
352
0-00-61
343
0-06-10
339
0-03-84
338
0-04-27
337
0-08-10
336
0-07-67
325
0-00-75
326
0-07-29
327
0-00-14
0-04-17
324
319
0-03-10
320
0-02-64
316
0-01-93
315
0-01-62
0-04-67
314
305
0-08-44
304
0-08-54
303
0-11-12
0-06-05
300
297
0-08-03
296
0-05-76
459
0-00-94
0-09-97
295
0-07-74
461
0-03-95
291
272
0-02-23
0-01-79
275
0-26-77
259
74
0-00-55
75
0-04-18
रोड/ 58
0-25-53
76
0-05-44
79
0-01-83
80
0-02-72
8373
4
2
3
5 सासाराम करमडिहरी 81
0-04-74
82
0-01-60
86
0-00-55
88
0-06-11
90
0-00-65
89
0-04-08
0-02-41
91
102
0-01-38
101
0-00-81
100
99
98
0-00-45
97
0-00-85
104
0-00-28
0-16-25
103
0-05-97
105
121
0-00-46
120
0-00-78
119
0-00-91
117
0-11-25
116
112
0-05-81
113
0-06-39
111
123
0-03-28
127
0-03-39
0-06-16
130
129
0-00-53
135
0-04-30
139
0-04-01
136
0-00-13
0-00-95
138
143
0-05-19
145
0-03-39
144
0-02-90
151
0-02-53
155
0-02-84
158
0-07-40
174
0-08-77
177
0-01-81
176
0-03-63
178
0-06-31
175
0-00-13
0-07-55
185
186
0-02-88
0-00-36
191
188
0-02-69
0-01-97
189
0-01-01
190
0-11-17
200/रोड
4-00
कुल 8374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1
4
2
3
5
New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005 रोहतास सासाराम
243/रोड
बैजाला
0-01-66
244/रोड 0-00-74
0-02-40
कुल
S.O. 2654. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through Jagdishpur- Haldia Pipeline Project in the State ofBihar, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India ) Ltd.;
तेतरी
102
0-15-00
16
0-17-83
17
0-05-64
14
0-10-90
And, whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification:
13
0-00-98
20
0-05-93
6
0-13-15
21
30
0-02-51
31
0-13-54
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) . the Central Governemnt hereby declared its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
32
0-10-22
33
0-00-23
37
0-29-98
38
0-00-33
76
0-05-88
77
0-01-38
75
0-03-29
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V.N. Akhaury Competent Authority, (Bihar & Jharkhand) , GAIL (India) Limited, 4th Floor, Pradhan Tower, Main Road, Ranchi , Jharkhand .
76
0-04-71
SCHEDULE
20
0-04-37
81
0-00-44
Area to be
District Tehsil Village
338
0-10-56
Survey No.
acquired forR.O.U. 337
0-11-16
(inHectare)
0-09-67
336
4
5 339
2
3
0-09-32
1
340
0-12-98
Dehri
River/914 5-37-14
Rohtas
Makrain
0-01-37
397
0-01-86
434
396
0-05-43
433
0-28-29 395
435
0-19-85
0-04-21
439
0-01-14 342
0-00-99
438
0-08-22 392
436
0-04-30
0-03-71
394
437
0-02-10
0-06-40
393
405
0-01-31
411
404
0-04-94 412
0-12-73
0-03-08
Road/403 410
368
0-06-33 413
0-02-04
369
0-12-31 417
0-04-03
370
0-16-29 416
0-01-23
0-24-14
371
413
0-07-22
0-05-90
372
0-04-16
415
373
0-12-98
0-01-93
420
0-01-16
374
403
0-04-41
363
0-12-09
0-04-38
421
0-11-33
360
0-06-58 402
358
0-02-01
0-14-38 422
359
0-01-64
357
2-69-35
कुल
Road/351 0-04-60 [फा. सं. एल-14014/12/05-जी.पी. ]
7-42-02
Total
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक 8375 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
3
5
5 2
1
2
3
4
Rohtas
0-05-14 Rohtas Dehri
Dehri Ahibaranpur 906/Road
294
Ahibaranpur
0-01-14 901
0-06-05
295
899
0-03-41
271
0-06-67 902
0-07-48
237
0-03-53 900
0-04-04
189
0-00-31 903
186
0-07-05
0-06-04 898
185
0-03-16
0-00-52
0-04-70 883
0-03-70
184
175
0-06-63 882
0-02-01
0-05-51
174
813
0-01-33
0-06-75
173
814
0-00-45
0-07-52
0-04-08
172
812
0-05-29
160
800
0-14-19
963
0-02-44 802
0-02-03
0-06-86
158
801
0-00-51
0-00-67
159
799
0-06-78
155
0-07-60 755
0-04-09
0-02-95
152
745
0-03-49
0-19-17
151
490
0-00-28
0-05-81
144
0-04-56
491
0-02-82
100/Road 492
0-09-58
127
0-07-70 493
0-13-70
128
0-07-98 495
0-09-12
129
0-01-78 497
0-00-49
133
498
0-11-17
131
494
0-01-47
0-04-36
130
0-12-16
501
0-05-16
119
0-00-27
504
0-05-15
118
505
0-06-80
0-07-07
113
506
0-07-45
0-10-05
111
516
0-03-92
0-08-48
112
0-02-73
405
7.
0-03-06 406
0-01-85
416
4-62-84
Total
417
0-03-66
Akodigola Mathurapur 415
517
0-00-56
0-12-61
383
404
0-03-71
0-07-21
287
403/Road 0-06-18
286
0-03-77 402
0-02-67
285
0-01-26 398
0-07-01
0-25-31
288
0-06-90
397
293
0-00-81 393
0-07-69
0-13-38
292
392
0-03-78
0-04-59
291
391
0-04-75
290
0-09-10 389
0-14-55
289
0-05-95
0-03-68
387
266
0-10-55 388
0-03-87
0-07-24
267
386
0-07-67
0-05-67
263
0-06-58
382
0-00-21
264
0-01-29
287
268
0-10-38
0-07-45
288
246
0-01-30
0-15-25
289
0-06-60
249
290
0-10-76
0-03-28
247
0-12-47
291
250
0-15-33 8376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
1 Rohtas
0-01-96 Akodigola Mathurapur 233
253
0-19-73
232
0-14-31
255
0-00-13
0-07-58
231
0-01-51
230
0-07-69
229
0-06-99
208
0-01-07
31
0-10-97
30
32
28
0-10-08
0-12-35
27
23
0-00-76
22
0-08-63
0-03-42
21
2-56-16
Total
4887
0-05-93
Bank
4880
0-09-69
4879
0-11-16
0-02-28
4878
4877
0-04-83
4875
0-00-94
4876
0-14-50
4821
0-01-82
4820
0-01-72
4817
4819
0-11-35
4818
0-00-79
4815
5219
0-04-62
4814
0-09-66
4813
0-10-91
4799
0-00-66
4783
0-09-48
0-05-66
4781
0-07-50
4782
4784
0-00-17
4780
4779
0-00-88
4777
0-00-88
4776
0-03-98
0-05-42
4775
4763
0-00-13
0-07-15
4774
4764
0-06-08
4765
4766
0-09-84
4767
0-01-03
1-52-57
Total
0-17-55
Ugra 468
0-14-96
472
473
0-02-78
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
4
3
5 2
Rohtas
0-18-14 Akodigola Ugra 448
0-05-99
447
0-00-39
450
0-12-44
451
0-00-16
446
0-05-63
442
0-06-45
441
394
0-03-26
0-01-40
391
0-00-93
383
0-03-85
382
0-04-20
385
0-05-50
381
0-06-62
386
0-06-67
457
0-00-75
251
0-21-04
252
0-32-16
253
254
0-34-14
255
0-13-84
0-64-17
Canal/229
0-04-48
185
0-18-13
184
0-403-33
183
0-00-48
187
0-07-90
181
0-11-53
182
168
0-02-83
169
177
0-03-80
175
0-02-86
176
0-04-39
174
0-02-13
171
0-05-19
172
0-06-36
173
0-00-43
170
0-05-51
138
26
0-35-52
0-71-33
10
0-01-83
9
0-82-69
40
0-43-38
39
3
0-11-68
0-38-70
1
2
0-00-49
6-48-99
Total
0-64-41 Bahoranpur 277
0-21-35
282
0-29-12
281
0-01-90
271
0-18-80
267
1-35-58
Total 8377 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
4
2
4
2
3
5
1
3
5
0-14-33
0-06-43 Rohtas Akodigola Gobardanpur 867
Rohtas Akodigola Gobardanpur 321
870
0-02-74
322
0-06-89 869
0-06-50
323
0-06-88 868
324
0-02-22
0-02-60
871
318
0-20-03
0-06-98
0-04-88 872
305
306
0-01-72
876
0-05-35 873
0-04-54
0-08-90
294
287
875
0-10-17
0-01-12
288
0-05-06 874
0-05-89
276
835
0-08-80
0-04-60
275
0-01-16 834
0-17-34
289
0-00-15 833
0-04-06
274
832
0-03-44
0-03-22
277
0-01-02 802
0-05-76
272
0-05-14 877
0-04-60
271
0-09-26 2
0-00-95
127
433
0-08-32
158
0-11-01 434
0-10-33
2180
436
159
0-02-92 437
0-04-40
156
0-07-10 438
0-02-07
157
0-08-11 439
0-04-88
155
0-03-86 442
0-12-50
160
0-01-59 441
0-08-32
165
0-02-44 443
0-05-30
164
0-24-40 448
0-02-95
166
0-07-41
0-00-88
449
169
0-18-12 447
0-03-22
0-74-82
170
450
0-01-20
145
0-19-66 446
0-08-95
150
0-04-57 478
0-13-19
149
0-03-74
0-00-86
477
147
0-00-13 476
0-01-40
148
0-02-87
0-02-15
479
145
0-00-81 480
0-04-40
144
475
0-01-28
0-02-27
131
481
0-04-63
5-41-02
Total
482
0-04-98
0-03-37
484
0-02-52
Rampur Nala/1722
1651
0-03-36 483
1652
502
0-00-64
0-04-59
0-03-63
1668
485
0-03-82
0-04-16
1653
0-00-63
501
0-05-50
1669
486
1656
0-01-96 500
0-00-39
1657
0-03-32 487
0-02-04
0-11-24
1720
488
0-02-80
1662
489
0-03-37
1716
0-00-73
0-02-12
491
1717
0-04-46
0-03-99
494
0-00-67
1718
0-03-76
490
1713
0-00-62
0-04-79
492
0-03-39
1714
320
0-06-79 8378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3
4
2
1
5
1
2
4
5
3
0-03-59
1812
0-00-81
1712
Rohtas Akodigola Rampur
Rohtas Akodigola Rampur
277
0-02-18
0-04-83
1710
278
0-14-14 1711
0-00-93
279
0-11-77
0-06-14
1708
280
0-03-06 1707
0-12-56
0-01-15
283
0-05-91
1706
0-09-15
282
1705
0-04-83
0-06-46
281
0-03-14
1671
0-04-52
288
1704
0-02-44
0-02-55
289
1672
0-08-77
346
0-10-89 1703
0-02-13
345
0-00-43 1702
0-00-81
353
0-04-81 1673
0-08-05
352
0-08-85 1674
0-07-90
0-00-62
347
0-06-76
1559
351
0-06-69
0-03-33
1558
354
0-10-57 1557
0-03-11
0-08-77
357
0-00-35
1560
356
0-03-55
0-20-66
1564
0-02-45
355
0-18-72
1566
0-21-69
372
1569
0-01-77
0-05-73
373
1568
0-05-33
401
0-05-77
1567
402
0-01-92
0-15-30
1447
0-03-65
403
0-06-06
1546
0-00-47
369
1541
0-17-99
0-06-26
423
0-16-37
1537
425
0-04-95 1536
0-05-05
426
1526
0-03-50
0-08-27
428
0-06-54
1525
429
0-02-20
0-03-22
1524
430
1523
0-01-18
0-06-40
450
0-02-79
1532
0-06-93
451
1529
0-02-73
453
0-04-21
0-01-51
1522
0-02-46
460
1512
0-10-14
0-02-85
459
0-10-59
1513
463
0-01-93
0-09-36
1515
464
0-09-19
0-01-11
1517
466
0-07-01
0-05-83
1516
0-00-32
465
0-06-77
909
0-06-61
467
908
0-05-22
495
905
0-04-45
0-05-28
496
0-08-66
903
0-01-96
497
0-03-32
900
0-04-02
502
0-09-20
898
0-03-54
499
895
0-06-25
0-04-42
500
0-01-18
896
0-05-91
501
0-02-30
892
0-02-40
505
0-02-41
891
506
0-02-49
0-06-96
796
0-15-40
510
0-07-73
275
0-08-16
2
0-01-58
273
6-63-45
Total
274
0-01-22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
4
1 1
3
5
117/Road 0-09-95 Rohtas Rohtas Sasaram Semra
0-28-18
111
0-01-93
103
0-08-25
105
109
0-01-18
106
0-24-33
107/Road 0-02-23
0-76-15
Total
0-02-14
585/Road
Dumariya
0-00-76
572
571
0-20-58
0-03-05
570
0-01-78
546/Road
0-01-45
51/Bund
328
0-04-97
329
0-02-87
330
0-12-34
0-14-49
323
322
0-07-29
321
0-12-03
342
343
344
0-01-24
320
0-09-88
261
0-01-52
0-10-55
251
250
0-00-23
252
0-03-87
258
0-02-48
257
0-03-42
254
0-00-98
255
0-02-02
256
0-03-24
0-03-21
224
225
0-06-80
226
0-07-79
236
0-00-42
228
0-02-81
0-06-64
227
0-06-62
217
229
0-04-83
212
0-16-03
216
0-01-45
211
0-00-11
0-03-35
209
0-01-17
208
0-02-89
207
0-00-64
174
173
0-01-83
0-10-43
172
0-01-71
177
0-00-81
178
0-07-95
168
179
2149 GI/05-12
8379
4
2
3
5 Dumaria 167
0-08-56 Sasaram
0-08-19
166
165
0-08-34
163
0-405-49
162
0-04-06
161
0-17-03
160 0-06-60
0-04-84
158//Road
2-04-83
Total
541/Road 0-04-01 Patiya
539
0-51-42
535
0-18-13
524
0-05-11
531
0-08-29
0-19-51
530
240
0-13-44
0-07-37
239
238
0-19-58
237
0-07-79
236
0-15-16
235
0-06-68
0-03-64
233
232
0-04-23
230
0-11-73
0-05-33
225
0-06-29
224
223
0-07-22
0-02-55
218
0-04-40
217
0-06-75
216
215
0-02-73
0-02-64
210
0-00-84
228
0-02-40
209
208
0-06-15
205
0-11-25
0-03-77
154
0-02-06
148
0-06-67
149
0-00-75
134
133
0-04-31
0-03-99
151
0-07-62
42
43
0-09-35
0-04-95
44
0-04-49
39
0-05-17
48
38
0-01-74
50
0-07-39
0-08-42
51
0-09-42
52
0-34-74
Total 8380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8. 1927
1
3
4
5 2
1
101
0-04-34 Rohtas Sasaram Chaubea
102
0-09-47
108
0-11-64
0-06-54
109
0-07-50
110
0-11-72
117
119
0-03-63
120.
0-04-52
0-00-27
124
123
0-01-44
0-04-33
122
0-02-12
68
0-01-07
67
66
0-00-59
0-02-28
72
0-05-73
65
0-01-58
61
60
0-03-40
0-04-20
51
0-04-40
50
43
0-06-63
26
0-02-18
25
0-00-28
27
0-06-65
24
0-04-78
23
0-01-21
22
0-04-17
2
0-02-12
3
4
0-02-94
0-03-83
1
1-28-56
Total
0-12-33
123
Rohtas Sasaram Bishan pur
0-16-51
121
0-06-27
119
0-11-40
120
117
0-06-13
112
0-01-45
113
0-01-33
109
0-01-60
110
0-05-62
111
105
0-05-10
0-05-06
100
0-01-61
688
98
0-07-18
0-09-25
9%
0-04-33
95
0-01-25
94
0-02-96
93
0-07-16-
92
0-06-37
88
87
0-01-55
86
0-01-86
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
5 2
3
0-03-58
76
Rohtas Sasaram Bishan pur
71
0-02-16
0-02-62
72
69
0-09-12
68
0-03-12
62
0-02-14
0-09-24
61
0-04-35
59
58
0-07-31
0-03-33
57
55
0-02-69
0-00-87
56
50
49
0-02-10
0-03-19
48
47
0-04-98
46
0-09-91
45
0-07-88
43
0-06-24
41
0-02-04
40
0-02-48
44
39
0-01-88
38
0-04-59
0-04-64
37
0-10-85
35
0-04-89
691
0-03-87
34
690
0-03-68
0-03-64
33
0-04-63
32
0-04-50
31
0-00-85
29
0-02-56
30
0-03-34
24
0-01-52
25
0-00-83
22
0-03-82
23
0-01-04
17
0-01-21
18
19
0-02-62
16
15
0-02-30
14
0-02-52
0-08-75
9
0-07-18
8
0-06-03
5
0-10-52
4
0-02-80
1/Road
3-16-82
Total
0-02-48
236//Road
Rohtas Sasaram
Shahpur
0-09-05
95
0-07-82
96
0-09-77
97 8381 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
1
4
5
2
3
4
5 2
1
Rohtas Sasaram
0-08-80 Rohtas Sasaram
0-01-78
Bagadih 597
Shahpur 98
91
0-10-16
598
0-11-34 88
0-05-07
649
0-03-22
0-04-22
87
650
0-06-65 78
0-04-90
643
0-04-93
0-02-05
79
648
0-05-11 74
0-06-37
644
0-02-60 73
0-05-48
645
0-03-62 58
0-05-95
0-03-65
541
59
0-04-06
0-04-66
640
60
0-01-45
0-02-77
628
54
0-06-51
627
0-03-40
0-05-77
52
675
0-02-64 53
0-00-98
676
0-03-22 50
0-04-85
678
0-02-99 51
0-06-65
679
0-04-33 48
0-01-07
680
0-03-27 44
0-02-38
681
0-02-43 45
0-02-61
0-08-30
682
40
0-03-49
722
0-03-02 39
0-05-70
0-07-68
723
38
0-04-17
0-06-32
724
37
0-01-19
728
0-06-62 36
0-02-51
729
0-09-41 35
0-04-12
730
0-02-61 34
0-01-29
0-03-02
732
33
0-04-12
733
0-03-34
0-02-35
29
0-24-40
734
28
0-01-74
765
0-03-39 27
0-05-32
766
0-01-63
0-05-30
25
767
24
0-05-01
675
0-20-59 21
0-04-84
188
0-09-88 15
0-13-19
77
0-00-86 14
0-06-17
78
13
0-08-65
76
0-01-94 12
0-01-59
0-04-44
72
11
0-02-04
0-00-96
71
10
0-03-28
70
0-01-71
0-03-18
9
69
0-01-56
0-07-73
6
68
0-00-13 1
0-02-26
0-03-16
64
2-17-69
Total
53
0-02-69 584
0-01-82
0-03-26
25
Rohtas Sasaram Bagadih
590/Road 0-04-56
36
0-02-28
0-08-99
583
37
0-02-98
1-09-38
581
0-02-33
24
0-09-28
0-01-25 570
23
571
20
0-03-01 569
0-07-52
0-03-41
19
566
0-09-51
0-14-84
18
593
9
0-01-49 594
15
0-02-68 565
0-75-23
0-01-35
14 8382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 1
2
3
3
4
5
1
2
4
5 10
0-02-40
0-03-02 Rohtas Sasaram
Rohtas Sasaram Tendua 67
Bagadih
186
0-01-81
0-03-96
64
0-04-75
63
Total
3-69-91
0-01-60
58
186
0-03-17
Tendua
Rohtas Sasaram
59
0-03-94 180
0-09-17
0-03-67
56
178
0-02-45
0-00-94
55
0-05-75
177
0-02-62
54
174
0-05-25
0-02-15
52
0-00-32
171
0-02-72
51
0-04-38
172
0-02-88
50
0-05-84
169
0-02-29
48
0-06-88
164
0-01-13
47
0-02-74
161
0-03-12
44
0-04-22
159
39
0-03-28
0-04-39
158
40
0-00-43 157
0-01-05
38
155
0-03-80
36
0-02-96 153
0-03-42
33
0-05-95 152
0-02-89
0-03-79
32
0-06-42
148
0-02-38
25
0-05-54
147
26
0-01-79
0-09-89
146
23
0-03-32 145
0-02-06
0-06-74
22
0-02-69
144
19
143
0-03-02
0-02-99
17
142
0-01-88
0-04-52
18
0-03-96 141
0-03-18
14
0-02-38
0-08-22
8
139
0-01-51
138
7
0-01-35 136
0-05-30
Total
3-31-70
0-06-62
131
0-01-40
Sasaram
1314
Rohtas
135
Gotpa
0-00-18
0-01-59
1313
134
0-00-18
0-04-22
1359
133
0-03-38
1356
132
0-00-58
0-02-86
1357
0-06-26
120
0-01-36
1358
0-03-06
119
0-06-61
1346
121
0-04-48
1347
0-05-87 122
0-05-57
0-07-65
1345
118
0-02-17
1362
0-11-33
0-01-22
117
0-03-31
1344
116
0-02-12
0-02-19
1367
0-02-60
115
0-02-25
1339
0-11-39
113
1338
0-02-22 112
0-07-11
0-02-71
1337
0-07-93
101
1368
0-02-98
0-26-90
99
0-03-08
1370
98
0-08-84
0-07-78
1336
97
0-15-60
1335
74
0-03-19-
0-08-83
1334
75
1323
0-10-29 73
0-03-14
0-09-82
1322
71
0-02-40
0-02-68
1316
68
0-03-34 8383 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
4
3
5
1
2
4
5
3
0-03-10
Rohtas Sasaram
1122
Rohtas Sasaram
Road 1295 0-03-75
Gopta
Gopta
0-02-77
1123
1292
0-12-64
1124
0-03-23 1294
0-01-61
0-05-24
1125
1293
0-01-84
0-04-89
1126
1281
0-19-95
0-04-04
1128
1275
0-15-51
1129
0-02-81 1274
0-03-82
0-07-21
1130
1268
0-04-92
0-07-50
1133
1265
0-06-02
0-04-29
1148
1254
0-05-05
0-02-35
1147
1255
0-15-43
0-03-20
Road/ 1146
0-02-36
1259
1258
0-03-56
4-76-44
Total
1257
0-08-56
0-04-36
790
Katdehri
1260
0-00-69
746
0-00-92 1240
0-07-82
0-01-26
747
1228
0-06-92
767
0-07-47 1227
0-18-50
768
0-07-77 1226
769
0-03-53 1215
0-01-63
748
0-01-11
766
0-03-79 1211
0-04-50
765
0-04-59 1212
0-01-07
762
1209
0-08-66
0-03-64
761
0-03-91 1207
0-26-30
0-03-96
758
1206
0-06-50
0-02-36
749
1203
0-13-03
0-07-52
757
1204
0-00-25
0-04-42
750
1197
0-01-36
856
0-03-23 1196
0-01-62
0-01-97
752
1214
0-01-47
0-02-26
751
0-02-16
1194
0-07-56
604
0-05-19
1192
605
0-04-58 1193
0-08-84
857
0-01-53 1188
0-13-90
606
0-01-93 1187
0-06-93
607
1099
595
0-22-25
0-01-69
1101
0-02-73
609
1185
0-05-77
0-02-78
588
1184
0-04-01
0-02-91
587
1102
0-03-43
0-00-24
611
1182
0-03-58
0-01-73
612
1103
0-04-35
0-02-78
586
0-01-74
Road 1104
585
0-02-32
0-01-45
Road 1149
0-00-16
626
0-04-35
1110
0-17-10
415
0-01-86
1111
0-01-23
414
0-02-39
1112
0-02-08
416
1113
0-03-04
0-02-16
413
0-05-33
1114
0-04-73
417
1115
0-18-30
0-08-87
412
1116
0-10-53
0-07-03
410
0-04-36
1117
0-01-74
411
0-02-67
1118
0-01-87
395 83,84
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 2
3
1
4
5
3
4
5
1
2
7
Katdehri 394
0-01-50 Rohtas
Katdehri
0-09-80 Rohtas Sasaram
Sasaram
396
0-04-11
0-28-34
Road/25 392
0-08-04
1
390
0-05-15
0-15-29
5
391
0-01-60
4
0-07-95
0-04-13
286
3
0-07-62 287
0-05-28
2
0-14-18 283
0-05-35
Road/62 0-01-90
0-03-07
282
5-03-23
Total
280
0-02-98
0-19-98
828
Pipri
279
0-05-97
0-00-62
645
270
0-06-29
0-20-60
Total
266
0-06-45
265
0-02-15
0-04-41
Karamdehri Road/383
288
0-13-66 255
0-05-37
0-10-26
289
256
0-04-67
0-10-22
290
162
0-08-30
0-03-65
344
161
0-03-80
0-00-61
352
157
0-04-18
0-06-10
343
156
0-03-05
0-03-84
339
154
0-02-44
0-04-27
338
0-02-60
149
0-08-10
337
0-03-35
148
0-07-67
336
0-00-19
147
0-00-75
325
0-04-40
146
0-07-29
326
0-04-65
143
0-00-14
327
0-05-01
141
0-04-17
324
0-03-09
136
0-03-10
319
0-04-36
135
0-02-64
320
0-01-77
132
0-01-93
316
131
0-01-53
0-01-62
315
0-03-62
134
0-04-67
314
0-03-25
133
0-08-44
305
0-01-85
126
304
0-08-54
0-07-37
125
0-11-12
303
Road/123
0-01-16
0-06-05
300
122
0-04-72
0-08-03
297
0-10-97
121
0-05-76
296
0-09-16
120
459
0-00-94
0-07-92
117
0-09-97
295
116
0-16-37
0-07-74
461
48
0-08-08
0-03-95
291
0-07-72
47
0-02-23
272
0-06-35
29
275
0-01-79 30
0-01-67
0-26-77
259
31
0-00-55
74
28
0-04-59
0-04-18
75
27
0-01-80
0-25-53
Road/258
26
0-03-32
0-05-44
76
24
0-06-53
0-01-83
79
17
0-05-32
0-02-72
80
16
0-02-94
81
0-04-74 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8385
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8, 1927
1
4
2
5
1
3
0-01-60 Rohtas Sasaram Karamdehri 82
4
2
3
5
Rohtas Sasaram
86
0-00-55
88
0-06-11
90
0-00-65
0-04-08
89
91
0-02-41
102
0-01-38
0-00-81
101
100
99
0-00-45
98
97
0-00-85
104
0-00-28
103
0-16-25
105
0-05-97
121 0-00-46
120
0-00-78
0-00-91
119
117
0-11-25
116
112
0-05-81
0-06-39
113
111
0-23-28
123
127
0-03-39
130
0-06-16
129
0-00-53
135
0-04-30
139
0-04-01
136
0-00-13
138
0-00-95
0-05-19
143
145
0-03-39
144
0-02-90
151
0-02-53
155
0-02-84
158 0-07-40
0-08-77
174
177
0-01-81
0-03-63
176
178
0-06-31
175
0-00-13
0-407-55
185
186
0-02-88
191 0-00-36
0-02-69
188
189 0-01-97
190 0-01-01
200/Road 0-11-17
Total
4-00-80
243/Road: 0-01-66 Baijala
244/Road 0-00-74
Total
0-02-40
0-15-00 Tetary 102
16
0-17-83
17
0-05-64
14
0-10-90
13
0-00-98
0-05-93
20.
6
0-13-15
21
30
0-02-51
31
0-13-54
32
0-10-22
33
0-00-23
0-29-98
37
38
0-00-33
76
0-05-88
77
0-01-38
75
0-03-29
76
0-04-71
80
0-04-37
81
0-00-44
338
0-10-56
337
0-11-16
336
0-09-67
0-09-32
339
340
0-12-98
0-01-37
397
396
0-05-43
395
0-04-21
0-00-99
342
392
394
0-03-71
393
0-06-40
0-01-31
411
0-12-73
412
410
413
0-02-04
417
0-04-03
416
0-01-23
0-07-22
413
415
0-04-16
420
0-01-93
0-04-41
403
0-04-38
421
0-02-01
402
0-01-64
422
2-69-35
Total
[F. No. L- 14014/ 12/05 -G.P ]
SWAMI, SINGH, Director 8386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1 नईदिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005
औरंगाबाद का.आ. 2655.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि बिहार राज्य में जगदीशपुर- हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल (इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमिके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री वी. एन. अखोरी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ( बिहार व झारखंड ) , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, चतुर्थ तल, प्रधान टॉवर, मेन रोड, राँची, झारखंड को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
गाँव
जिला
तहसील
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]
3
2
4
5
169
0-01-69 पनरिया
मदनपुर
0-14-89
174
173
0-00-83
181
0-09-29
0-01-20
146
0-10-51
145
0-00-87
190
189 0-01-38
0-01-17
188
0-01-91
182
0-01-09
184
0-08-12
192
0-08-55
191
62 0-00-39
0-02-26
193
0-00-28
49
0-05-69
211
0-12-44
209
0-00-37
208
0-03-49
205
207
0-03-40
0-07-13
1316
0-01-85
120
0-01-16
122
0-00-94
121
0-01-40
123
0-01-26
124
0-02-84
197
0-04-21
193
अर्जित करने
केलिए
क्षेत्रफल
0-02-93
195
19
0-00-14
0-01-14
16
0-00-21
15
(हेक्टेयरमें)
4
5
2
3
1
0-07-78
पनरिया
661
औरंगाबाद
मदनपुर
659
0-08-15
660
0-02-29
676
0-04-05
0-07-77
377
1412
0-02-24
1411
0-04-45
1409
0-01-66
1408
0-03-16
1407
1405
0-00-68
1406
0-02-87
1402
0-01-01
1401
1403
370
0-18-95
167 0-13-12
175
0-03-53
0-02-42
168
0-01-65
14
2-00-98
कुल
0-00-69 दसवतकप 544
0-25-67
133
0-04-88
103
0-01-05
104
0-12-39
102
56
0-05-24
97
96
0-11-17
0-05-55
95
0-16-45
93
0-13-15
92
0-05-02
90
80 0-07-12
0-09-04
77
0-04-50
78
0-01-15
548
556
0-02-04
1-25-51
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
पर्रावन 799 0-05-51 औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद
मदनपुर
835 0-32-65
798
0-07-54
797
0-22-23
773 0-08-10
772 0-08-22
771 0-06-31
0-06-59
770
769
0-01-27
775 0-04-33
700 0-02-11
655
656
0-04-67
0-02-53
0-07-03
652
657
0-03-56
0-05-54
651
0-00-99
831
659
0-02-90
660
0-02-25
664
0-02-81
665
0-02-39
650
0-01-18
649
0-10-83
639
0-02-05
647
0-06-88
674
0-04-28
675
0-08-63
683
0-06-50
681
0-03-53
0-12-74
692
693 0-08-04
0-03-58
694
695
0-02-64
2-10-41
कुल
0-08-85
770
बरुन घोराहा
765
0-01-26
764
0-06-98
766
0-05-73
767
0-12-65
0-02-52
728
729
0-04-31
718
0-12-20
719
0-05-63
0-00-44
720
0-00-13
730
706
0-00-89
705
0-06-50
704
0-04-63
696
0-03-34
695
0-06-66
694
0-06-69
693
0-03-93
692
0-08-96
685
2149 G1/05-13
8387
5 2
3
687
बरुन घोराहा
0-09-73
683
0-00-12
686
0-02-49
785
003-45
0-01-29
680
0-03-07
673
768
0-00-64
1-26-09
कुल
1778
औरंगाबाद बेरी
0-06-48
0-07-12
1774
1775
0-01-50
0-19-62
1773
1772 *0-17-97
0-02-69
1771
00-55-38
कुल
0-02-12 पटिआ
37
38
0-01-08
40
39
0-13-70
0-16-78
16
17
0-22-95
18
0-02-52
0-01-35
14
0-15-02
13
0-21-97
12
0-20-12
11
10
0-13-42
0-05-68
9
4
0-00-81
1-45-52
कुल
0-04-36
815
मदनपुर बनिया
814
0-00-81
0-04-89
813
0-06-83
812
0-04-94
809
0-00-21
811
808
0-11-10
0-06-81
805
0-06-77
807
0-03-37
804
806
0-01-64
767
0-08-79
0-01-29
772
0-09-07
768
0-01-64
771
0-02-83
770
0-17-08
769
755
0-00-39
749 0-01-92
0-03-47
748
0-15-04
744
746
745
0-08-74 8388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
4
1 2
5 औरंगाबाद
बनिया
741
औरंगाबाद
0-00-93 मदनपुर
740
0-01-17
0-06-35
739
955
0-00-18
738
0-00-53
0-402-84
718
717
0-08-12
719
736
0-00-15
0-05-91
720
725
0-12-52
0-04-96
724
704
0-06-70
700 0-403-95
0-04-63
699
0-07-96
701
0-03-17
698
0-06-20
696
695
0-02-82
0-03-35
694
0-00-28
693
692
0-09-14
691
690
0-01-29
2-17-68
कुल
0-09-77
511
सैलवा
512 0-00-89
0-03-13
510
509 0-03-77
483 0-13-41
484 0-03-38
485 0-22-17
508 0-07-99
507 0-01-55
486 0-01-29
487 0-02-56
488 0-03-89
489
0-04-05
0-00-61
603
506 0-04-53
504
0-06-44
3686
0-05-95
604 0-00-63
619
0-02-82
0-03-29
3688
621 0-01-97
0-01-54
622
623
0-05-70
0-04-97
665
0-07-28
666
671
0-08-66
667
0-02-17
3693
0-05-29
668
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 2
4
3
5 सैलवा
669
0-04-91 मदनपुर
670
0-10-31
676
0-09-64
0-26-95
675
677
674 0-00-66
3704
0-15-91
726
0-02-99
784
0-40-07
785
0-00-24
790
0-00-53
0-08-47
786
787
0-04-73
788
0-02-16
804
0-00-18
0-06-24
783
0-01-23
782
1736
0-06-19
0-08-53
1577
1576
0-08-01
0-01-77
3836
0-03-85
1575
3827 0-04-87
1574
0-05-23
0-00-68
1579
0-04-55
1580
0-03-40
1573
3826
0-00-43
0-02-47
1572
0-01-73
3842
0-27-96
1596
0-00-55
1597
:1598
0-04-81
0-02-65
1623
0-08-62
1624
1626
0-04-85
1629
0-03-80
1620
0-04-38
3847
0-02-58
1630
0-03-90
1631
1632
0-03-80
1633
0-03-98
0-08-02
1635
0-01-18
1636
0-03-20
1638
0-09-03
1637
0-05-12
3117
0-00-51
3225
0-09-14
3184
0-00-62
3224
4027
0-00-99
0-05-20
3194
0-04-15
3195 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8389
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
4
1
3
5
1
सैलवा 3193
0-02-46
औरंगाबाद
2
4
5 3
0-37-71
538
औरंगाबाद
मदनपुर
3196
0-07-89
0-02-77
3197
3198
0-04-08
3181
0-00-78
3180
0-00-67
3179
0-00-28
3167 0-00-11
3178
0-00-07
3177 0-10-70
3176
0-05-01
3175
0-05-61
4016 0-03-63
3169
0-02-99
3168 0-05-53
3167 0-02-44
3370
0-02-61
3166
0-00-73
3358
0-03-12
मदनपुर हाजीपुर
537
0-11-43
0-02-68
539
0-32-88
541
0-10-06
542
0-09-05
545
1046
0-11-09
546
0-20-46
1045 0-12-02
439
0-02-54
0-04-84
434
433 0-10-14
432
435
0-49-57
426
0-02-27
424
0-09-69
0-01-36
425
4-16-52
कुल
501
0-02-81
औरंगाबाद
3357
0-01-76
0-05-67
3359
3355
3360 0-02-74
3361
0-05-83
3362 0-05-54
3350
0-00-72
0-02-68
3363
3364 0-03-76
3365 0-00-93
4041
0-05-57
3470
0-02-95
3483 0-02-73
4071 0-03-23
3472 0-02-24
4042
0-01-88
05-59-60
कुल
976
0-01-18
हाजीपुर
977
0-13-34
978
0-01-85
979
0-02-69
0-26-74
1000
999 0-12-73
0-14-22
998
994 0-02-95
995 0-01-30
611
0-01-40
0-26-31
602
600
0-00-22
0-31-71
603
581
0-01-49
586
0-37-95
588
0-09-50
0-01-21
रोड 580
579
0-01-85
मदनपुर सिंदुआरा
490 0-05-53
550
0-63-01
0-01-96
499
495 0-07-61
496 0-02-69
452
453
0-00-11
447 0-07-49
451
0-29-25
450
0-13-62
449
0-13-99
443
0-10-09
0-01-45
441
445
0-03-50
442
0-06-85
444
0-05-45
443
0-02-23
0-01-87
398
0-01-42
397
190
0-01-72
386
0-20-32
0-02-35
385.
0-25-79
379
380
0-00-23
377 0-03-19
179
0-00-78
350
0-03-32
349
0-14-54
347 0-04-01,
346
0-00-77
337 0-34-01
338 0-00-43
339
0-07-97
85 0-01-35
0-12-33
286 8390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
5
1
284
औरंगाबाद
0-03-14
मदनपुर सिंदुआरा
औरंगाबाद
283
0-08-50
282
0-02-92
281
0-03-36
03-37-04
कुल
0-02-49
2826
तेल्दिहा
2838 0-12-89
0-17-68
2837
2836
0-11-76
0-17-51
2834
2835 0-01-84
2778
0-04-44
0-03-37
2777
0-08-45
2779
0-05-76
2491
0-19-57
2780
2781
0-01-13
2782
0-13-36
0-05-11
2783
2416
0-03-90
2539
0-19-86
2536
0-03-40
2538
0-02-12
0-09-45
2537
0-00-96
2543
2547
0-00-15
0-16-67
2531
0-04-59
2530
0-15-94
2526
0-16-03
2528
0-01-41
2527
0-02-68
2558
0-14-83
2496
0-13-20
2495
2492 0-08-95
0-17-58
2591
0-03-58
2490
2489
0-10-66
0-04-24
2488
0-00-57
2449
0-01-77
2450
0-04-21
2451
0-02-10
2453
0-05-04
2454
0-04-30
2455
0-01-13
2456
0-02-91
रोड 2452
0-00-37
2322
2474
0-00-57
2461
0-01-14
0-03-23
2462
0-00-61
2465
2463
0-04-24
0-02-08
2464
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
5 2
3
2467
0-01-71 तेल्दिहा
मदनपुर
2466
0-00-78
2468
0-01-91
2474
2315 0-00-76
2314
0-03-58
0-00-95
2310
2311
0-01-41
0-00-93
2312
0-00-65
2489
0-08-42
2309
2300 0-00-05
2301
0-00-62
2302
0-01-02
2303
2305 0-00-74
0-04-36
2308
0-02-26
2307
0-02-29
2306
0-02-59
2393
0-14-56
2108
0-02-16
2112
2107 -0-13-27
2113
0-24-05
2106
2116
0-01-01
2103
0-00-71
1926 0-01-98
1939
0-03-99
0-08-38
1937
1933 0-08-40
0-00-18
1932
2131
0-03-65
0-01-14
1922
1930
0-09-40
1934 0-02-39,
0-10-90
1923
1920
0-04-84
2133
0-00-33
0-02-47
2134
2136
0-07-79
0-07-65
1919
0-01-80
1924
0-00-95
2135
0-14-49
2137
2141
0-02-32
0-00-89
नाला
0-04-22
1619
1628
0-01-70
1620
1625 0-03-34
0-02-22
1624
0-01-15
1623
0-02-64
1626 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
8391
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
1622
0-05-24
औरंगाबाद
औरंगाबाद मदनपुर तेल्दिहा
1621
0-19-54
1637 0-00-12
1615 0-01-15
1482
0-15-11
1483
0-01-16
0-03-62
1484
0-02-09
1485
1486 0-02-35
1480 0-01-58
0-00-37
1491
1490 0-00-64
1487 0-03-71
1489
0-07-89
1475
1512
0-25-41
0-01-87
1513
0-07-10
1520
1519
0-01-34
1518
0-00-29
1530
0-34-33
0-00-76
1533
764
0-10-30
762 0-11-63
0-00-27
763
761 0-11-65
776
0-05-89
760
0-05-82
0-12-75
749
0-02-15
750
747
0-05-77
0-09-15
745
748
0-01-97
746
714 0-08-87
712
0-00-89
0-02-38
713
677
0-06-53
678
0-01-98
679
0-01-52
680
0-65-34
0-06-39
682
681
0-07-64
683 0-03-38
0-02-53
685
0-08-80
684
8-59-49
कुल
0-35-54
1101
इरकी कला
1100
1098 0-19-53
0-06-28
933
1116
0-09-09
930
0-02-58
931
5 2.
3
4
0-10-08 इरकी कला 932
मदनपुर
0-01-72
934
936
0-00-61
0-09-33
937.
0-00-78
938
0-06-45
939
0-15-43
941
0-13-71
942
0-08-72
1090
943 0-00-17
1089 0-06-95
0-05-15
945
0-00-03
1087
0-03-84
946
0-02-63
952
0-02-93
953
954
0-01-50
0-03-89
956
957
0-02-51
960
0-06-21
0-02-30
961
962
0-01-56
963
0-00-91
0-03-41
1017
1071
0-04-62
1025 0-09-47
0-04-95
1024
0-19-36
1023
0-07-41
1022
0-06-87
1021
0-05-11
1020
0-03-81
1019
1018
0-00-74
0-03-22
1026
1027
0-07-02
1028 0-03-45
1029
0-03-72
0-03-54
1030
0-03-34
1031
0-06-02
1032
0-25-60
241
240
0-05-03
0-03-45
239
0-12-80
238
0-04-93
237
0-05-07
232
0-05-15
1108
0-00-77
87
0-03-20
88
0-05-10
90
0-01-21
89
91
0-01-47
92 0-03-43
93 0-06-11 8392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVAΝΑ 8. 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1 औरंगाबाद
94
0-05-91 औरंगाबाद
इरकी कला
मदनपुर
95
0-05-71
96
0-00-26
0-01-31
152
151
0-12-22
0-09-10 .
150
0-02-93
149
0-02-18
159
176 0-11-05
175
0-02-74
0-15-27
177
178 0-08-31
0403-73
180
0-06-79
182
183
185
0-01-99
4-50-39
कुल
367
0-01-59
औरंगाबाद चौखड़ा
0-19-01
366
365
0-12-59
995
0-00-16
364
0-09-64
0-04-77
368
996
0-10-43
387
0-03-44
0-00-35
371
372 0-10-85
373
0-12-18
0-03-28
374
359
0-01-92
311
0-01-93
312
0-00-39
318
0-20-98
321
0-11-31
0-05-03
982
983
0-01-24
0-25-16
322
0-08-36
985
323
0-03-14
298
0-03-25
288
255
0-09-65
0-08-54
254
256
0-00-62
0-00-69
287
253
0-07-10
0-03-62
251
0-00-94
250
0-08-60
252
0-05-25
246
254
0-06-94
244
0-10-25
0-02-46
243
234
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
3
5
4
0-02-58
233
औरंगाबाद चौखड़ा
224
0-06-58
0-02-83
223
0-22-25
221
665
0-02-60
664
218
963
0-13-32
0-05-62
219
958
0-02-33
3-05-99
कुल
0-02-30
197
पतरा
0-02-22
534
0-06-09
533
532
0-09-38
0-06-08
531
527
0-05-86
0-10-23
524
0-00-98
800
0-00-54
519
520 0-01-45
0-02-62
522
0-02-75
785
0-02-63
523
500
0-00-11
499 0-01-01
0-07-06
497
498
0-01-80
0-01-18
496
0-02-98
495
0-04-82
494
0-05-24
217
200
0-00-13
219
0-15-84
0-04-18
218
0-00-12
221
0-06-57
220
0-04-35
223
0-01-37
609
0-01-69
225
231
230
0-02-72
226
0-11-24
604
0-02-29
227
0-04-56
600
0-01-71
602
0-08-82
603
0-03-19
601
0-01-92
244
246
0-17-42
254
0-02-49
0-02-46
119
0-09-68
590 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
4
5
1
3
1
0-01-52
589
औरंगाबाद
औरंगाबाद
पतरा
औरंगाबाद
0-41-88
118
99 0-08-62
120 0-19-30
0-23-18
100
0-08-67
102
584
0-04-08
105 0-00-13
0-02-12
274
41
0-02-44
542
0-02-11
45
0-10-34
0-15-65
44
43
0-14-56
0-06-75
42
0-35-89
49
0-05-37
37
36
3-82-92
कुल
0-02-30
1067
बाजीपुर
1048 0-01-05
0-09-91
1035
1046
0-06-29
1036 0-05-64
1045 0-03-13
1037
0-01-54
1038 0-02-32
1039 0-04-64
0-00-42
1040
0-02-71
1033
0-05-07
1032
0-02-93
1031
1029 0-09-38
0-07-31
1030
0-04-34
1028
1027
0-05-76
0-00-22
1023
1026
0-05-84
0-07-62
1025
976 0-04-18
0-06-79
987
0-05-39
986
0-20-26
977
985
0-06-32
978
0-08-92
0-07-08
979
0-12-45
949
0-08-11
948
0-04-56
947
944 0-11-68
0-07-97
943
0-14-65
920
869
0-07-54
918
0-07-74
8393
4
3
5 2
916
0-06-44 बाजीपुर
औरंगाबाद
0-10-69
909
910 0-03-74
908
0-07-20
904 0-12-51
0-12-01
902
901
0-04-61
900
0-02-59
866
0-13-87
865
0-01-21
2-96-93
कुल
0-07-25 पोइवान 1331
1332 0-17-55
1339 0-01-97
0-39-73
1334
1328 0-01-47
0-29-55
1327
0-02-26
1326
0-07-70
1323
0-39-80
1310
0-08-12
1309
0-14-57
1308
0-05-58
1307
0-01-55
1303
0-26-09
1302
1301
0-39-81
0-29-03
1275
0-01-71
1260
0-05-60
1261
0-08-63
1270
1271 0-05-32
1272 0-04-31
1273
0-09-68 .
606
0-07-52
1277
0-11-96
0-06-87
605
604
0-14-15
0-84-85
581
0-06-18
612
0-03-61
582
0-02-62
1275
578
0-07-62
571 0-02-13
576
0-04-61
0-13-50
575
574
0-07-06
572
573
0-07-42
1378
0-00-53
502
0-24-51
0-07-72
503
0-05-08
504
505
0-01-89
496
0-01-51 8394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II SEC. 3(ii)]
5 1
2
1
3
4 3
4
5
2
0-02-65
328
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद निर्मलबिघा
495
0-07-94
पोइवान
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद
296
0-25-97
481
0-00-39
298 0-46-57
487 0-03-75
0-16-08
286
488 0-03-54
0-03-50
283
0-03-35
490
0-11-18
265
0-09-07
491
0-27-79
264
0-06-76
313
0-19-60
250
0-24-36
279
0-58-84
234
0-03-12
278
0-09-97
रोड/136
276 0-09-44
233
0-08-39
275
0-02-60
0-19-20
231
0-14-06
274
190 0-10-16
273
0-17-73
0-09-66
189
1400
0-04-02
0-08-14
188
272 0-00-68
0-04-12
187
0-09-02
271
186 0-04-80
0-70-97
269
185
268
0-04-34
0-04-65
184
0-47-30
257
183
0-02-79
0-06-29
258
0-06-55
182
259
0-03-96
181
0-00-89
254
0-01-35
177
256
0-12-78
0-03-16
176
0-70-89
249
0-00-85
175
8-62-16
कुल
0-01-08
174
0-03-55
166
डेहरी
173
0-01-24
0-04-60
161
167
0-01-42
0-05-05
165
0-00-42
161
0-13-51
164
0-16-92
128
0-01-23-
167
4-14-54
कुल
0-20-70
170
0-19-34
0-02-09
316
धभोराखुर्द 112
0-45-10
111
141
0-04-64
0-01-85
114
140 0-06-95
0-23-97.
110
0-08-17
136
0-10-81
109
0-10-67
134
0-00-61
26
0-07-30
135
0-06-57
25
0-05-17
नाला/133
0-10-76
27
0-12-00
132
0-29-12
28
0-00-19
321
0-11-21
29
0-33-51
131
0-12-99
30
129
0-13-52
0-05-49
44
0-03-10
128
0-18-52
13
0-06-51
127
14 0-01-61
0-20-31
125
0-24-17
15
0-06-11
126
0-02-02
20
0-07-06
31
2-24-14
कुल
1-95-94
कुल
बेला
0-01-98
1571
0-22-78
343
निर्मलबिघा
0-02-48
1570
0-22-45
342
0-02-22
1569
320 0-13-99
0-03-78
1568
329
0-06-44
0-11-98
1567
326
0-13-87 8395 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
2
4 1
2
5
1
3
5
1566 0-06-99
बेला
707 औरंगाबाद
0-09-52 औरंगाबाद
बेला
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद
1564 0-39-97
0-03-30
749.
1557
0-00-48
0-00-17
737
1556 0-04-61
743
1555 0-39-97
733 0-13-03
1529 0-11-41
0-23-10
732
1517
0-03-99
0-07-77
731
0-02-57
1518
730 0-10-84
0-02-25
1519
728 0-02-93
0-04-56
0-16-67
1544
727
1542
725
0-15-02
1541
0-00-39
721 0-02-86
1538 0-00-39
723 0-11-19
1536
0-05-73
0-07-19
722
0-03-85
1537
728
0-00-14
1535
0-08-50
587 0-39-83
579 0-01-54
1532 0-05-03
584
0-18-60
1531
0-02-51
0-00-35
586
1530
0-02-82
0-11-20
585
1533 0-02-69
576
0-12-66
1491
0-18-31
575
0-01-43
1490 0-05-03
1489 0-00-40
6-84-40
कुल
1488 0-01-45
1712
1-02-23
कुर्सी
1487 0-01-90
1711
0-06-78
1486
0-01-16
0-06-45
1709
1485
0-02-97
0-12-54
1708
1484 0-02-67
0-43-03
1706
1482 0-00-75
1703
0-17-84
1481
0-00-52
1686 0-08-60
1480
0-01-56
1687
644 0-14-80
1674 0-04-96
643 0-22-14
1331 0-00-51
642 0-04-95
1332 0-20-51
0-13-56
649
1333
0-03-53
634
0-08-69
1334 0-01-76
633
0-31-74
1328
0-03-54
632
0-00-25
1338 0-18-09
654 0-02-30
1337 0-07-48
659
0-01-04
1339 0-02-96
660
0-05-51
1340
0-10-62
661
0-11-85
1665
0-01-42
662
0-02-59
1664 0-02-44
0-04-75
663
0-10-72
1663
664 0-13-93
1662 0-08-60
668
0-02-51
1660
0-01-41
0-14-14
674
0-02-53
1658
675
0-00-18
0-19-85
1659
0-00-47
673
0-07-62
1639
0-49-19
672
1638 0-17-06
699 0-02-99
0-03-65
1357
0-25-57
701
1358 0-02-74
0-19-52
704
1636
0-19-11
750
0-12-68
1637 0-08-81 2149 GI/05-14 8396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 1
2
4
3
1
2
3
4
5
5
0-20-66
124
औरंगाबाद
औरंगाबाद
1360
0-01-19
कुर्सी
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद कुर्सी
0-30-22
103
1621
0-04-80
0-01-04
104 1361
0-05-16
0-08-49
105
1620
0-25-18
106 1367
0-14-79
0-14-88
102 1368
0-08-81
91
0-36-22 1370
0-06-65
0-05-57
280 1369
0-03-34
0-05-13 1382
0-01-60
219
1381 0-16-59
8-73-36
कुल
1383
0-01-27
परसा
360
0-51-01 1384
3-01-95
319
0-22-12 1385
0-01-47
0-22-51
312 1213
0-15-83
0-03-65
314 1389
0-03-51
0-08-32
311 1209 0-15-04
0-03-02
310
1391
0-02-15
240 1207
0-01-25
0-00-28
241
1206 0-11-59
0-05-47
243
1205
0-16-62
0-01-03
242
1204 0-02-28
94
0-02-79
0-01-67
1160
244 1162 0-31-81
0-11-65
92
0-21-64
1151
0-10-97
91
1158 0-09-11
0-04-48
93
1153
0-07-77
0-12-67 1152 0-06-23
0-00-17
84
1142
0-09-37
97
0-05-18
1143
0-05-87
107
0-00-27
1144
0-06-93
83
1125
0-06-87
82
0-06-24
1140
0-08-43
79 1139
0-01-43
81
0-01-34 1138
0-03-41
0-01-43
80 1135 0-02-28
76
0-07-72
0-03-55
रोड/1134
0-02-56
77
140
0-05-61
0-01-83
73
139
0-03-30
138
0-35-57
0-06-18
64
6
0-46-27
0-15-89
140
0-02-02
63
146
0-00-56
0-03-09
0-04-12
145
62
0-00-21
148
0-08-38
54
144
0-14-14
0-09-94
55
0-17-48
143
0-08-75
56
152
0-09-55
0-04-84
57
0-04-97
151
0-04-51
49
153
0-02-03
0-06-01
58
136
0-02-82
7
0-18-04
130
0-01-61
0-03-21
5
0-05-58
129
0-14-27
4
123
0-02-62
0-32-98
2
0-03-80
128
4-01-49
कुल
125
0-00-16 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
4
5
1
2
3
0-04-44 औरंगाबाद
मरौली 118
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद
177
0-00-74
116 0-19-36
0-24-54
कुल
0-02-96
110
महुआरी
0-11-21
88
87 0-06-59
86 0-13-82
0-20-49
85
0-06-52
84
82
69
0-00-96
0-00-37
83
67
0-03-08
63
0-15-23
62
0-02-78
0-07-14
60
0-06-46
57
59
0-00-94
0-01-98
58
0-02-66
56
0-02-72
54
53 0-02-94
0-01-76
52
0-07-79
51
48
0-07-92
44
0-11-22
42
0-02-66
43
0-05-64
0-07-88
39
0-20-66
8
7
0-02-35
1
0-06-71
1-83-64
कुल
126 0-06-22
कर्मा
112 0-26-39
0-18-83
109
0-01-74
111
0-53-18
कुल
0-01-89
977
खैराबिंद
0-01-80
1013
0-28-71
1011
0-08-40
रोड/935
0-00-73
1012
753 0-01-93
754 0-57-61
0-11-91
751
750
0-11-80
0-11-12
755
0-16-98
756
0-02-80
रोड/759
0-20-17
758
8397
3
4
2
5
0-04-81
743
औरंगाबाद खैराबिंद
0-12-92
742
0-09-58
741
740
0-01-92
0-06-67
739
735 0-01-34.
0-13-89
731
0-09-50
730
0-16-68
729
768 0-03-91
0-02-43
770
781
0-12-85
0-00-27
782
0-28-16
679
0-11-95
776
0-00-12
0-06-63
774
642 0-10-83
0-01-82
641
0-11-50
644
638
0-02-35
0-09-66
637
638
0-18-91
0-09-67
643
636
0-00-59
635 0-01-93
634
0-05-12
633
0-07-30
631
0-12-22
632
0-12-15
627
0-13-53
626
0-09-56
0-03-68
622
623
0-01-31
0-02-04
462
473
0-08-13
0-01-39
424
0-33-47
426
472
0-09-63
0-19-08
449
448 0-02-29
0-15-73
451
452 0-06-19
0-18-57
454
0-00-12
453
0-07-80
455
0-14-25
रोड/446
0-14-26
445
0-09-15
440
0-18-63
441
442 0-12-69.
0-04-98
443
0-02-67
461
6-52
कुल 8398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
1
3
4
5
1
550
औरंगाबाद
0-03-04 औरंगाबाद
औरंगाबाद
सुसनार
0-56-92
548
552
0-02-16
556
0-22-06
558 0-01-12
557 0-06-16
555 0-12-81
554 0-13-16
0-27-42
553
215 0-10-48
219
0-02-32
220 0-03-65
225 0-02-78
0-06-36
224
226
0-03-98
231
0-03-95
230 0-07-53
0-02-90
235
0-01-96
234
236
0-03-82
244 0-03-38
243
0-05-32
252
245
0-01-07
0-04-28
221
121
0-02-41
128
0-03-93
0-11-47
124
125 0-05-81
0-07-30
118
0-05-30
119
122
0-06-98
121
0-05-71
120
0-02-36
149
0-05-60
150
0-00-16
151
30
45 0-02-88
0-12-08
36
0-02-23
35
34
0-03-33
33
0-03-76
0-05-42
32
0-27-84
31
9 0-00-46
0-02-77
10
0-04-94
11
0-02-19
12
0-02-86
13
14 0-04-50
15 0-01-33
22
0-01-61
6
0-00-67
3-46-03
कुल
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
2
3
5 बरुन
चिरैला 296 0-03-50
0-06-78
384
0-03-41
379
378
0-28-13
391
0-21-61
0-11-65
377
रोड 309 0-15-04
0-01-60
301
300 0-16-53
303
0-21-94
304
305
0-29-83
306 0-08-40
0-05-55
308
0-13-09
285
0-05-27
284
282 0-01-72
0-01-99
283
279
310
0-05-12
315 0-00-10
273
0-11-18
270
0-08-30
271
0-21-87
264
0-22-19
272
0-00-61
265
261
0-13-74
260 0-44-32
3-23-58
कुल
0-13-87, जगदीशपुर 592
0-05-58
591
0-07-17
589
590
0-13-74.
0-01-97
588
576
0-03-60
0-03-32
571
569
0-04-60
570
0-04-46
0-05-74
567
549
0-05-84
0-03-22
559
560
558
0-11-82
556
0-00-61
557
0-00-18
561
0-04-24
537
0-08-38
540
0-00-62
0-29-37
538
0-01-15
536
0-04-65
526
0-03-70
534
0-12-96
529 8399 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
2
3
4
5
1.
531
1732 0-04-29
0-11-05
बरुन
औरंगाबाद
जगदीशपुर
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद जगदीशपुर
0-02-70
1730 530 0-11-17
511
0-05-78
1721
0-02-38
1720 0-03-50 451 0-11-34
1722 0-01-62 453 0-09-32
0-03-72
1723 454 0-06-52
0-10-26
1724 455
0-05-29
1708 0-01-45
0-11-83
466
0-05-44
1707 457 0-00-35
1705 0-11-69 459
0-12-71
1706 0-06-35 458
0-05-43
1697 0-02-09
0-04-01
460
1729 0-00-17 448
0-01-39
236
0-01-96
0-80-56
कुल 228 0-02-11
देवहरा 137
0-11-60
227
148 0-08-55 226 0-11-21
145 0-11-51
0-01-10
224
146 0-09-34 223
0-03-30
147
0-09-79
0-04-75
225
0-00-48
82 222
0-10-10
नदी/151 0-13-09 219
0-07-18
0-54-76
कुल 221 0-05-16
बरुन
0-13-13
नदी/258
रतनपुर
0-05-93
220
289
0-14-14
0-02-08
247.
0-01-42
280 218
0-03-23
279
0-04-65
0-12-99
194
0-04-39
278 141 0-01-42
0-03-82
277 137
0-09-61
0-02-67
276 138 0-01-73
0-00-94
275 143 0-12-30
0-08-74
274 146 0-07-93
273 0-00-11
0-04-66
145
271 0-00-10 147
0-03-99
270
0-01-11 144
268
0-01-02 148 0-03-99
269
0-00-86 149
0-20-33
0-02-67
267
0-01-64
152
264
0-00-16
0-02-68
150
265
0-00-62
0-02-95
156
262
0-00-12:
190
0-01-40
266
0-06-10
0-12-64
189
0-07-87
272
0-01-09
188
194 0-00-12 186 0-07-17
195 0-01-74
0-00-55
174
0-03-62
196 187
0-21-89
197
0-03-36
204 0-02-43
4-47-77
कुल
0-02-25
198
0-01-89
1746
औरंगाबाद जगदीशपुर
199
0-03-40
0-02-61
रोड
0-00-66
203
0-04-22
1741
0-00-35
200 1742 0-04-64
211
0-01-12
0-04-29
1743
216
0-01-71
देवहरा
औरंगाबाद
1744 0-00-74
217
0-11-49 1731
0-06-51 8400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] 1
4
2
3
5
1
2-
3
4
5
219
0-00-64
देवहरा
औरंगाबाद
699
0-03-79 औरंगाबाद
बरुन
औरंगाबाद
रसुलपुर
220
0-06-20
0-00-57
696
221
0-03-57
0-06-26
698
222
0-02-71
0-06-13
702 बरुन
223
0-05-04
703
0-03-69 रतनपुर
69
0-12-68
710 0-18-40
60
0-01-36
0-02-57
711
61
0-02-80
0-06-98
712.
64
0-14-19
713
0-24-82
67
718 0-08-34
66
0-15-15
0-03-25
739
65
0-01-68
0-09-43
रोड680
52
0-17-33
25 0-03-06
48
0-01-68
29
47
0-28-46
0-06-75
22
46
0-01-67
0-02-55
23
1
0-07-32
21
0-11-24
2
0-02-98
16 0-02-89
3
0-52-33
17
0-02-09
15
0-01-53
2-89-56
कुल
14 0-17-61
845
0-03-78
रसुलपुर
0-05-21
13 रोड 861 0-07-27、
12 0-07-64
857
0-18-41
0-05-65
10
0-34-78
856
0-05-65
9
855
0-07-60
0-07-89
7
843
0-02-14
3
0-10-82
842
0-26-04
1
0-01-70
841
5-01-48
845
कुल
0-02-69
820
0-01-25
0-13-28
738
गोपालपुर
812
678
0-17-83
0-14-77
818
0-00-74
679
0-10-38
817
0-09-32
680
0-01-19
814
0-20-62
681
0-10-44
816
0-02-98
682
0-00-46
815
0-05-55
683
0-02-41
0-05-21
810
684
0-02-98
803
685
0-04-17
0-10-31
802
0-01-94
686
0-06-95
676
0-02-60
0-15-81
804
805
675
0-02-09
0-23-11
0-02-27
0-01-48
796
660
0-00-46
978
661
0-26-33
784
657
0-07-55
653
0-03-63
788
0-13-78
0-10-55
785
652
655
0-07-55
0-10-07
774
775
0-09-44
648
0-07-62
646
771
0-19-57
0-00-74
0-15-58
770
645
0-05-06
761
643
0-04-22
0-01-98
769
642
0-01-76
0-00-21
982
0-04-67
580
0-25-09
700
640
0-09-93
0-10-22 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8401
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
1
2
4
5
i
औरंगाबाद
639
0-06-94 बरुन
औरंगाबाद
गोपालपुर
636
0-05-46
638 0-01-96
637
0-04-86
632 0-04-75
633
0-00-68
631 0-09-70
627 0-06-40
626
0-00-67
624
0-14-81
620
0-00-31
622
0-20-86
623
0-13-22
629 0-02-58
0-07-74
518
482
0-05-85
479 0-03-19
476
0-08-35
478 0-03-91
475
0-09-05
474 0-07-45
0-07-46
473
471
0-01-23
456
0-00-15
457
0-07-29
470
0-08-81
0-17-80
469
467
0-10-85
0-07-51
466
465
0-02-35
464 0-00-11
0-03-37
443
441
0-16-05
442
439
0-02-17
440
0-41-81
4-47-20
कुल
827 0-04-71
सिरिस
828
0-47-71
824 0-03-55
821. 0-08-85
0-31-03
823
0-16-00
822-
1-11-85
कुल
0-01-62
321
हेतमपुर
0-13-99
320
0-24-38
319
318 0-01-09
0-02-06
301
0-01-63
300
299
0-27-98
298
297
0-23-41
3
4
2
5
0-16-75 बरुन
295
हेतमपुर
0-02-15
292
0-03-19
296
0-02-48
289
0-07-56
174
0-00-44
171
0-19-78
172
0-00-55
173
121
0-05-49
114 0-07-41
0-09-98
113
0-29-46
112
0-00-92
111
0-10-70
110
0-14-34
107
108 0-04-40
0-01-46
595
0-00-27
94
0-19-13
95
99
2-53-62
कुल
575
0-00-13 रहुआ
517
0-15-33
0-03-15
149
150 0-07-20
0-09-64
151
0-11-07
152
0-01-61
153
0-13-16
154
155 0-14-01
160
0-05-32
0-00-95
165
161
0-16-44
146
0-08-68
1-06-89
कुल
0-05-46 गोरहट
435
मदनपुर
0-10-50
434
433
0-11-74
430
0-01-32
431 0-13-44
425
0-04-84
417
0-01-19
0-06-96
416
0-00-35
418
0-08-27
415
414 0-09-85
0-16-75
413
0-05-14
412
0-03-56.
411
0-27-45
480
409
0-01-49
0-03-41
399
398 0-02-03 8402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
233
33
औरंगाबाद बरुन
0-08-22 गोरहट
0-06-93
.. काजीचाक
औरंगाबाद मदनपुर
232
0-15-89
34
0-14-80
231
35
0-14-50
0-05-53
0-10-38
252
445
0-03-38
0-08-50
258
0-01-75
37
227
0-03-01
38
0-01-99
0-05-81
226
39
0-00-54
0-10-42
224
40 0-00-29
0-01-03
223
32
0-17-41
213
0-01-14
0-15-30
28
0-10-94
211
0-06-20
27
0-09-71
212
26
0-03-28
0-06-11
210
25
0-09-90
24
0-08-33
1-57-33
कुल
23
0-08-72
0-01-49
82
सोनबरसा
0-04-78
22
0-02-35
184
0-04-63
21
0-05-44
72
20
0-01-21
0-00-27
73
18
0-06-84
0-07-01
74
17 0-19-48
0-00-45
75
0-11-22
16
71 0-01-90
3
0-54-00
70
0-05-59
0-02-07
1
0-09-54
68
3-42-33
0-24-56
नहर 66
कुल
65
0-10-87
355
0-01-48
बरुन
बहुति
0-18-60
64
0-44-51
354
0-00-58
63
350
0-10-01
56
0-16-53
0-08-91
349
0-31-40
54
0-14-80
348
0-14-29
53
0-04-06
346
43
0-14-32
345
0-02-09
42
0-21-46.
0-00-69
344
0-00-39
44
0-06-85
319
41
0-22-00
0-01-71
308
0-07-27
0-05-75
309
40
0-17-34
29
313
0-07-23
0-04-10
65
314
0-09-50
0-08-32
20
318 0-16-73
0-18-44
19
1-34-32
कुल
0-01-05
21
0-01-21
429
काजीचाक
24
0-01-22
428
0-03-31
13
427
0-00-47
0-03-26
18
430
0-11-69
2-73-03
कुल
425
0-04-65
0-10-09
मितराज 275
426
0-01-99
272
0-00-23
0-02-93
424
0-21-57
274
0-00-83
255
0-00-16
273
0-05-74
246
0-07-10
248
248
0-06-72
0-06-31
247
0-07-23
252
0-07-10
246
0-00-51
249
0-08-89
245
0-02-49
251
244
0-06-41
250
0-03-99 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
4
2
5
1
3
0-06-25 बरुन
243
औरंगाबाद औरंगाबाद
मितराज
242 0-06-30
130 0-07-48
129
0-05-84
128 0-05-09
0-02-16
123
124 0-03-09
0-12-38
121
120 0-02-11
0-01-91.
116
115 0-12-24
114 0-05-88
0-01-44
113
112 0-03-74
111
39 0-04-14
0-02-71
38
50 0-01-04
37 0-06-57
0-35-09
35
0-06-28
36
34 0-11-18
33 0-11-94
0-04-39
32
30 0-00-11
0-28-96
24
26 0-00-23
21
0-08-51
0-11-97
20
0-25-27
19
0-18-40
18
7
0-02-99
0-02-18
و
0-01-81
3
0-03-17
2
0-02-72
1
3-33-51
कुल
0-03-97
खंडा
155
158 0-03-35
0-24-03
156
135 0-03-46
0-15-60
134
132 0-02-96
0-07-64
131
130
0-46-84
0-17-46
129
0-02-84
90
2149 GI /05-15
8403
3
4
5 2
85
बसम
खंडा
0-05-11
83 0-03-88
82 0-08-71
81 0-21-63
0-02-13
8
123
0-03-58
1-73-19
कुल
0-01-35-
1582
मदनपुर
मदनपुर
0-03-19
500
0-22-17
501
0-00-32
499
0-20-41
498
497 0-17-91.
0-16-11
496
0-03-97
495
0-07-79
494
471 0-04-15
0-00-16
472
470 0-08-43
462
0-10-43
458 0-10-35
0-13-66
457
456 0-15-69
0-07-54
455
0-08-58-
451
0-08-65
450
452
0-03-87
449
0-03-99
448
0-02-65
447
0-17-67
446
0-07-59
441
0-09-41-
440
0-00-98
432
431
0-11-74
430 0-08-99
429 0-08-69
0-09-41
427
426
0-05-45
0-06-96
425
0-06-15
424
0-09-62
423
0-15-96
422
3-10-19
कुल
0-03-21
629
इंगलिस
बरुन
0-68-09
630
0-04-84
626 8404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3
1
2
4
5
New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
625
बरुन
इंगलिस
औरंगाबाद
0-01-78
624
0-89-54
616
0-06-48
S.O. 2655. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through Jagdishpur-- Haldia Pipeline Project in the State of Bihar, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL (India) Ltd.;
615
0-56-13
613
0-63-51
608
0-03-18
609
0-12-90
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that' for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;
610
0-36-90
रोड/81 0-03-41
रोड/580 0-04-19
रोड/579 0-05-71
रोड/578 0-05-28
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declared its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
577
0-03-30
736 0-26-84
508
0-62-07
532
0-04-16
509
बाँध/506 0-02-45
495
0-37-10
505
0-40-07
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty -one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri V. N. Akhaury, Competent Authority, (Bihar and Jharkhand) , GAIL (India ) limited, 4th Floor, Pradhan Tower, Main Road , Ranchi , Jharkhand.
SCHEDULE
504
0-13-04
503
0-11-65 District
Tehsil Village Survey No. Area to be
494
acquired
0-45-44
forROU
493 0-30-01
(inHectare)
491
0-01-45
1 2 3 1
5
732
0-37-73
0-07-78
661
Aurangabad Madanpur Panariya
496
0-07-83
0-08-15
659
476
0-46-26
0-02-29
660 बाँध474 0-02-02
676
0-04-05
475
0-19-99
0-07-77
377
479
0-01-69
1412
0-02-24
1411
458
0-10-67
0-04-45
1409
731
0-49-67
0-01-66
1408
728
0-01-06
1407
0-03-16
8-41-87
कुल
1405
0-00-68
1406 गटौली
680
0-03-84
0-02-87
1402
679
0-29-60
0-01-01
1401
677
0-33-46
1403
676
0-11-73
370
0-18-95
702
1-51-68
0-13-12
167
820
2-08-08
0-03-53
175
168
0-02-42
817
1-39-18
0-01-69
169
818
1-21-35
0-14-89
174
6-98-92
कुल
0-00-83
173
0-09-29
181 [फा. सं. एल-14014/12/05- जी.पी. ]
0-01-20
स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक
146
145
0-10-51 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8405
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8, 1927
1
2
3
5
4
1
0-00-87
190
Aurangabad Madanpur Panariya
2
4
5
3
0-06-31 Madanpur Parrawan 771
Aurangabad
189 0-01-38
188
0-01-17
182 0-01-91
184 0-01-09
0-08-12
192
0-08-55
191
0-00-39
62
193
0-02-26
49
0-00-28
211
0-05-69
209 0-12-44
208
0-00-37
205
0-03-49
207
0-03-40
1316 0-07-13
120 0-01-85
122 0-01-16
121
0-00-94
123 0-01-40
124 0-01-
197
0-02-81
193
0-04-21
195
0-02-93
19
0-00-14
16 0-01-14
15 0-00-21
14
0-01-65
2-00-98
Total
0-00-69
544
Daswatcap
133
0-25-67
103
0-04-88
0-01-05
104
0-12-39
102
56
0-05-24
97
96
0-11-17
0-05-55
95
0-16-45
93
92
0-13-15
90
0-05-02
0-07-12
80
TI
0-09-04
78
0-04-50
0-01-15
548
0-02-04
556
Total 01-25-51
0-05-51
Parrawan 799
835
0-32-65
798 0-07-54
797
0-22-23
0-08-10
773
772
0-08-22
770
0-06-59
769
0-01-27
0-04-33
775
700
0-02-11
655
0-04-67
656
0-02-53
652
0-07-03
657
0-03-56
651
0-05-54
831 0-00-99
0-02-90
659
660
0-02-25
664
0-02-81
0-02-39
665
650 0-01-18
649
0-10-83
639
0-02-05
0-06-88
647
0-04-28
674
0-08-63
675
0-06-50
683
681
0-03-53
0-12-74
692
0-08-04
693
694
0-03-58
0-02-64
695
2-10-41
Total
0-08-85
770
Barun Ghoгала
0-01-26
765
0-06-98
764
766
0-05-73
0-12-65
767
0-02-52
728
729
0-04-31
0-12-20
718
0-05-63
719
0-00-44
720
0-00-13
730
706
0-00-89
705
0-06-50
0-04-63
704
0-03-34
696
695
0-06-66
694
0-06-69
693
692
0-03-93
0-08-96
685
0-09-73
637
0-00-12
683
0-02-49
685
003-45
785
0-01-29
680
673
0-03-07 8406
[PART II SEC . 3 (ji) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
5
3
5 1
2
3
1
2
4
717
768 0-00-64
Barun Ghoraha
Aurangabad Madanpur Baniya
Aurangabad
719
0-08-12
Total 01-26-09
736 0-00-15
0-06-48
1778
Aurangabad Beri
720
0-05-91
1774 0-07-12
0-12-52
725
1775
0-01-50
0-04-96
724
1773
0-19-62
0-06-70
704
1772 0-17-97
0-03-95
700
1771 0-02-69
699
0-04-63
0-07-96
701
0-55-38
Total
0-03-17
698
0-02-12
37
Patea
0-06-20
696
38
695 0-02-82
40 0-01-08
0-03-35
694
0-13-70
39
0-00-28
693
16
0-16-78
692 0-09-14
17
0-22-95
691
0-02-52
18
0-01-29
690
14
0-01-35
13 0-15-02
2-17-68
Total
12 0-21-97
0-09-77
511
Sailwa
0-20-12
11
0-03-89
512
0-13-42
10
0-00-13
510
0-05-68
9
0-03-77
509
0-00-81
4
0-13-41
483
0-03-38
1-45-52
Total
484
485
0-22-17
0-04-36
815
Madanpur Baniya
0-07-99
508
0-00-81
814
0-01-55
507
0-04-89
813
486
0-01-29
0-06-83
812
0-02-56
487
0-04-94
809
0-03-89
488
0-00-21
811
489
0-04-05
0-11-10
808
0-00-61
603
0-06-81
805
0-04-53
506
0-06-77
807
0-06-44
504
0-03-37
804
0-05-95
3686
0-01-64
806
0-00-63
604
0-08-79
767
0-02-82
619
0-01-29
772
0-03-29
3688
0-09-07
768
621
0-01-97
0-01-64
771
0-01-54
622
0-02-83
770
0-05-70
623
769
0-17-08
0-04-97
665
0-00-39
755
0-07-28
666
749
0-01-92
671
0-03-47
748
0-08-66
667
0-15-04
744
0-02-17
3693
746
668 0-05-29
0-08-74
745
669
0-04-91
0-00-93
741
670
0-10-31
0-01-17
740
676
0-09-64
739
0-06-35
0-26-95
675
955
0-00-18
677
0-00-53
738
0-00-66
674
718
0-02-84 8407 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
5 3
4
1
4
5
2
3
2
3704 0-15-91
3179
0-00-28
Madanpur Sailwa
Aurangabad
Aurangabad Madanpur Sailwa
726
3167
0-02-99
0-00-11
784 0-40-07
3178
3177
0-00-24
785
0-10-70
3176
0-00-53
790
0-05-01
0-08-47
786
3175
0-05-61
0-04-73
787
0-03-63
4016
3169
0-02-99
0-02-16
788
3168
0-05-53
804
0-00-18
3167
0-02-44
783
0-06-24
3370
0-02-61
0-01-23
782
3166 0-00-73
0-06-19
1736
3358
0-03-12
0-08-53
1577
3357
1576 0-08-01
0-01-76
0-05-67
3359
3836 0-01-77
3355
0-03-85
1575
3360
0-02-74
3827
0-04-87
3361
0-05-83
1574
0-05-23
3362
0-05-54
1579 0-00-68
3350
0-00-72
0-04-55
1580
3363
0-02-68
1573
0-03-40
3364
0-03-76
3826
0-00-43
3365
0-00-93
1572
0-02-47
0-05-57
4041
3842 0-01-73
0-02-95
0-27-96
3470
1596
0-02-73
3483
0-00-55
1597
0-403-23
1598
0-04-81
4071
3472
0-02-24
0-02-65
1623
4042
0-01-88
0-08-62
1624
1626
0-04-85
5-59-60
Total
1629
976
0-01-18
Hazipur
0-00-6
1620
0-03-80
977
0-13-34
3847
0-04-38
0-01-85
978
1630
0-02-58
979
0-02-69
1631 0-03-90
0-26-74
1000
1632 0-03-80
999
0-12-73
1633 0-03-98
998
0-14-22
0-08-02
1635
994
0-02-95
1636
0-01-18
995
0-01-30
0-03-20
1638
611
0-09-03
1637
0-01-40
0-26-31
602
0-05-12
3117
0-00-22
600
3225
0-00-51
0-31-71
603
0-09-14
3184
0-01-49
581
0-00-62
3224
0-37-95
586
0-00-99
4027
588
0-09-50
0-05-20
3194
0-01-21
Road 580
0-04-15
3195
0-01-85
579
0-02-46
3193
538
0-37-71
0-07-89
3196
537
0-11-43
0-02-77
3197
0-02-68
539
0-04-08
3198
0-32-88
541
0-00-78
3181
0-10-06
542
3180
0-00-67
545
0-09-05 8408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
2
4
5
1
0-11-09
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii )]
4
5 2
3
0-02-49 Madanpur Teldiha 2826
Aurangabad
Madanpur Hazipur 1046
Aurangabad
546
0-20-46
0-12-02
1045
0-02-54
439
0-04-84
434
433
0-10-14
432
435
0-49-57
426
0-02-27
424
0-09-69
425
0-01-36
Total 4-16-52
0-02-81
501
Sindura
490
0-05-53
0-63-01
550
0-01-96
499
495
0-07-61
496
0-02-69
0-05-08
452
453
0-00-11
447
0-07-49
451
0-29-25
450
0-13-62
449
0-13-99
448 0-10-09
441
0-01-45
0-03-50
445
442
0-06-85
444
0-05-45
0-02-23
443
398
0-01-87
397
0-01-42
190 0-01-72
0-20-32
386
0-02-35
385
0-25-79
379
0-00-23
380
377
0-03-19
179 0-00-78
350 0-03-32
0-14-54
349
0-04-01
347
0-00-77
346
0-34-01
337
0-00-43
338
0-07-97
339
0-01-35
85
0-12-33
286
0-03-14
284
0-08-50
283
0-02-92
282
281
0-03-36
3-37-04
Total
0-12-89
2838
2837 0-17-68
2836 0-11-76
2834 0-17-51
2835 0-01-84
2778 0-04-44
0-03-37
2777
0-08-45
2779
2491 0-05-76
2780 0-19-57
0-01-13
2781
2782 0-13-36
2783 0-05-11
2416 0-03-90
2539 0-19-86
2536 0-03-40
0-02-12
2538
2537 0-09-45
2543 0-00-96
2547 0-00-15
0-16-67
2531
2530 0-04-59
2526 0-15-94
0-16-03
2528
2527 0-01-41
0-02-68
2558
2496 0-14-83
2495 0-13-20
2492 0-08-95
2591 0-17-58
0-03-58
2490
2489 0-10-66
2488 0-04-24
2449 0-00-57
2450 0-01-77
0-04-21
2451
2453 0-02-10
0-05-04
2454
0-04-30
2455
0-01-13
2456
0-02-91
Road/2452
0-00-37
2322
0-00-57
2474
2461 0-01-14
0-03-23
2462
0-00-61
2465
0-04-24
2463
2464 0-02-08
0-01-71
2467
0-00-06
2466
0-00-78
2468
0-01-91
2474
0-00-76
2315 8409 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
5 1
2
3
4
3
5
4
1
2
0-01-16
0-03-58
Aurangabad Madanpur Teldiha 2314
Aurangabad Madanpur Teldiha 1483
0-03-62
2310
0-00-95
1484
1485
0-02-09
2311
0-01-41
0-02-35
1486
0-00-93
2312
0-01-58
1480
0-00-65
2489
0-00-37
0-08-42
2309
1491
0-00-64
1490
2300
0-03-71
1487
0-00-62
2301
1489
0-01-02
2302
0-07-89
1475
2303
0-25-41
1512
2305
0-00-74
0-01-87
1513
0-04-36
2308
1520 0-07-10
0-02-26
2307
1519
0-01-34
2306
0-02-29
1518
0-00-29
0-02-59
2393
0-34-33
1530
0-14-56
2108
1533
0-00-76
2112
0-02-16
764 0-10-30
2107
0-13-27
762
0-11-63
2113
763
0-00-27
2106
0-24-05
0-11-65
761
0-01-01
2116
776
0-05-89
2103
0-00-71
760
0-05-82
1926 0-01-98
749
0-12-75
1939 0-03-99
750 0-02-15
1937
0-08-38
0-05-77
747
0-08-40
1933
745
0-09-15
1932
0-00-18
748
2131
0-03-65
746
0-01-97
1922 0-01-14
714
0-08-87
1930 0-09-40
712 0-00-89
1934
0-02-39
0-02-38
713
0-10-90
1923
0-06-53
677
0-04-84
1920
0-01-98
678
2133
0-00-33
679
0-01-52
0-402-47
2134
0-65-34
680
0-07-79
2136
0-06-39
682
0-07-65
1919
0-07-64
681
0-01-80
1924
0-03-38
683
2135 0-00-95
685
0-02-53
2137 0-14-49
0-08-80
684
0-02-32
2141
0-00-89
Nala
08-59-49
Total
0-04-22
1619
0-35-54
Irki Kala 1101
1628
1100
1620
0-01-70
0-19-53
1098
0-03-34
1625
0-06-28
933
0-02-22
1624
1116
1623 0-01-15
930
0-09-09
1626
0-02-64
931
0-02-58
0-05-24
1622
0-10-08
932
0-19-54
1621
0-01-72
934
0-00-12
1637
936 0-00-61
1615 0-01-15-
937
0-09-33
0-15-11
1482
938
0-00-78 8410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-06-45 Aurangabad Madanpur Irki Kala 939
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5.
149 0-02-93
Aurangabad
0-15-43
941
942
0-13-71
1090 0-08-72
943 0-00-17
1089
0-06-95
0-05-15
945
1087
0-03-84
946
952 0-02-63
0-02-93
953
954
0-01-50
956
0-03-89
957
0-02-51
960
0-06-21
961
0-02-30
962
0-01-56
963
0-00-91
1017 0-03-41
1071
0-04-62
1025
0-09-47
1024
0-04-95
1023
0-19-36
0-07-41
1022
1021
0-06-87
1020
0-05-11
1019
0-03-81
1018 0-00-74
0-03-22
1026
0-07-02
1027
1028
0-03-45
0-03-72
1029
0-03-54
1030
1031
0-03-34
0-06-02
1032
241
0-25-60
240
0-05-03
0-03-45
239
0-12-80
238
0-04-93
237
232
0-05-07
0-05-15
1108
87
0-00-77
0-03-20
88
0-05-10
90
89
0-01-21
0-01-47
91
92
0-03-43
93
0-06-11
94 0-05-91
95
0-05-71
0-00-26
96
0-00-31
152
0-12-22
151
150
0-09-10 Madanpur Irki Kala
0-02-18
159
176
0-11-05
175 0-02-74
177
0-15-27
0-08-31
178
180 0-03-73
182
0-06-79
183
185 0-01-99
4-50-39
Total
0-01-59
367
Aurangabad Chaukhara
366
0-19-01
0-12-59
365
0-00-16
995
364
0-09-64
0-04-77
368
0-10-43
996
387 003-44
0-00-35
371
0-10-85
372
0-12-18
373
0-03-28
374
359
0-01-92
0-01-93
311
0-00-39
312
0-20-98
318
321
0-11-31
0-05-03
982
0-01-24
983
0-25-16
322
0-08-36
985
0-03-14
323
298
0-03-25
288
0-09-65
255
254
0-08-54
256
0-00-62
0-00-69
287
0-07-10
253
251
0-03-62
250
0-00-94
252
0-08-60
0-05-25
246
254
0-06-94
0-10-25
244
243
0-02-46
234
0-02-58
233
0-06-58
224
0-02-83
223
0-22-25
221
665
0-02-60
664 8411 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
4
5
3
4
5 1
3
1
2
584 0-04-08 Aurangabad Chaukhara 218
Aurangabad
Aurangabad Aurangabad Patra
963
0-00-13
0-13-32
105
0-05-62
219
274
0-02-12
41
958
0-02-44
0-02-33
0-02-11
542
3-05-99
Total
45
0-10-34
197
0-02-30
Patra
0-15-65
44
0-02-22
534
0-14-56
43
0-06-09
533
42 0-06-75
0-09-38
532
49 0-35-89
531
0-06-08
37
0-05-37
0-05-86
527
36
524
0-10-23
3-02-92
0-00-98
800
0-00-54
0-02-30
1067
519
Bajipur
520
0-01-45
1048
0-01-05
522
0-02-62
0-09-91
1035
785
0-02-75
0-06-29
1046
532
0-05-64
0-02-63
1036
500
0-00-11
1045 0-03-13
499
1037
0-01-01
0-01-54
0-02-32
497 0-07-06
1038
1039
0-04-64
0-01-80
498
496
0-00-42
0-01-18
1040
0-02-71
495
0-02-98
1033
494
0-05-07
0-04-82
1032
0-02-93
217
0-05-24
1031
1029
0-00-13
200
0-09-38
219
0-07-31
0-15-84
1030
1028
0-04-34
218
0-04-18
0-05-76
221
0-00-12
1027
220
1023
0-00-22
0-06-57
0-05-84
223
0-04-35
1026
1025
609
0-01-37
0-07-62
976
225
0-04-18
0-01-69
231
987
0-06-79
0-05-39
230
0-02-72
986
0-20-26
226
977
0-11-24
604
0-06-32
985
227
0-02-29
978
0-08-92
0-07-08
600
0-04-56
979
0-12-45
602
0-01-71
949
0-08-82
948
0-08-11
603
0-03-19
0-04-56
601
947
0-11-68
244
0-01-92
944
0-17-42
0-407-97
246
943
0-14-65
254
0-02-49
920
869
0-07-54
0-02-46
119
0-09-68
918
0-00-74
590
916
589
0-06-44
0-01-52
0-10-69
909
0-41-88
108
0-03-74
910
0-08-62
99
0-19-30
0-07-20
120
908
0-23-18
0-12-51
904
100
902
0-08-67
0-12-01
102
2149 GI/05-16 8412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
5
1
3
0-04-61 Aurangabad Aurangabad Bajipur 901
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)
5
4
2
3
0-06-76
313
Aurangabad
900
0-02-59
866
0-13-87
865
0-00-21
02-96-93
Total
0-07-25
1331
Poiwan
0-17-55
1332
1339
0-01-97
0-39-73
1334
0-01-47
1328
0-29-55
1327
0-02-26
1326
0-07-70
1323
0-39-80
1310
0-08-12
1309
0-14-57
1308
0-05-58
1307
0-01-55
1303
0-26-09
1302
0-39-81
1301
0-29-03
1275
0-01-71
1260
1261 0-05-60
0-08-63
1270
0-05-32
1271
1272
0-04-31
1273
0-09-68
0-07-52
606
0-11-96
1277
0-06-87
605
0-14-15
604
0-84-85
581
612
0-03-61
0-06-18
582
0-02-62
1275
0-07-62
578
571
0-02-13
0-04-61
576
0-13-50
575
574
0-07-06
572
573
0-07-42
0-00-53
1378
0-24-51
502
503
0-07-72
504
0-05-08
505
0-01-89
496
0-01-51
495
0-07-94
0-00-39
481
487
0-03-75
0-03-54
488
0-03-35
490
491
0-09-07 Aurangabad Poiwan
279
0-24-36
0-03-12
278
276
0-09-44
275 0-02-60
274
0-14-06
0-17-73
273
1400 0-04-02
0-00-68
272
271
0-09-02
269
0-70-97
268
0-04-34
0-47-30
257
0-06-29
258
259
254
0-00-89
256
0-12-78
0-70-89
249
08-62-16
Total
0-03-55
166
Dehri
161 0-04-60
0-05-05
165
0-13-51
164
0-01-23
167
0-20-70
170
0-02-09
316
0-04-64
141
0-06-95
140
0-08-17
136
0-10-67
134
0-07-30
135
0-05-17
NALA/ 133
0-12-00
132
0-00-19
321
0-33-51
131
0-13-52
129
0-03-10
128
127
0-06-51
0-20-31
125
0-06-11
126
31 0-07-06
1-95-94
Total
0-22-78 Nirmalbigha 343
0-22-45
342
0-13-99
320
0-06-44
329
0-13-87
326
0-02-65
328
0-25-97
296
0-46-57
298
0-16-08
286
0-03-50
283
0-11-18
265 8413 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
0-03-99
0-27-79 Aurangabad Aurangabad 1517Bela
Aurangabad Aurangabad Nirmalbigha 264
0-02-57
1518
0-19-60
250
0-02-25
1519
0-58-84
234
0-04-56
1544
0-09-97
ROAD/136
1542
0-08-39
233
0-00-39
1541
0-19-20
231
0-00-39
1538
0-10-16
190
0-05-73
1536
0-09-66
189
0-00-14
1537
0-08-14
188
0-08-50
1535
0-04-12
187
0-05-03
1532
186 0-04-80
0-02-51
1531
185
0-02-82
1530
0-04-65
184
0-02-69
1533
0-02-79
183
0-18-31
1491
0-06-55
182
0-05-03
1490
0-03-96
181
1489
0-01-35
17/
0-01-45
1488
0-03-16
176
0-01-90
1487
0-00-85
175
0-01-16
1486
0-01-08
174
0-02-97
1485
0-01-24
173
0-02-67
1484
0-01-42
167
0-00-75
1482
0-00-42
161
0-00-52
1481
0-16-92
128
1480
4-14-54
Total
0-14-80
644
0-19-34
0-22-14
643
112
Dhabhorakhurd
0-45-10
111
642
0-01-85
0-13-56
0-04-95
114
649
0-08-69
0-23-97
110
634
0-10-81
0-31-74
109
633
0-00-61
0-00-25
26
632
25
0-06-57
0-02-30
654
0-01-04
0-10-76
27
659
0-05-51
0-29-12
28
660
0-11-85
0-11-21
29
661
0-02-59
30
662
0-12-99
0-05-49
0-04-75
663
44
0-18-52
0-13-93
664
13
0-02-51
0-01-61
668
14
0-14-14
0-24-17
15
674
0-00-18
675
0-02-02
20
0-00-47
673
2-24-14
Total
0-49-19
672
0-01-98
1571
Bela
0-02-99
699
0-02-48
1570
0-25-57-
701
0-02-22
1569
0-19-52
704
0-03-78
1568
0-12-68
750
0-11-98
1567
0-09-52
707
0-06-99
1566
0-03-30
749
0-39-97
1564
0-00-17
737
0-00-48
1557
743
0-04-61
1556
0-1303
733
0-39-97
1555
0-23-10
732
0-11-41
1529 8414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
4
1
3
5
1
731
0-07-77 Aurangabad Aurangabad Bela
730 0-10-84
728
0-02-93
0-16-67
727
725
0-15-02
0-02-86
721
0-11-19
723
0-07-19
722
728 0-03-85
587
0-39-83
0-01-54
579
0-18-60
584
0-00-35
586
585
0-11-20
576
0-12-66
0-01-43
575
Total 6-84-40
1712
Kusi
1-02-23
0-06-78
1711
1709 0-06-45
1708
0-12-54
1706
0-43-03
1703
0-17-84
0-08-60
1686
1687
0-01-56
1674
0-04-96
1331 0-00-51
1332
0-20-51
1333
0-03-53
0-01-76
1334
1328
0-03-54
0-18-09
1338
0-07-48
1337
0-02-96
1339
0-10-62
1340
1665
0-01-42
1664
0-02-44
0-10-72
1663
0-08-60
1662
0-01-41
1660
0-02-53
1658
0-19-85
1659
0-07-62
1639
0-17-06
1638
0-03-65
1357
1358
0-02-74
1636
0-19-11
0-08-81
1637
0-01-19
1360
1621
0-04-80
0-05-16
1361
1620
1367
0-14-79
1368
0-08-81
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
5 2
3
0-06-65
1370
Kusi
Aurangabad Aurangabad
1369 0-03-34
0-01-60
1382
0-16-59
1381
1383
0-01-27
1384 0-01-95
0-01-47
1385
0-15-83
1213
0-03-51
1389
0-15-04
1209
0-02-15
1391
1207
0-01-25
0-11-59
1206
0-16-62
1205
0-02-28
1204
0-01-67
1160
1162
0-31-81
1151
0-21-64
1158 0-09-11
0-07-77
1153
1152
0-06-23
0-09-37
1142
0-05-18
1143
0-00-27
1144
1125
0-06-24
1140
1139 0-01-43
1138 0-03-41
0-02-28
1135
0-03-55
ROAD/ 1134
0-05-61
140
0-03-30
139
0-06-18
138
0-15-89
140
0-00-56
146
145
0-04-12
0-00-21
148
0-14-14
144
143
0-17-48
0-09-55
152
151
0-04-97
0-02-03
153
0-02-82
136
130 0-01-61
129
0-05-58
0-02-62
123
0-03-80
128
0-00-16
125
0-20-66
124
103
0-30-22
0-01-04
104
0-08-49
105
0-25-18
106
102 0-14-88 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1
91
Kusi
0-36-22 Aurangabad .Aurangabad
0-05-57
(Contd.) 280
219
0-05-13
Total 8-73-36
360
Parsa
0-51-01
319
0-22-12
312 0-22-51
314
0-03-65
0-08-32
311
310
0-03-02
240
241
0-00-28
243
0-05-47
242
0-01-03
94
0-02-79
244
92
0-11-65
91
0-10-97
0-04-48
93
0-12-67
96
0-00-17
84
97
0-05-87
107
0-06-93
83
82 0-06-87
79
0-08-43
81
0-01-34
80
0-01-43
76
0-07-72
77
0-02-56
73 0-01-83
0-35-57
64
0-46-27
6
63
0-02-02
62
0-03-09
54
0-08-38
55
0-09-94
0-08-75
56
57 -0-04-84
49 0-04-51
58
0-06-01
7
0-18-04
5 0-03-21
4
0-14-27
2 0-32-98
Total 4-01-49
0-04-44
Marauli
118
0-00-74
177
0-19-36
116
Total 0-24-54
0-02-96
110
Mahuari
88
0-11-21
0-06-59
87
8415 2
3
4
5
Aurangabad Aurangabad Mahuari 86 0-13-82
0-20-49 (Contd.) 85
0-06-52
84
82
0-00-96
69
0-00-37
83
67
0-03-08
63
0-15-23
0-02-78
62
0-07-14
60
57
0-06-46
59 0-00-94
58 0-01-98
0-02-66
56
0-02-72
54
53
0-02-94
52 0-01-76
0-07-79
51
0-07-92
48
44 0-11-22
42
0-02-66
0-05-64
43
0-07-88
39
0-20-66
8
0-02-35
7
0-06-71
1
1-83-64
Total
0-06-22 Karma
126
0-26-39
112
0-18-83
109
0-01-74
111
0-53-18
Total
0-01-89 Khairabind
977
0-01-80
1013
0-28-71
1011
0-08-40
Road935
0-00-73
1012
0-01-93
753
0-57-61
754
0-11-91
751
750
0-11-80
0-11-12
755
756
0-16-98
0-02-80
Road 759
0-20-17
758
0-04-81
743
742 0-12-92
0-09-58
741
740
0-01-92
0-06-67
739.
735 0-01-34
731 0-13-89
0-09-50
730 8416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
2
4
5
3
5
1
0-27-42
0-16-68
553
729
Aurangabad Aurangabad Khairabind
Aurangabad Aurangabad Susnar
215
0-10-48
0-03-91
768
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
770
0-02-43
0-02-32
219
0-12-85
781
0-03-65
220
0-00-27
782
0-02-78
225
679
0-28-16
0-06-36
224
776
0-03-98
0-11-95
226
0-03-95
0-00-12
777
231
774
0-07-53
0-06-63
230
235
0-02-90
642 0-10-83
0-01-82
234
0-01-96
641
0-03-82
644
0-11-50
236
638
0-02-35
244
0-03-38
637
243
0-09-66
0-05-32
252
638 0-18-91
0-09-67
245
643
0-01-07
636
0-04-28
0-00-59
221
635
121
0-02-41
0-01-93
634
0-03-93
0-05-12
128
633
124
0-07-30
0-11-47
125
0-12-22
0-05-81
631
632
0-07-30
118
0-12-15
0-05-30
627
0-13-53
119
626
0-09-56
122
0-06-98
0-03-68
622
121
0-05-71
623
120
0-01-31
149 0-02-36
462
0-02-04
150 0-05-60
473
0-08-13
0-00-16
151
424
0-01-39
30
426
0-33-47
45
0-02-88
472
0-09-63
0-12-08
36
449
0-19-08
35
0-02-23
0-02-29
448
34
0-03-33
451
0-15-73
0-03-76
33
452
0-06-19
0-05-42
32
454
0-18-57
0-27-84
31
453
0-00-12
0-00-46
9
455
0-07-80
0-02-77
10 Road 446
0-14-25
0-04-94
445
11
0-14-26
0-02-19
12
0-09-15
440
0-02-86
13
0-18-63
441
0-04-50
14
442 0-12-69
0-01-33
15
443
0-04-98
0-01-61
0-02-67
22
461
6
0-00-67
6-52-68
Total
3-46-03
Total
550
0-03-04
Susnar
296
0-03-50
0-56-92
548
Barun Chiraila
0-06-78
384
0-02-16
552
0-03-41
379
0-22-06
556
378
0-28-13
558
0-01-12
0-21-61
391
557
0-06-16
0-11-65
377
0-12-81
555
0-15-04
Road 309
0-13-16
554 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
3
1
5
1
301
0-01-60 Aurangabad Barun
8417 2
4
3
5
466
0-11-83
Aurangabad Barun
300 0-16-53
Chiraila (Contd.)
303
0-21-94
304
0-29-83
305
306
0-08-40
0-05-55
308
0-13-09
285
0-05-27
284
282
0-01-72
283
0-01-99
279
0-05-12
310
315
273
0-11-18
270
0-08-30
0-21-87
271
264
0-22-19
272
0-00-61
265
261 0-13-74
260
044-32
Total 3-23-58
0-13-87
592
Jagdishpur
591
0-05-58
589
0-07-17
590 0-13-74
0-01-97
588
576
0-03-60
571
0-03-32
569
0-04-60
570 0-04-46
567
0-05-74
549
0-05-84
0-03-22
559
560
558 0-11-82
556
0-00-61
557 0-00-18
0-04-24
561
0-08-38
537
540
0-00-62
0-29-37
538
536
0-01-15
526
0-04-65
534
0-03-70
529
0-12-96
531 0-11-05
530
0-11-17
0-05-78
511
0-11-34
451
453
0-09-32
454
0-06-52
455
0-05-29
457
0-00-35 Jagdishpur (Contd.)
459
0-12-71
458
0-05-43
460
0-04-01
448
0-01-39
236
0-01-96
228
0-02-11
227
0-11-60
226
0-11-21
224 0-01-10
223
0-03-30
225
0-04-75
222
0-10-10
219
0-07-18
0-05-16
221
220
0-05-93
247
0-02-08
218
0-03-23
194 0-12-99
141 0-01-42
0-09-61
137
0-01-73
138
0-12-30
143
146
0-07-93
0-04-66
145
0-03-99
147
144
148
0-03-99
149 0-20-33
152 0-01-64
0-02-68
150
156
0-02-95
0-01-40
190
189
0-12-64
0-01-09
188
0-07-17
186
174
0-00-55
0-21-89
187
4-47-77
Total
0-01-89
Aurangabad Aurangabad
0-02-61 Jagdishpur 1746 (Contd.) ROAD
0-04-22
1741
0-04-64
1742
0-04-29
1743
0-00-74
1744
1731
0-06-51
0-04-29
1732
0-02-70
1730
0-02-38
1721
0-03-50
1720
1722
0-01-62
1723
0-03-72
1724
0-10-26 8418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
5
4
4
1
2
3
3
5
2
1
0-01-45
60
0-01-36
Barun Ratanpur
Aurangabad
Aurangabad Aurangabad Jagdishpur 1708
1707
0-05-44
0-02-80
61
(Contd.)
1705 0-11-69
64 0-14-19
67
0-06-35
1706
66 0-15-15 1697
0-02-09
0-01-68
65 1729 0-00-17
0-17-33
52
0-80-56
Total
0-01-68
48 Devhara
137
0-28-46
47
0-08-55
1.48
0-02-55
46
0-11-51
145
0-07-32
1
0-09-34
146
0-02-98
2
0-09-79
147
-0-52-33
3
0-00-48
82
2-89-56
Total
0-13-09
River151
845
0-03-78
Rasulpur
0-54-76
Total
0-07-27
Road/861
0-13-13
River258
Barun Ratanpur
0-18-41
857
0-14-14
289
0-34-78
856
280
0-01-42
0-07-60
855
0-04-65
279
0-02-14
843
0-04-39
278
0-26-04
842
0-03-82
277
841
0-02-67
276
0-02-69
845
275
0-00-94
0-13-28
820
0-08-74
274
0-17-83
812
273
0-00-11
818
0-00-74
271
0-09-32
817
0-01-11
270
0-20-62
814
0-01-02
268
816
0-02-98
0-00-86
269
0-05-55
815
0-02-67
267
0-05-21
810
0-00-16
264
803
0-10-31
0-00-62
265
0-01-94
802
0-00-12
262
0-15-81
804
0-06-10
266
805
0-23-11
0-07-87
272
0-01-48
796
194
0-00-12
978
0-01-74
195
0-07-55
784
0-03-62
196
0-03-63
788
0-03-36
197
0-10-55
785
0-02-43
204
0-10-07
774
0-02-25
0-09-44
198
775
0-00-74
0-03-40
199
771
0-00-66
770
0-15-58
203
0-04-22
761
0-00-35
200
0-00-21
0-01-12
769
211
0-04-67
0-01-71
216
982
0-09-93
700
0-11-49
217
699
0-403-79
0-00-64
219
0-00-57
696
0-06-20
220
0-06-26
698
0-03-57
221
0-06-13
702
0-02-71
222
0-03-69
703
223
0-05-04
0-18-40
710
0-12-68
69 8419 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
3
5
2
3
4
5 1
1
711
0-02-57
637
0-04-86 Aurangabad Barun Rasulpur
Aurangabad Barun
712
0-06-98
632
0-04-75
Gopalpur (Contd.)
(Contd.)
713
0-24-82
633
0-00-68
718
631
0-09-70
0-08-34
739
0-03-25
627 0-06-40 Road/680
626
0-09-43
0-00-67
25
0-03-06
624 0-14-81
29
620
0-00-31
22
0-06-75
622
0-20-86
23
0-01-67
623 0-13-22
21
0-11-24
629 0-02-58
16
0-02-89
518
0407-74
17
0-02-09
482
0-05-85
0-01-53
15
479
0-03-19
0-17-61
14
476
0-08-35
13
0-05-21
478
0-03-91
12 0-07-64
475
0-09-05
0-05-65
10
0-07-45
474
0-05-65
9
473
0-07-46
7
0-07-89
471
0-01-23
3
0-10-82
456 0-00-15.
1 0-01-70
457
0-07-29
470
0-08-81 Total 5-01-48
469
0-17-80
738
0-01-25
Gopalpur
467 0-10-85
678 0-14-77
466
0-07-51
0-10-38
679
0-02-35
465
0-01-19
680
464
0-00-11
0-10-44
681
443
0-03-37
682 0-00-46
0-16-05
441
683
0-02-41
442
684
0-02-98
439
0-02-17
685
0-04-17
440 0-41-81
686
0-06-95
676
0-02-60
Total 4-47-20
675
0-02-09
0-04-71
827
Siris
0-02-27
660
0-47-71
828.
661
0-00-46
824 0-03-55
0-26-33
657
0-08-85
821
0-13-78
653
0-31-03
823
652
822 0-16-00
655
0-07-55
1-11-85
Total
0-07-62
648
0-01-62
646
0-19-57
Hetapur 321
0-13-99
320
0-05-06
645
0-24-38
319
643
0-01-98
0-01-09
318
0-01-76
642
0-02-06
301
580
0-25-09
0-01-63
300
0-10-22
640
0-27-98
299
639
0-06-94
298
0-05-46
636
0-23-41
297
638
0-01-96
2149 GI/05-17.
8420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 1
4
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
5
295 0-16-75
409
0-01-49 Aurangabad Barun Hetampur
Aurangabad Madanpur Gorhat
399
292 0-02-15
0-03-41
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
296
0-03-19
398
0-02-03
289
33
0-06-93
0-02-48
0-07-56
0-14-80
174
34
0-05-53
35
171
0-00-44
445
0-19-78
0-03-38
172
37
0-01-75
173
0-00-55
38
0-01-99
0-05-49
121
0-07-41
0-00-54
39
114
0-00-29
40
0-09-98
113
32
0-29-46
0-17-41
112
28
0-00-92
0-15-30
111
0-06-20
27
0-10-70
110
0-03-28
26
107 0-14-34
25
0-04-40
0-09-90
108
24
0-08-33
595
0-01-46
23
0-08-72
0-00-27
94
22
0-02-78
0-19-13
95
21
0-04-63
99
0-01-21
20
2-53-62-
Total
0-06-84
18
575
0-00-13
Rahuva
17 0-19-48
517
0-15-53
0-11-22
16
0-03-15
149
0-54-00
3
0-07-20
150
0-02-07
1
0-09-64
151
3-42-33
Total
0-11-07
152
355
0-01-48
0-01-61
Bahuti
153
Barun
0-44-51
354
0-13-16
154
350
0-10-01
155 0-14-01
0-08-91
349
0-05-32
160
348
0-14-80
165 0-00-95
0-04-06
346
0-16-44
161
0-02-09
345
0-08-68
146
0-00-69
344
1-06-89
Total
0-06-85
319
0-05-46
435
Madanpur Gorhat
0-01-71
308
434
0-10-50
0-05-75
309
433
0-11-74
313
0-07-23
0-01-32
430
0-09-50
314
(0-13-44
431
0-16-73
318
0-04-84
425
1-34-32
Total
0-01-19
417
0-01-21
429
416
0-06-96
Kazichak
0-01-22
428
418
0-00-35
0-00-47
427
0-08-27
415
0-11-69
430
0-09-85
414
0-04-65
425
0-16-75
413
426
0-01-99
412 0-05-14
0-02-93
424
411
0-03-56
0-00-83
255
0-27-45
480 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
Kazichak
246
0-05-74 Barun
Aurangabad
8421 2
3
4
5
275
0-10-09 Barun
Aurangabad
248
0-06-72
252 0-07-23
249 0-00-51
251
0-02-49
250
0-03-99
233
0-08-22
232 0-15-89
231
0-14-50
0-10-38
252
258 0-08-50
227
0-03-01
226
0-05-81
224
0-10-42
223
0-01-03
213
0-01-14
211
0-10-94
0-09-71
212
210
0-06-11
Total 1-57-33
Sonbaras
0-01-49
82
184 0-02-35
72 0-05-44
73
0-00-27
74 0-07-01
75 0-00-45
71
0-01-90
70
0-05-59
68
0-09-54
Canal/66
0-24-56
65 0-10-87
64
0-18-60
63
0-00-58
56
0-16-53
0-31-40
54
53
0-14-29
43
0-14-32
42
0-21-46
44
0-00-39
41
0-22-00
0-07-27
40
29
0-17-34
65
0-04-10
20
0-08-32
0-18-44
19
0-01-05
21
24
13 0-03-31
0-03-26
18
4-73-03
Total
Mitraj
272
0-00-23
274
0-21-57
273
0-00-16
248 0-07-10
247
0-06-31
0-07-10
246
0-08-89
245
0-06-41
244
243
0-06-25
242
0-06-30
0-07-48
130
129
0-05-84
128
0-05-09
0-02-16
123
124
0-03-09
121
0-12-38
120
0-02-11
116
0-01-91
0-12-24
115
0-05-88
114
113
0-01-44
0-03-74
112
111
39 0-04-14
0-02-71
38
50
0-01-04
37
0-06-57
35
0-35-09
36
0-06-28
34
0-11-18
33
0-11-94
0-04-39
32
30
0-00-11
24
0-28-96
0-00-23
26
21
0-08-51
20
0-11-97
0-25-27
19
0-18-40
18
7
0-02-99
0-02-18
9
3
0-01-81
2
0-03-17
0-402-72
1
3-33-51
Total
0-03-97
155
Khanda
0-03-35
158
0-24-03
156
135 0-0346 8422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVAΝΑ 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
3
5
134
0-15-60
629
0-03-21 Khanda
Inglis
Aurangabad Barun
Aurangabad Barun
0-02-96
132
630
0-68-09 131
0-07-64
0-04-84
626
0-46-84
130
0-01-78
625
129
0-17-46
0-89-54
624
0-02-84
90
0-06-48
616
85
0-05-11
615
0-56-13
0-03-88
83
613
0-63-51
82 0-08-71
608 0-03-18
81
0-21-63
0-12-90
609
8
0-02-13
610
0-36-90 123 0-03-58
0-03-41
Road/581
Road/580
0-04-19
1-73-19
Total
0-05-71
Road/579
1582 0-01-35
Madanpur
0-05-28
Road/578
500 0-03-19
0-03-30
577
0-22-17
501
736
0-26-84 499
0-00-32
508
0-62-07 498 0-20-41
0-04-16
532
497 0-17-91
509
496 0-16-11
0-02-45
Bund/506
495 0-03-97
0-37-10
495
494 0-07-79
0-40-07
505
471
0-04-15
504
0-13-04 472 0-00-16
503 0-11-65 470 0-08-43
0-10-43
0-45-44 462
494
458
0-10-35
493
0-30-01 457
0-13-66
0-01-45
491
0-15-69
456
732
0-37-73 455
0-07-54
0-07-83
496
0-08-58
451
0-46-26
476
0-08-65
450
Bund/474
0-02-02 452
0-19-99
475
0-03-87
449
0-01-69
479
448
0-03-99
458
0-10-67 447 0-02-65
0-49-67
731
0-17-67
0-01-06
728
446
0-07-59
441
8-41-87
Total
0-09-41
440
680
0-03-84
Gatouli
432
0-00-98
679
0-29-60
0-11-74
431
677
0-33-46
0-08-99
430
676
0-11-73 429
0-08-69
1-51-68
702
427
0-09-41
2-08-08
820
426
0-05-45
1-39-18
817
425
0-06-96
424
0-06-15
818
1-21-35 423
0-09-62
6-98-92
Total
422
0-15-96
[F. No. -L- 14014/12/05 G.P. ]
3-10-19
Total
SWAMI SINGH , Director [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8423
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
नईदिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005
का.आ. 2656.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि बिहार राज्य में जगदीशपुर - हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल (इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइलपाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमिके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री वी. एन. अखोरी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ( बिहार व झारखंड ) , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, चतुर्थ तल, प्रधान टॉवर, मेन रोड, रॉची, झारखंड को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
तहसील गाँव
जिला
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए (हेक्टेयर में)
4
1
3
5 2
गया
0-18-27 बाराचट्टी तेतरिया नदी/233 237
0-51-44
0-29-62
231
189
0-03-25
190
0-05-12
0-05-71
192
0-02-75
191
186
0-09-48
0-02-34
185
0-11-83
138
0-04-06
134
0-02-65
135
0-09-82
136
0-10-21
133
0-46-60
137
0-29-66
254
0-67-86
259
1-52-79
252
0-07-31
नाला/4
248
0-01-75
3
5-89-63
कुल
1-92-87 गया 1 2 3 4 5 बाराचट्टी 197
चैतिया
1-92-87
कुल
1-45-09
सबलपुर
0-04-54
0-90-86
0-55-48
0-01-14
1-07-29
45 44 46 40 नाला/30 39 नदी/ 1
0-29-41
4-33-81
कुल
0-29-89
बलुआचट्टी नदी/224
1-24-18
219
नाला/218 0-01-41
0-56-49
215
1-73-29
1127
0-06-38
1126
3-91-64
कुल
0-06-66
नाला/879
बारॉडीह
1-21-45
847
846
1-09-91
0-02-05
नाला/845
0-61-95
844
एन.एच. 2/848 0-10-56
1-48-54
849
0-28-77
830
0-03-40
रोड/829
0-03-65
828
1-29-89
827
0-06-96
नाला/825
1-67-62
816
817
0-68-82
0-02-29
815
कुल 8-72-52
0-81-07
बरवाडीह 724
0-01-68
725
0-03-69
726
727
0-02-08
0-55-60
729
736
0-84-64
1-31-69
737
नाला/739
0-98-13
743
0-65-39
741
742
0-02-13
कुल 5-30-10
0-01-55 मोहनपुर खजुराहीं
1-31-93
0-23-86
0-01-45
0-62-80
0-52-75
60 154 163 नाला/1510 156 155 8424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
1
5
गया
0-01-68
रोड/153
गया मोहनपुर खजुराहीं
152
1-05-33
0-01-80
नाला/135
1-26-24
144
5-09-39
कुल
0-85-70
300
केन्दुआ
नाला/298 0-01-38
291
1-29-07
0-28-27
285
286
388
1-26-70
387
0-00-83
3-72-85
कुल
1-04-29
668
बन्दीगढ़
63
1-06-65
0-03-82
कुल
3512
0-02-65 कहुदाग
3511
0-79-24
0-05-21
3507
3506
0-40-41
3504
0-02-34
3502
1-48-98
3485
1-38-93
3486
0-20-32
3471
2-21-08
62
0-37-71
63
0-02-20
58
0-01-45
57
0-02-67
64
0-00-44
0-23-56
56
0-02-26
55
0-55-74
54
53
0-06-29
0-07-87
52
66
0-10-94
0-06-99
168
169
0-01-54
170
0-00-45
171
0-00-45
0-46-45
51
47
0-14-19
0-21-23
196
43
0-03-66
0-39-85
50
9-45-10
कुल
664
0-07-97 बाराचट्टी प्रतापी
663
0-74-66
653
0-03-60
652
0-19-45
651
0-01-52
646
0-11-70
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
5 2
4
647
0-00-25 बाराचट्टी प्रतापी
0-09-03
643
640
0-00-91
641
0-06-05
642
0-02-10
0-05-47
638
0-00-13
630
0-02-32
633
634
0-03-32
632
0-02-20
626
0-03-78
0-01-64
612
617
0-19-92
618
0-03-23
0-03-65
613
0-05-61
614
0-08-21
615
0-10-62
616
608
0-06-32
592
0-12-20
591
0-00-42
590
0-11-81
570
0-07-73
569
0-05-47
566
0-16-46
0-05-84
565
0-29-08
551
0-15-08
542
0-03-22
541
0-14-38
69
0-02-90
70
71
0-01-24
0-00-38
72
0-06-67
73
75
0-15-44
0-04-98
74
0-04-95
63
0-02-38
76
0-03-43
62
0-01-18
78
0-05-76
108
109
0-09-37
0-01-37
115
0-12-48
116
0-02-77
114
0-06-28
117
0-10-59
126
रोड/78 0-03-68
0-02-79
बांध/77
0-00-82
54
0-01-33
53
0-12-02
45
46
0-03-69 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8425
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
4
5
1 2
गया
41
0-03-35
गया बाराचट्टी प्रतापी
0-01-69
रोड/40
39
0-25-71
2-40-78
कुल
1527
0-22-23
पदमचक
1526
0-12-88
1483
0-01-17
0-12-36
1481
0-86-66
1480
1484
0-03-51
1487
1479
0-16-68
0-11-48
1478
0-19-45
1477
0-26-06
1475
1474
0-15-55
0-36-65
1472
1470
0-34-31
1423
0-12-54
0-08-28
1388
1389
0-09-53
1390
0-02-08
1416
1415
0-00-33
0-01-21
1414
0-00-93
1413
1393
0-03-07
0-03-37
1411
0-14-16
1412
0-05-70
1408
1410
0-01-20
1407
1406
0-02-44
0-02-79
1405
1404
0-01-89
1383
1385
0-16-60
1313
0-00-65
1293
0-02-57
1292
1291
0-11-48
1294
0-01-88
0-02-06
1295
0-02-10
1297
1296
0-00-12
0-02-85
1299
0-02-63
1298
0-16-64
1302
0-01-89
1254
0-05-85
1160
1159
0-00-95
1158
1161
0-02-49
1162
0-01-09 3
4
2
5
0-03-44
1163
बाराचट्टी पदमचक
1151
0-00-39
0-00-34
1189
0-00-16
1188
0-01-56
1164
0-01-87
1165
0-00-34
1151
1166
0-02-81
1167
0-02-45
1172
0-00-79
0-00-44
1173
1171
0-03-11
1168
0-01-81
1141
0-02-18
1169
0-02-89
0-02-97
1170
905
0-03-22
1125
0-01-68
0-01-53
1124
906
0-01-99
909
0-01-52
910
0-01-44
911
0-00-99
0-01-15
912
0-01-66
914
0-00-68
913
908
0-04-38
1123
915
0-02-12
837
0-10-86
897
0-00-77
838
0-07-28
836
0-05-51
835
0-03-55
832
0-04-29
0-02-68
834
0-03-16
833
823
0-02-58
0-03-23
824
825
821
0-06-69
820
0-07-13
802
0-06-10
0-03-13
803
804
0-01-87
792
0-03-11
0-01-33
793
794
0-02-40
795
785
0-08-33
0-02-50
788
789
0-00-19
0-03-37
787
786
0-00-51 8426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
1
3
5
1 गया
778
0-10-58
गया बाराचट्टी पदमचक
784
0-00-38
783
0-00-63
782
0-00-43
0-00-26
781
780
0-02-74
779
0-02-33
0-05-54
775
0-03-20
772
0-07-22
773
774
0-02-36
0-06-90
755
756
0-12-62
752
740
0-04-03
747
0-02-91
0-05-27
741
742
0-04-84
743
0-04-94
734
0-00-51
746
0-01-56
745
0-00-68
744
0-01-73
0-17-57
714
713
0-05-09
715
717
0-03-85
0-04-59
720
721
0-24-03
722
0-01-59
723
7-25-82
कुल
4
बघहर
3
0-00-79
कुल
0-15-63
269
रक्सी
0-06-65
270
0-03-82
260
0-01-25
261
0-24-76
259
0-01-93
252
242
0-02-11
235
0-07-84
239
0-10-70
238
0-06-57
241
0-00-58
0-06-40
200
0-05-74
199
198
136
0-02-37
203
0-02-17
0-02-40
195
204
0-02-66
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3
4
2
5
0-04-98
194
रक्सी
बाराचट्टी
0-00-66
101
96
0-08-61
98
0-01-93
0-06-97
97
90
0-01-03
0-09-48
85
0-25-85
78
0-01-44
81
0-05-38
82
0-09-20
83
0-17-05
84
0-02-35
1-98-52
कुल
0-02-59
नाला/51
मायापुर
34
0-06-88
0-09-47
कुल
45
निमी
0-01-44
46
0-02-59
0-11-43
44
0-21-57
43
58
0-46-58
57
0-54-33
63
0-36-12
64
0-03-39
60
0-05-29
65
0-06-01
66
67
0-00-36
56
0-00-21
2-09-32
कुल
0-02-63
139
मख्दमपुर
0-02-31
138
0-03-59
97
0-01-10
135
101
0-05-23
100
0-01-71
102
0-12-59
110
0-00-41
103
0-20-91
0-01-25
108
0-17-69
107
0-01-84
106
0-00-13
104
0-00-88
105
0-04-12
116
96
0-01-48
95
0-01-71
144
0-00-41
179
0-80-09
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8427
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
0-25-17 गया
237
बाराचट्टी गंगटी
गया
0-05-36
236
239
0-00-53
0-04-63
242
0-02-40
243
0-00-57
226
0-01-96
225
0-02-45
219
0-00-69
140
117
0-01-04
0-03-02
119
110
0-00-51
0-02-51
118
0-11-66
93
121
0-08-49
0-20-16
120
0-03-29
91
0-07-56
86
0-05-20
90
87
0-02-99
0-04-77
89
76
0-12-08
279
0-11-66
71
0-02-91
70
0-03-09
21
0-01-49
0-01-49
282
56
0-01-26
57
0-00-62
55
0-01-11
0-02-69
53
0-01-78
32
0-11-65
52
33
0-00-62
0-00-37
51
54
0-01-74
47
46
0-03-97
45
0-00-68
49
44
0-02-04
0-01-30
43
42
0-04-02
41
0-01-60
40
0-04-42
8
0-00-74
6
0-09-74
7
0-03-25
0-03-60
5
0-08-02
3
2
0-06-26
नदी/1
0-13-15
2-36-00
कुल
2149 GI/05-18
2
3
4
5
0-13-36 कलवा कला नदी/440
बाराचट्टी
390
0-01-88
379
0-01-51
378
0-04-91
375
0-03-36
377
0-05-99
0-13-24
376.
370
0-17-37
369
0-01-79
0-04-47
368
0-00-93
366
365
0-00-16
0-04-27
307
बांध/307 0-02-44
0-04-74
308
0-02-23
313
0-04-92
314
0-07-66
315
0-10-66
316
0-00-11
321
0-00-18
318
317
0-03-30
327
0-00-18
326
0-02-78
0-05-81
325
322
324
323
1-15-85
कुल
0-04-58 भगौती
207
0-03-26
206
137
0-00-16
0-15-12
140
0-00-49
142
0-01-32
143
0-01-67
139
0-01-41
151
0-01-22
152
0-01-44
153
0-01-40
154
0-01-88
156
0-01-94
157
0-01-69
158
150
0-02-15
0-03-75
176
0-00-88
175
0-00-66
174
0-01-11
173
0-01-24
171
0-01-50
168
167
0-02-15
0-01-55
163
159
0-02-32
0-02-24
162 8428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
5 1
4
1
80
गया
0-20-89
गया बाराचट्टी भगौती
79
0-02-35
0-02-86
78
75
0-10-80
73
0-03-44
72
0-02-80
0-02-42
71
70
0-03-03
69
0-54-29
65
0-08-32
67
0-10-39
66
0-01-72
1-80-44
कुल
0-02-64
रोड/202
कर्मा
0-03-38
211
210
0-05-32
0-00-17
209
0-01-08
205
204
0-06-19
206
0-00-99
208
0-00-74
207
0-00-84
199
0-01-72
171
0-01-80
170
0-01-03
169
0-03-35
172
0-04-55
174
0-09-69
173
0-05-17
0-02-25
168 रोड/157
147/बांध 0-05-41
155
0-04-69
0-36-49
150
0-02-16
149
0-03-29
रोड/148
1-02-98
कुल
0-01-64
मननबिघा 202
203
0-18-64
204
0-15-85
0-02-70
205
0-01-58
198
0-18-95
197
0-09-73
196
0-00-27
192
0-03-03
191
0-03-73
187
0-05-39
178
0-00-17
179
0-03-62
177
0-05-43
167
0-00-98
165
163
0-03-58
0-00-14
160
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
4
5 3
0-00-79
162
बाराचट्टी मननबिघा
0-00-67
176
179
0-00-34
175
0-03-45
0-10-96
170
0-07-87
172
171
0-02-11
12
0-01-51
13
0-04-79
14
0-01-06
0-00-24
11
0-02-72
10
9
0-07-48
0-04-61
8
4
0-15-31
0-52-22
7
0-06-38
5
0-01-21
23
0-06-67
6
2-25-82
कुल
0-01-47
58
गुड़सारी
0-02-06
59
0-03-16
60
0-28-28
63
0-28-74
62
166
0-05-55
0-08-77
167
0-06-49
168
0-06-67
170
0-19-89
171
172
0-02-89
0-02-34
173
0-00-45
187
28
0-13-42
0-02-02
रोड/21
0-11-45
12
0-01-38
il
0-09-93
10
1-54-96
कुल
0-14-75
180
धर्मस्तान
0-00-62
178
0-04-05
179
0-04-97
181
0-17-53
182
0-13-25
184
183
0-00-53
169
0-03-12
168
0-12-20
166
165
0-09-81
0-24-87
163
0-01-44
153
0-01-87
162 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8429
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
4
5
1 2
गया
161
0-08-02
गया
धर्मस्तान
बाराचट्टी
160
0-01-05
159
0-02-50
0-03-20
158
0-05-18
154
41
156
0-00-11
0-05-85
155
24
0-30-99
0-14-36
25
0-16-06
26
9
0-19-52
10
0-00-86
4
0-11-28
3
0-24-71
0-05-68
नाला/1
2-58-86
कुल
डोभी
0-05-12
सूरजमंडल 265
264
0-00-88
0-06-30
260
662
0-08-35
0-05-49
280
281
0-07-82
0-04-05
282
0-07-98
283
286
0-00-86
285
0-07-21
229
0-01-57
0-08-33
253
230
0-32-21
231
0-13-56
244
241
0-01-22
0-02-31
240
239
0-03-21
238
0-11-96
232
0-00-81
0-10-47
235
234
0-00-28
1-40-79
कुल
0-00-59
700
नैनसागर
670
0-05-76
671
0-09-98
672
0-05-58
674
0-05-90
675
0-04-85
0-00-74
673
676
0-01-86
655
0-04-48
-656
0-02-04
654
0-02-54
0-01-64
653
0-01-05
652
651
0-05-66
4
2
3
5 डोभी नैनसागर 646
0-09-47
0-07-32
641
647
0-07-73
0-00-83
648
0-17-74
640
444
0-11-00
443
0-12-16
432
0-07-95
431
0-04-17
423
0-09-58
424
0-11-46
0-15-56
414
0-09-57
420
422
0-04-02
110
0-04-14
0-00-89
111
112
0-18-93
113
0-00-35
0-16-72
102
103
0-03-39
101
0-00-69
100
2-27-04
कुल
0-00-87 गिरिसिदीकलां 220
219
0-01-06
218
0-09-72
0-03-28
217
0-08-44
216
0-18-90
215
213 0-01-65
214
0-02-14
0-02-30
137
87
0-03-13
0-08-54
84
0-00-24
83
0-09-84
20
18
0-12-18
0-01-97
17
21
0-13-88
0-44-02
22
28
0-00-25
0-16-02
27
26
0-20-24
25
0-00-21
24
0-52-74
नदी/1
2-31-72
कुल
निगरी
0-51-70
नदी/1979
0-03-04
1950
0-10-01
1949
1948
0-03-15
1947
0-03-01
1945
0-10- 8430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1 1
4
2
3
5
गया गया
निगरी
डोभी
1944
0-09-31
1943
0-03-39
0-00-15
1938
0-02-06
1133
798
0-03-74
0-02-35
801
0-04-47
799
800
0-02-65
0-03-56
792
0-02-61
791
0-02-16
790
0-01-37
789
788
0-02-15
787
786
0-08-73
0-01-60
785
784
0-00-95
0-08-45
नाला/802
0-01-94
806
0-06-28
808
809
0-03-94
810
0-04-76
0-08-28
824
825
0-03-05
0-01-54
837.
838
0-00-66
839
0-06-07
840
0-04-89
841
0-10-73
0-00-34
821
0-06-27
842
843
0-02-17
845
0-14-10
0-02-35
844
0-03-33
846
847
0-00-58
997
0-03-53
0-37-54
699
1000
0-02-34
998
0-05-96
999
0-05-51
1015
0-05-11
0-06-71
1016
1028
0-01-87
1018
0-00-16
1017
रोड/676 0-17-95
427
0-04-55
426
0-04-80
425
0-03-41
0-05-21
424
423
0-00-49
0-05-16
नाला/447
430
0-09-97
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
5
437
डोभी निगरी
0-04-43
438
0-03-81.
436
0-04-82
450
0-07-08
0-04-76
484
0-03-83
485
0-04-33
486
0-05-26
483
487
0-02-25
489
0-02-30
0-01-17
492
0-00-47
491
494
0-01-82
493
0-02-48
506
0-00-47
505
0-03-82
0-05-65
504
0-10-40
503
0-00-18
520
530
0-11-44
524
0-02-07
0-17-33
529
0-02-25
595
0-33-13
594
0-21-71
592
0-05-56
591
0-02-35
590
0-01-63
585
0-01-07
584
0-00-82
583
582
0-01-02
581
0-01-04
580
0-02-04
543
0-06-90
554
0-06-73
555
0-14-07
557
0-00-61
556
559
0-12-03
561
0-07-42
5-65-93
कुल
0-02-79 कुसामिंगा 1364
0-10-05
1365
1366
0-03-73
0-05-34
1367
0-04-35
1368
0-04-42
1369
1370
0-05-06
1373
0-00-78
1374
1371
0-04-09
0-04-82
1372
0-04-56
1337
1336
0-06-09 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8431
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्राषण 8 , 1927
4
1
3
2
5
1 गया
0-12-72 डोभी
1335
गया
कुसाभिगा
1327
0-00-71
1326
0-00-87
1325
0-01-47
0-03-18
1328
1329
0-02-91
1324
0-01-49
0-21-47
1330
3124
0-00-22
0-16-46
रोड/1322
1317
0-05-69
1316
0-01-02
1313
0-10-63
1310
0-01-15
1312
0-11-06
0-00-47
1311
1309
0-01-67
1300
0-12-18
0-18-80
1183
1182
0-03-22
0-02-59
1181
1-82-60
1175
7
1-32-44
0-81-87
8
0-50-90
9
10
0-44-33
3129
0-03-09
19
0-01-98
0-06-93
18
3128
0-02-24
0-40-62
15
16
0-05-20
0-02-16
28
0-00-91
46.
47
0-02-39
12
0-04-11
7-47-90
कुल
186
अंगरा
0-33-93
187
0-15-50
1977
0-13-97
0-15-96
2000
1975
0-04-58
1974
0-04-11
0-04-67
1973
1972
0-05-21
0-07-64
1999
0-14-68
1969
1968
0-07-68
0-02-84
नाला/1949
1967
0-01-40
0-00-35
1948
0-22-96
1947
0-36-30
1946
1945
0-05-09
1-96-87
कुल
2
3
5
4c
0-07-97
1170
शेरगती लचनैती
1171
0-02-11
1182
0-05-32
0-02-77
1202
0-03-68
1201
0-51-51
1200
0-05-97.
1199
0-05-72
1198
0-09-01
1197
0-01-64
1196
0-04-98
1195
0-01-72
1194
0-07-52
1193
1192
0-02-08
0-09-56
1191
1190
0-01-22
1189
0-01-80
1191 .
1187
0-24-95
0-13-65
1185
961
959
0-01-39
0-03-96
956
955
0-03-76
0-03-47
950
0-02-43
949
0-03-04
948
0-04-74
947
0-05-46
946
0-07-56
937
0-02-73
936
0-02-75
935
0-12-90
932
0-00-82
933
0-01-09
886
887
0-09-06
888
0-19-52
0-03-43
889
890
0-07-25
891
0-20-29
877
878
0-04-09
0-01-90
315
246
0-01-04
245
0-10-48
0-00-38
228
0-06-97
248
0-04-22
247
244
0-02-80
880
0-01-66
243
0-01-24
242
0-05-40
231
0-00-35
240
0-04-51 8432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1 गया
0-07-80
237
शेरगती लचनैती
गया
239
0-00-39
0-06-53
238
208
0-02-19
0-00-71
207
195
0-01-10
0-04-33
206
0-01-62
209
210
0-02-49
205
0-01-09
204
203
0-08-21
201
0-00-22
199
0-02-01
202
0-02-60
167
0-01-47
155
159
0-00-17
0-03-06
127
0-05-88
158
126
0-03-72
125
0-02-06
0-08-20
128
135
0-02-04
0-04-62
134
0-05-31
133
0-00-81
136
0-17-07
132
131
0-08-24
3-27-44
कुल
0-00-23
1670
चिलम
1591
0-10-02
1609
0-04-40
1612
0-03-30
0-02-69
1620
1651
0-01-01
1608
0-03-60
1622
0-03-76
1621
0-00-58
1623
1624
0-01-54
1636
0-08-95
1635
1632
0-01-74
1637
0-01-83
1638
0-02-97
1838
1791
3071
0-05-08
3072
0-23-42
0-00-26
1792
0-05-92
1793
1789
0-04-13
1790
0-13-86
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii)] 2
3
4
5 चिलम
1916
0-02-19 शेरगती
1917
0-04-19
0-02-06
1918
0-10-77
2676
2675
0-10-67
2674
0-01-33
2675
0-01-25
0-11-14
1963
0-01-28
2072
0-04-41
2071
2070
0-04-58
2068
0-03-33
0-01-38
2069
0-04-77
2067
0-05-31
2066
2059
0-00-53
0-00-85
2060
0-03-67
2061
0-01-35
2062
0-11-42
2051
2055
0-00-11
2054
0-00-41
2053
2052
0-03-05
2048
0-02-87
2050
0-01-20
2041
0-01-65
2049
0-03-35
2043
0-02-21
2045
0-02-69
2044
0-04-40
2046
0-03-21
2036
0-02-80
2207
0-00-19
2218
0-05-36
2221
0-01-60
2224
0-02-27
2223
0-01-49
2222
0-07-67
2229
0-06-01
2211
0-08-29
2219
0-00-45
22:59
2260
0-07-78
0-16-86
2261
2257
0-43-51
2298
0-02-28
2309
0-68-58
2297
0-02-13
2310
0-02-46
2311
0-04-15
2312
0-38-32
2313
2315
0-06-17 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8433
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1 2
3
5 1
गया
2317
0-02-08 गया
चिलम
शेरगती
2318
0-34-92
0-09-26
2323
3095
0-10-63
0-06-45
2322
2320
0-01-62
2319
0-09-54
2321
0-02-59
5-12-69
कुल
0-01-44
उड़नबिघा 724
722
0-16-52
721
0-09-92
720
0-17-94
719
0-11-04
0-05-51
618
619
0-07-20
0-02-82
621
616
0-07-88
0-11-70
615
0-17-77
614
0-10-71
613
612
0-06-36
631.
0-01-06
632
0-01-06
633
0-00-88
0-00-97
634
635
610
0-24-85
0-61-22
611
0-22-59
608
606
0-13-31
605
0-16-13
604
0-16-68
597
0-05-03
594
0-04-22
593
0-02-83
592
0-02-42
0-01-59
124
0-02-76
123
0-01-07
122
0-02-48
121
0-02-59
120
0-02-65
119
0-02-65
117
0-00-94
116
0-01-99
115
0-00-52
133
114
0-01-98
0-01-54
112
0-01-13
113
0-00-11
134
0-03-46
111
0-00-83
102
0-04-35
101
3
5 2
4
0-09-73
100
शेरगती उड़नबिघा
0-07-50
67
0-01-92
60
0-01-76
59
58
0-02-04
0-01-71
57
1
0-02-65
3-60-05
कुल
सलैया
0-01-68
598
597
596
0-04-71
0-03-54
73
0-00-94
72
74
0-00-68
71
0-02-28
76
0-00-33
70
0-01-39
0-00-88
69
0-02-55
59
60
0-01-53
0-03-70
58
0-01-03
61
62
0-00-73
0-00-16
63
1
52
0-00-58
0-00-86
53
0-01-50
54
57
56
0-00-52
55
0-00-93
0-31-39
कुल
2305
0-22-99 बार
0-02-75
2312
0-01-23
2311
0-10-86
2310
2306
0-01-18
0-00-41
2308
0-01-02
2309
0-01-31
2320
0-01-67
2321
2322
0-02-69
0-04-16
2323
0-03-82
2319
0-02-99
2324
2326
0-01-98
0-01-82
2327
0-02-16
2328
0-01-75
2330
0-02-03
2332
0-02-66
2333
0-06-51
2335
0-01-94
2336
2337
0-02-97 8434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
4
3
5
1 गया
शेरगती
2352
0-03-22
बार
गया
2351
0-02-87
2354
0-03-03
0-01-75
2356
2355
0-03-23
2359
0-03-20
2360
0-03-83
2361
0-34-38
2406
0-05-11
2217
0-03-04
1991
0-00-49
0-00-29
1992
1994
0-04-37
1993
0-19-13
1996
0-00-97
1997
0-03-21
1995
0-01-47
0-00-73
2007
2008
0-05-45
2009
0-02-10
0-05-45
2010
0-07-20
2011
0-09-25
2017
2016
0-05-15
0-04-89
2015
2014
0-01-16
2030
0-00-76
0-06-39
2029
2031
0-01-02
2032
0-13-93
2033
0-00-26
2035
0-00-74
0-00-44
1952
0-06-77
1951
1950
0-01-39
1948
0-00-28
0-00-49
1945
1946
0-01-75
1947 .
0-09-60
0-01-53
रोड/1937
1727
0-21-55
1936
0-00-15
1729
0-13-34
1728
0-00-14
1758
0-05-77
1759
0-05-08
1761
1762
0-05-70
1763
0-11-14
1803
0-06-97
1764
0-07-92.
1802
0-02-42
1801
0-02-72
1804
0-03-27
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 3
4
2
5 बार
1805
शेरगती
0-04-86
1808
1809
0-01-38
1798
0-03-35
0-13-22
1799
0-00-85
1800
0-03-78
1797
0-02-22
1796
0-05-30
1795
1792
0-00-83
1810
0-17-24
0-06-78
1811
0-02-64
1812
0-01-70
1414
0-08-56
1401
0-04-34
1399
0-08-34
1400
0-12486
1398
0-04-85
1397
1396
0-03-01
1395
0-01-48
4-50-52
कुल
0-02-50
118
पलहट कलाँ
0-03-27
119
0-04-45
117
0-00-27
120
0-00-34
121
0-32-30
44
0-20-28
31
29
0-00-15
0-02-05
28
0-04-41
1
0-70-02
कुल
89
पलहटखुर्द
0-02-17
542
0-07-02
541
0-00-31
540
539
0-00-18
538
0-00-81
537
536
0-00-75
535
534
0-01-62
0-02-86
532
0-07-84
533
0-01-63
531
0-02-67
530
0-02-41
375
529
326
0-02-60
327
0-01-90
323
0-00-43
322 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8435
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
1
गया गया
शेरगती
0-03-35
पलहट खुर्द 325
0-00-27
314
323
0-01-90
0-01-59
324
319
0-00-59
318
0-01-13
315
0-00-83
321
0-01-41
320
0-01-68
317
0-01-70
316
0-00-67
267
266
0-01-44
265
256
0-00-39
253
0-01-06
254
0-00-68
252
0-01-94
251
0-00-66
250
255
249
0-01-02
0-04-99
247
246
0-05-06
243
0-00-16
0-01-96
244
245
0-03-02
239
0-01-58
238
248
0-04-88
0-42-62
नदी/1
1-24-17
कुल
0-59-45
कथर
1211
1206
0-11-32
0-01-62
1155
1154
0-03-83
0-02-43
1158
1153
1157
0-04-52
1160
0-04-21
0-02-65
1159
1161
0-01-93
1162
0-05-82
816
0-00-23
1166
0-02-82
1164
0-00-89
1206
0-00-26
0-00-82
1180
0-07-69
1165
0-04-19
1181
1187
0-02-01
1186
1188
0-01-21
1192
0-00-73 2149 Gl/05-19
3
2
4
5
0-01-16 शेरगती कथर
1193
0-04-93
1202
0-04-87
1203
0-00-72
1204
0-09-49
1202
678
0-02-04
653
0-02-70
650
0-21-37
649
0-08-15
657
0-04-82
658
0-29-28
659
0-07-55
660
0-03-36
0-02-63
661
663
0-05-56
664
0-00-85
0-03-05
665
666
0-04-53
668
0-02-69
667
0-04-18
670
0-03-29
672
0-20-33
671
0-01-43
674
0-02-64
673
0-05-10
676
0-03-92
675
0-11-06
678
0-05-74
379
0-01-33
598
0-06-86
362
0-05-28
363
0-04-41
366
0-03-35
367
0-08-26
365
0-01-03
368
0-02-78
369
370
0-01-75
371
0-02-10
373
372
382
0-01-89
0-00-16
374
0-04-57
376
0-02-84
381
380
0-21-87
0-07-35
389
0-17-17
385
386
0-08-60
0-18-05
387
388
0-37-11
553
0-08-58
552
0-05-69
0-16-07
445 8436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
1 गया
शेरगती कथर
551
गया
549
0-00-35
547
0-27-17
548
0-07-05
0-73-09
नदी/ 1515
6-00-04
कुल
0-03-85 असम
80
महुआवां
0-00-32
202
0-28-87
89
201
0-02-18
199
0-09-09
0-06-16
200
0-03-78
91
196
92
0-11-01
110
0-00-59
0-37-78
195
0-01-93
193
192
0-15-98
0-01-75
191
0-06-19
189
0-01-93
114
0-09-67
113
0-05-19
112
0-08-42
118
1206
0-01-30
1280
0-02-21
1285
1286
0-05-36
नदी/1342
1-64-86
कुल
0-06-88
रोड/382
अहुरी
0-14-87
370
377
0-03-12
0-02-95
371
0-06-12
369
367
0-01-41
0-07-79
372
374
0-00-29
0-02-52
366
0-00-76
373
365
0-00-58
364
0-17-61
352
0-01-92
0-14-75
354
0-05-77
353
0-13-95
133
0-01-19
134
132
0-08-63
124
0-12-68
0-04-48
131
0-04-28
130
128
0-14-42
0-05-20
125
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
4
3
5 असम
129.
अहुरी
127
0-11-13
126
0-03-26
0-05-42
121
113
0-00-86
112
0-12-02
0-07-92
111
110
0-02-79
0-02-76
109
0-02-72
108
0-01-99
107
104
0-01-17
106
0-00-28
105
0-00-83
103
119
0-02-27
2-19-10
कुल
0-11-63 करमट्टु 475
0-03-50
737
0-15-90
736
(0-17-37
735
0-07-25
724
733
0-05-86
0-17-71
731
0-03-89
727
0-10-96
726
0-01-21
729
0-02-63
728
0-05-36
723
0-14-97
722
721
0-11-12
718
0-08-41
717
0-01-98
0-06-17
716
0-05-25
715
0-03-19
714
0-04-28
713
0-07-40
712
0-03-08
706
705
0-10-49
0-01-91
703
0-01-56
335
0-07-39
325
0-41-50
324
0-03-53
330
258
0-02-15
234
0-02-96
235
0-03-32
0-32-26
264
263
0-09-12
0-01-73
262
266
0-06-02
729
2-93-08
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8437
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 गया
422
0-28-22 असम
गया
सुपाई
445
0-00-17
423
0-15-30
420
0-17-06
419
0-39-19
416
0-21-90
417
0-10-94
329
0-04-68
0-00-47
328
331
0-17-34
0-27-26
334
305
0-01-58
398
0-02-09
390
0-08-87
391
0-04-55
392
0-03-89
394
0-09-10
395
0-32-35
373
0-32-10
372
0-22-92
368
0-01-32
377
0-02-35
3-03-65
कुल
0-46-29
149
शेख बिघा
0-01-65
148
147
0-48-04
कुल
$42
0-00-55
नदिंयावा
गुरूवा
893
0-09-09
0-00-31
841
843
0-03-39
941
0-01-46
0-07-07
939
938
0-05-91
937
0-00-92
849
0-19-73
850
0-09-70
859
0-11-44
860
0-08-49
0-04-67
861
862
0-04-91
865
0-05-02
0-01-43
866
874
0-10-02
875
0-15-48
877
0-00-78
878
0-08-42
879
0-09-80
884
0-00-58
887
0-01-19
886
0-00-69
883
0-06-80
889
0-06-09
4
2
3
5
0-06-17
890
नदिंयावा
गुरूवा
0-02-63
891
0-03-63
829
0-09-83
788
0-02-51
787
622
0-06-55
786
0-06-63
757
0-15-87
756
0-06-28
755
(0-11-32
888
0-00-17
2-25-53
कुल
0-10-09
1005
नदियाइन
1007
0-07-51
1008
0-01-15
0-04-79
1045
0-20-62
1043
1044
0-01-04
0-23-78
1036
1037
0-00-27
0-00-56
1038
0-08-89
1032
0-09-58
1033
1013
0-29-11
0-03-69
1014
1012
0-00-27
725
0-05-89
726
0-05-05
0-02-99
724
0-05-71
727
0-01-91
730
732
0-17-86
0-19-26
735
736
707
0-04-67
0-04-31
691
0-04-16
692
0-01-88
706
0-03-27
694
695
0-00-24
693
696
0-03-21
660
0-06-99
659
0-04-55
647
0-00-47
646
0-14-63
0-24-21
645
0-01-20
644
0-01-91
651
0-02-79
650
0-02-16
649
648
0-11-26
0-06-62
654
653
0-04-34 8438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
4
2
3
1
5 गया
604
0-18-40
नदियाइन
गया गुरूवा
0-00-12
601
0-09-55
603
602
0-51-87
172
0-00-32
176
0-33-65
0-18-67
175
0-06-20
177
178
0-03-54
57
0-04-64
147
0-03-27
97
0-02-25
0-09-06
100
0-01-47
107
101
0-04-64
0-01-55
102
0-31-57
99
98
0-21-61
0-06-42
96
5-11-71
कुल
0-15-95
233
दरिऔरा
0-06-05
195
0-03-37
193
0-14-12
194
0-10-93
192
196
0-03-54
0-03-89
197
198
0-02-90
0-03-32
199
0-03-38
200
202
0-02-78
0-03-07
201
203
0-03-92
0-03-79
206
0-04-77
207
211
0-03-13
210
0-00-92
208
0-00-64
209
283
0-01-48
286
0-01-50
287
0-02-07
0-04-15
284
285
0-03-97
0-03-30
288
0-01-62
179
0-29-50
178
0-30-02
164
0-00-68
169
166
0-05-96
165
0-07-45
160
0-25-65
158
155
0-00-67
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
5 3
4
0-15-37
154
दरिऔरा
गुरूवा
7
0-01-28
2-28-20
कुल
0-05-39
433
तारापुर
0-25-00
434
408
0-00-49
0-30-88
कुल
0-08-21
435
असम मुगरैन
0-11-84
406
0-00-69
702
0-01-62
407
0-02-44
408
0-02-50
409
0-03-68
411
0-14-81
415
0-01-88
416
0-02-36
413
0-06-20
412
0-02-63
414
421
(0-55-48
0-14-05
321
0-01-30
315
0-11-47
316
0-02-36
318
0-01-64
317
297
0-25-33
0-02-40
287
0-04-75
282
0-07-72
286
0-04-58
289
0-05-81
279
0-22-35
280
0-04-07
706
003-86
251
0-10-23
250
0-13-66
249
0-07-10
248
252
0-31-86
247
(0-10-99
244
0-13-09
243
0-00-21
241
0-08-16
242
0-34-38
238
0-02-90
239
0-03-26
237
0-17-61
236
0-01-24
696
0-29-39
2
1
4-14-12
कुल
0-01-07 मोरहार
रोड/48
0-00-53
39
38
0-01-64
कुल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8439
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
3
5
1 1
टिलैया
गया
बाँध/ 117 0-04-05 अमस
गया
120
0-09-85
122
0-01-50
300
0-00-11
157
0-03-92
0-03-68
296
297
0-18-00
295
0-02-99
279
0-12-69
280
0-02-80
277
0-11-94
289
0-02-43
288
0-10-58
281
0-03-19
0-03-27
287
286
0-10-80
318
0-16-06
1-17-86
कुल
0-16-15
993
करथाही
गुरुवा
980
0-04-95
964
0-02-38
0-06-98
965
966
0-02-59
997
0-01-78
968
0-03-29
0-04-63
970
969
0-00-14
971
0-02-95
0-05-20
972
975
0-00-69
974
0-07-73
910
0-08-79
0-09-64
911
912
0-00-54
916
0-401-53
0-02-63
917
0-402-67
922
920
0-03-31
919 0-04-69
921
0-02-89
रोड/908 0-03-41
837
0-00-35
827
0-17-75
828
0-00-63
0-02-23
830
826
0-02-26
825
0-05-14
0-04-33
824
823 0-04-08
822
0-01-42
706
0-02-37
705
0-01-19
674
0-12-81
675
0-07-33 2
3
4
5
676
0-04-43 करथाही
गुरुवा
677
0-05-67
0-05-71
668
665
0-01-74
0-03-17
664
666
0-01-26
663
0-06-59
661
0-05-86
656
0-05-53
657
0-05-17
655
0-03-04
654
0-02-82
647
0-00-61
0-00-76
648
649
0-00-35
650
651
652
0-00-44
0-00-42
653
0-11-83
631
632
0-00-81
रोड/636 0-03-66
0-00-42
532
0-00-65
531
530
0-08-48
536
0-00-79
0-00-87
512
513
0-00-88
0-03-23
529
0-06-01
528
537
0-06-20
527
525
0-14-00
0-00-64
526
0-02-47
516
0-13-23
522
0-05-09
517
0-08-58
498
521
0-06-24
518
0-02-25
0-08-73
520
3-21-68
कुल
अमस
0-10-54 चुटकीसावन 12
0-07-04
63
0-26-62
61
0-05-70
21
0-03-20
22
0-02-22
23
0-55-32
कुल
खैरीतैरा
541
0-00-64
0-18-64
542
543
0-00-95
0-01-96
544 8440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1
गया गया
खैरीतरा
0-00-97 अमस
545
0-02-28
552
551
0-16-27
0-02-78
553
554
0-01-64
555
0-36-79
0-01-39
556
557
0-03-20
562
0-13-87
564
0-03-36
565
0-02-83
566
0-05-54
567
0-03-70
568
0-05-59
0-05-27
569
571
0-05-60
573
0-02-78
574
0-02-83
577
0-10-13
584
0-08-85
585
0-04-33
586
0-08-01
589
0-04-02
594
0-04-11
0-12-86
592
0-06-60
593
598
0-02-50
0-02-94
599
0-09-25
602
0-03-37
623
0-01-51
612
624
0-04-33
625
0-07-78
626
0-08-14
0-04-69
619
618
0-00-37
627
0-02-08
632
0-05-38
667
0-02-27
666
0-07-55
0-09-74
693
0-04-32
691
676
0-05-89
690
0-25-13
688
0-10-38
693
0-02-72
0-17-48
699
0-403-87
700
701
0-02-08
702
0-02-28
3-43-84
कुल
96
अमस
गया
0-00-59 गया
बिंद्रावन
93
(0-01-11
94
0-05-40
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
4
5 3
अमस
95
0-03-28 बिंद्रावन
92
0-11-92
0-04-64
247
248
0-04-33
249
0-02-84
250
0-05-98
251
0-05-11
259
0-06-69
260
0-07-06
261
001-53
262
0-02-02
263
265
0-07-15
286
0-01-76
268
0-01-88
281
0-01-26
280
0-03-45
273
270
0-06-03
0-02-72
271
0-00-69
272
0-00-37
264
269
0-06-25
346
0-02-41
354
0-09-18
355
0-04-13
359
0-01-62
357
0-00-85
358
0-03-74
362
365
0-03-40
0-01-41
367
0-01-76
366
370
0-02-11
371
0-01-58
0-02-67
372
0-01-32
374
377
0-02-89
0-01-89
380
0-02-23
381
0-01-81
373
0-01-93
378
0-03-65
379
384
0-00-92
385
0-03-32
386
0-01-62
616
0-20-89
0-401-84
405
0-22-72
404
403
2-03-06
कुल
0-42-75
623
कझ
गुरुवा
0-34-88
622
0-01-28
621 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8441
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
5
1
गया
0-00-87 गया
603
काझ
गुरुवा
0-89-97
602
1-69-75
कुल
अमस
68
0-20-15
धरमपुर
0-02-57
72
0-00-13
60
66
0-19-27
62
0-01-82
0-07-28
61
0-03-85
105
0-03-73
58
57
0-06-57
56
0-04-59
55
0-05-69
0-06-67
52
0-07-14
51
46
0-15-21
0-04-44
49
0-04-87
48
38
0-13-25
50
0-11-45
36
0-03-72
63
1-42-50
कुल
0-12-71
261
गंगती
263
0-19-34
0-28-64
95
0-13-01
99
100
0-09-01
98
0-02-16
97
0-00-65
101
0-07-45
86
0-03-06
85
0-10-54
84
0-07-40
75
0-06-32
74
0-18-34
0-07-68
104
105
0-07-73
106
0-03-45
0-21-96
49
48
0-00-58
47
0-03-32
50
0-00-59
51
0-04-36
1-88-30
कुल
0-01-55
गमरिया
449
0-12-72
429
0-03-07
430
427
0-02-62
426
0-01-56
425
0-00-71
424
0.00-25
431
0-23-48
4
2
3
5
0-22-81 अमस गमरिया
432
420
0-02-43
419
0-13-98
421
0-01-18
0-86-36
कुल
पतरा
21
0-00-24
19
0-04-93
20
0-09-82
18
0-11-65
16
0-07-64
15
0-03-92
0-04-69
13
12
0-07-50
0-16-00
11
10
0-07-23
9
0-03-63.
8
0-05-11
7
0-11-44
6
0-18-70
0-01-25
28
0-14-48
45
0-01-12
0-00-17
1
1-29-52
कुल
0-00-57
2087
अमस
2086
0-06-78
0-10-53
2089
2088
0-06-04
0-38-32
2085
0-08-31
2082
2081
0-02-72
2080
0-02-72
1299
0-04-05
1300
0-01-45
1298
0-21-12
1297
0-00-82
1295
0-08-74
0-01-90
1294
1296
0-10-10
1333
0-00-19
1334
0-03-66
1335
0-19-37
1337
0-02-27
1361
0-01-21
1338
0-14-87
2147
0-11-52
1339
0-22-01
0-01-61
1414
1415
0-01-17
0-05-42
1413
1412
0-00-28
1411
0-14-05
1410
0-04-12 8442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
4
2
3
5
1 गया
अमस
अमस
1409
0-02-21
गया
1408
0-01-74
1407
0-00-91
1405
0-01-08
1429
0-01-51
1430
0-01-24
1427
0-01-51
1426
0-02-37
1431
0-01-17
2103
0-01-29
0-01-79
1425
0-01-43
1435
1434
0-00-99
0-01-25
1436
0-00-81
1439
0-00-47
1440
0-00-14
1441
0-00-28
1442
0-01-78
1438
0-04-15
1437
0-01-49
1443
0-01-61
1451
1450
0-02-02
1449
2166
0-00-88
1445
0-00-37
1416
0-07-92
1447
0-05-95
1463
0-00-12
1462
1464
0-02-29
1466
0-01-97
898
0-02-42
रोड/875
897
0-00-17
278
0-06-02
277
0-03-17
276
0-05-93
0-01-01
284
0-03-70
285
286
0-00-51
290
0-02-93
0-03-39
2180
291
0-01-79
309
0-05-95
292
303
0-07-63
0-06-27
2098
305
0-02-31
306
0-01-93
307
0-00-58
304
0-05-88
351
337
0-06-57
336
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
3
5 अमस
338
अमस
0-403-28
340
0-400-77
341
0-04-87
342
0-05-68
0-19-81
812
363 0-00-61
379
0-01-15
0-18-63
811
380
0-05-46
381
0-01-83
382
0-02-47
0-04-85
390
388
393
0-05-11
0-02-78
411
394
0-02-29
0-05-05
395
0-03-27
396
410
397
0-02-50
0-04-30
399
400
0-03-11
401
0-03-48
0-07-76
402
437
0-10-20
438
0-13-95
0-22-34
505
0-07-53
503
0-05-04
504
0-00-15
502
0-02-07
501
500
0-03-47
497
0-03-78
रोड/495
5-41-70
कुल
0-02-57
634
निमन
0-05-10
282
0-26-52
254
0-37-41
253
0-00-57
248
0-02-15
247
0-10-15
246
0-12-03
230
0-01-11
245
244
0-00-13
232
233
0-02-19
0-02-19
234
0-01-85
235
0-01-93
243
0-27-95
242
0-04-78
144
0-06-28
143
142
0-07-82 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
1
2
5
1
0-01-14 गया
अमस निमन
141
गया
134
0-00-61
0-02-94
133
0-02-57 .
132
0-04-91
131
130
0-01-82
129
0-00-15
239
0-00-14
1-67-06
कुल
469
0-02-23
बलखोड़ा
488
0-04-41
0-03-87
474
0-03-47
473
472
0-02-21
0-00-83
475
476
0-01-34
477
0-03-71
478
0-01-10
482
0-01-55
481
0-01-32
483
0-00-96
480
0-01-33
479
0-01-45
0-01-17
461
597
0-01-44
524
0-19-40
0-07-55
512
0-05-53
511
0-01-96
513
514
0-05-51
0-06-40
309
306
0-49-61
305
0-01-13
0-19-56
308
0-09-87
304
303
0-02-63
302
522
1-61-66
कुल
0-02-76
46
छोटकी
47
चिलमी
0-16-79
0-00-87
48
45
0-01-32
57
0-14-02
56
0-02-71
49
0-07-80
51
0-02-70
55
53
0-09-78
50
0-00-14
52
0-07-22
65
54
2149 G1/05-20
8443 3
5 2
4
66
0-11-89 अमस छोटकी
चिलमी
70
0-10-01
71
0-03-17
0-07-72
72
0-03-06
76
0-26-63
73
74
0-05-51
75
0-04-41
1-38-78
कुल
0-04-67
537
बडकी
0-02-90 चिलमी
508
0-37-74
505
504
0-05-30
503
0-03-39
499
498
10-09-67
497
0-06-22
0-06-19
496
488
0-01-73
484
0-02-56
485
0-401-91
0-05-91
372
0-02-80
480
0-09-02
477
476
0-02-25
475
0-01-54
478
0-00-92
479
(0-18-50
472
0-24-30
448
443
0-03-91
444
0-07-44
442
0-00-48
1-71-35
कुल
0-26-81
9
बिसुनपुर
(0-407-72
10
0-34-53
कुल
0-07-89
नाला/ 105
0-21-67
104
0-11-35
102
0-09-15
101
0-405-403
103
0-04-03
100
99 0-04-61
0-01-98
97
0-11-21
96
0-13-80
94
0-03-54
54
0-01-94
55
52
0-04-98
51
(0404-77
50
0-07-89
0-06-25
49
0-16-407
48
35 0-01-42 8444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
1 गया
अमस
0-05-63
गया
29
डोलह कला
0-06-16
34
33
0-00-59
30
0-01-85
0-04-93
21
0-01-68
20
19
14
0-13-05
13
0-09-82
7
0-04-73
6
0-04-57
0-05-59
4
1-96-19
कुल
138
0-04-10
पतेज
0-07-08
136
0-00-14
137
135
0-10-52
133
0-04-26
0-20-48
132
0-08-64
.117
115
0-08-01
116
0-03-09
0-66-32
कुल
137
0-06-54
नौगढ़
135
0-04-62
0-01-09
136
0-03-67
134
133
003-41
0-20-77
126
130
0-00-57
125
124
0-15-56
0-04-32
123
97
0-05-42
86
0-08-41
0-02-50
नाला/92
95
0-403-51
0-06-23
94
93
0-06-37
88
0-04-23
89
0-05-85
86 0-06-17
85
0-05-68
84
0-03-29
83
0-03-25
81
0-03-63
80
0-03-44
77
0-00-65
0-05-67
78
76
0-05-26
75
0-05-95
74
0-10-68
73
0-03-15
[PART II-- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3
2
4
5
0-03-54
72
अमस नौगढ़
0-06-31
71
65
0-03-80
0-11-39
50
0-09-15
47
0-02-84
48
49
0-03-31
2-00-29
कुल
0-20-30 डिंबरा
349
0-02-32
348
0-44-77
347
0-00-11
342
178
0-02-78
0-17-63
175
174
0-01-16
0-02-06
189
173
0-03-83
165
(0-17-41
176
0-46-56
171
166
0-02-81
0-25-49
129
0-30-40
128
0-09-21
126
130
39
0-33-29
37
0-02-15
0-37-13
8
0-01-42
7
0-15-26
5
0-04-80
10
0-01-34
11
0-08-75
13
0-00-61
4
0-02-51
3
2
1
0-02-12
3-43-27
कुल
नारायणपुर 108 0-403-41
107
0-32-31
0-03-36
105
0-03-63
106
0-02-96
99
0-19-15
111
116
0-404-53
0405-55
113
0-04-26
112
0-01-26
115
0-10-56
114
0-01-97
95
98
0-93-04
कुल
[फा. सं. एल.- 14014/ 12/2005 -जीपी|
स्वामी सिंह . निदेशक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1 New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005
Gaya S.O. 2656. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through Jagdishpur- Haldia Pipeline Project in the State of Bihar , a Pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India) Ltd .;
And, whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Pipeline is propesed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Shri V.N. Akhaury. Competent Authority, (Bihar and Jharkhand ) GAIL ( India ) limited, 4th Floor, Pradhan Tower , Main Road , Ranchi , Jharkhand .
SCHEDULE
District
Tehsil Village Survey No. Area to be
Acquired for R.O.U.
(InHectare)
4
3
5 1
2
0-18-27 Barachatti Tetaria River/233
Gaya
0-51-44
237
0-29-62
231
0-03-25
189
0-05-12
190
0-05-71
192
0-02-75
191
186
0-09-48
185
0-02-34
0-11-83
138
134 0-04-06
0-02-65
135
136
0-09-82
133
0-10-21
0-46-60
137
254
0-29-66
0-67-86
259
1-52-79
252
0-07-31
Nala/4
248
0-401-75
3
5-89-63
Total
1-92-87
197
Chaitia
1-92-87
Total
8445 2
3
4
5
1-45-09 Barachatti Sabalpur 45
0-04-54
44
46
0-90-86
40
0-55-48
Nala/30 0-01-14
39
1-07-29
River/ 1 0-29-41
Total
4-33-81
River/224 0-29-89 Baluachatti
219
1-24-18
Nala/218 0-01-41
215
0-56-49
1127
1-73-29
1126
0-06-38
3-91-64
Total
Barandih
0-06-66
River/879
1-21-45
847
846
1-09-91
0-02-05
Nala/845
0-61-95
844
0-10-56
ΝΗ 2/848
849
1-45-54
0-28-77
830
0-03-40
Road/829
0-03-65
828
827
1-29-89
0-06-96
Nala/825
816
1-67-62
817
(0-68-82
815
0-02-29
8-72-52
Total
0-81-07 Baruadih 724
725
0-01-68
726
0-03-69
727
0-02-08
0-55-60
729
736
0-84-64
1-31-69
737
Nala/739
0-98-13
743
0-65-39
741
742
0-02-13
5-30-10
Total
0-01-55 Mohanpur Khajurahin 60
154
1-31-93
163
0-23-86
0-01-45
Nala/ 1510
0-62-80
156
0-52-75
155
0-01-68
Road/ 153
1-05-33
152
0-01-80
Nala/ 135
1-26-24
144
5-09-39
Total 8446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
4
5
3
1
300
0-85-70 Gaya
Gaya Mohanpur Kendua
Nala/298 0-01-38
1-29-07
291
285
0-28-27
286
1-26-70
388
0-00-83
387
3-72-85
Total
1-04-29
Bandigarh 668
63
1-06-65
0-03-82
Total
0-02-65
3512
Barachatti Kahudag
0-79-24
3511
0-05-21
3507
3506
0-40-41
0-02-34
3504
1-48-98
3502
3485
1-38-93
3486
0-20-32
2-21-08
3471
62
0-37-71
63
0-02-20
0-01-45
58
0-02-67
57
64
0-00-44
56
0-23-56
0-02-26
55
0-55-74
54
53
0-06-29
52
0-07-87
0-10-94
66
168
0-06-99
0-01-54
169
0-00-45
170
171
0-00-45
51
0-46-45
47
0-14-19
0-21-23
196
0-03-66
43
50
0-39-85
Total
9-45-10
0-407-97
664
Pratapi
0-74-66
663
653 0-03-60
652
0-19-45
0-401-52
651
646
0-11-70
647
0-00-25
643
0-09-03
640
0-00-91
641
0-06-05
642
0-02-10
638
0-405-47
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2
4
3
5
639
0-00-13 Barachatti Pratapi
633
0-02-32
634
0-03-32
0-02-20
632
626
0-03-78
612
0-01-64
617
0-19-92
618
0-03-23
0-03-65
613
0-05-61
614
615
0-08-21
0-10-62
616
0-06-32
608
0-12-20
592
591
0-00-42
0-11-81
590
570
0-07-73
569
0-05-47
0-16-46
566
565
0-05-84
0-29-08
551
0-15-08
542
0-03-22
541
0-14-38
69
70
0-02-90
0-01-24
71
0-00-38
72
0-06-67
73
75
0-15-44
0-04-98
74
63
0-04-95
0-02-38
76
0-03-43
77
0-01-18
62
78
0-05-76
108
0-09-37
109
0-01-37
115
0-12-48
116
0-02-77
114
0-06-28
117
0-10-59
126
0-03-68
Road/78
0-02-79
Bund/ 77
54
0-00-82
0-01-33
53
0-12-02
45
0-03-69
46
0-03-35
0-01-69
Road/40
0-25-71
39
2-40-78
Total
0-22-23 Padamchak 1527
1526
0-12-88 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8447
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
5
2
4
1
1483
0-01-17 Barachatti Padamchak
Gaya Gaya
1481
0-12-36
1480
0-86-66
1484
0-03-51
1487
1479
0-16-68
1478
0-11-48
1477
0-19-45
0-26-06
1475
1474
0-15-55
0-36-65
1472
1470
0-34-31
0-12-54
1423
0-08-28
1388
1389
0-09-53
1390
0-02-08
1416
1415
0-00-33
1414
0-01-21
0-00-93
1413
0-03-07
1393
1411
0-03-37
1412
0-14-16
1408
0-05-70
1410
1407
0-01-20
1406
0-02-44
0-02-79
1405
1404
0-01-89
1383
1385
1313
0-16-60
1293
0-00-65
0-02-57
1292
1291
0-11-48
1294
0-01-88
0-02-06
1295
0-02-10
1297
1296
0-00-12
1299
0-02-85
1298
0-02-63
1302
0-16-64
0-01-89
1254
0-05-85
1160
1159
1158
0-00-95
0-02-49
1161
0-01-09
1162
0-03-44
1163
0-00-39
1151
1189
0-00-34
1188
0-00-16
0-01-56
1164
1165
0-01-87 3
4
5 2
0-00-34
1151
Barachatti Padamchak
1166
0-402-81
1167
0-02-45
1172
0-00-79
1173
0-03-11
1171
0-00-44
1168 0-01-81
1141
0-02-18
1169
0-02-89
0-02-97
1170
905
0-403-22
0-01-68
1125
0-01-53
1124
906
0-01-99
909
0-401-52
910 0-01-44
911
0-00-99
0-01-15
912
0-01-66
914
0-00-68
913
908
1123
0-04-38
0-02-12
915
0-10-86
837
897
0-00-77
0-07-28
838
836
0-05-51
835
10-03-55
832
0-04-29
0-02-68
834
0-03-16
833
0-02-58
823
824
.0-03-23
825
821
0-06-69
0-07-13
820
0-06-10
802
0-03-13
803
0-01-87
804
0-03-11
792
0-01-33
793
0-02-40
794
795
785
0-08-33
0-02-50
788
0-00-19
789
787
0-03-37
786
0-00-51
778
0-10-58
0-00-38
784
0-00-63
783
0-00-43
782
0-00-26
781
0-02-74
780 8448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVAΝΑ 8 , 1927
3
1
2
4
5
1 Barachatti Padamchak 779
0-02-33 Gaya
Gaya
775
0-05-54
772
0-03-20
773
0-07-22
774
0-02-36
755
0-06-90
756
752
0-12-62
740
0-04-03
747
0-02-91
741
0-05-27
742
0-04-84
743
0-04-94
734
0-00-51
746
0-01-56
0-00-68
745
0-01-73
744
714
0-17-57
713
0-05-09
715
717
0-03-85
0-04-59
720
721
0-24-03
722
723
0-01-59
7-25-82
Total
4
Baghahar
3
0-00-79
Total
0-15-63
269
Raksi
0-06-65
270
0-03-82
260
261
0-01-25
0-24-76
259
252
0-01-93
242
0-02-11
0-07-84
235 .
0-10-70
239
0-06-57
238
241
0-00-58
200
0-06-40
0-05-74
199
198
0-02-37
136
0-02-17
203
195
0-02-40
0-02-66
204
0-04-98
194
0-00-66
101
0-08-61
96
98
0-01-93
0-06-97
97
0-01-03
90
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4
5 2
3
0-09-48
77
Barachatti Raksi
0-25-85
85
0-01-44
78
81
0-05-38
0-09-20
82
83
0-17-05
0-02-35
84
1-98-52
Total
0-02-59
Nala/51
Mayapur
0-06-88
34
0-09-47
Total
45
0-01-44 Nimi
0-02-59
46
44
0-11-43
0-21-57
43
0-46-58
58
0-54-33
57
63
0-36-12
0-03-39
64
0-05-29
60
65
0-06-01
66
67
0-00-36
56
0-00-21
2-09-32
Total
0-02-63 Makhdampur 139
0-02-31
138
0-03-59
97
0-01-10
135
0-05-23
101
0-01-71
100
0-12-59
102
0-00-41
110
103
0-20-91
0-401-25
108
0-17-69
107
0-01-84
106
0-00-13
104
105
0-00-88
0-04-12
116
0-01-48
96
95 0-401-71
0-00-41
144
179
0-80-09
Total
0-25-17
237
Gangti
0-05-36
236
0-00-53
239
0-04-63
242
243
0-02-40
0-400-57
226
0-01-96
225 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
3
5
1 1
0-02-45
219
Gaya Gaya
Barachatti Gangti
140
0-00-69
117
0-01-04
119
0-03-02
110
0-00-51
118
0-02-51
93
0-11-66
121
0-08-49
0-20-16
120
91
0-03-29
86
0-07-56
90
0-05-20
87
0-02-99
0-04-77
89
76
0-12-08
279
0-11-66
71
0-02-91
70
0-03-09
21
0-01-49
(0-401-49
282
0-01-26
56
57
0-00-62
55
0-01-11
53
0-02-69
32
0-01-78
0-11-65
52
33
0-00-62
0-00-37
51
54
47
0-01-74
0-03-97
46
45
0-00-68
49
0-02-04
44
43
0-01-30
42
0-04-02
41
0-01-60
0-04-42
40
0-00-74
8
6
0-09-74
0-03-25
7
5
0-03-60
3
0-08-02
0-06-26
2
River/ 1 0-13-15
Total
2-36-00
0-13-36
River/440
Kalwakala
390
0-01-88
0-01-51
379
378
0-04-91
375
0-403-36
377
0-05-99
376
0-10-24
370
0-17-37
8449 3
4
2
5
0-01-79 Barachatti Kalwakala 369
368
0-04-47
366
0-00-93
365
0-00-16
367
0-04-27
Bund/307 0-02-44
0-04-74
308
0-02-23
313
0-04-92
314
0-07-66
315
0-10-66
316
0-00-11
321
318
0-00-18
317
0-03-30
327
0-00-18
0-02-78
326
0-05-81
325
322
324
323
1-15-85
Total
0-04-58 Bhagauti 207
0-03-26
206
0-00-16
137
0-15-12
140
0-00-49
142
143
0-01-32
0-01-67
139
0-01-41
151
152
0-01-22
0-01-44
153
154 0-01-40
0-01-88
156
157
0-01-94
0-01-69
158
0-02-15
150
176
0-403-75
0-00-88
175
0-00-66
174
173
0-01-11
0-01-24
171
0-01-50
168
0-02-15
167
0-401-55
163
0-02-32
159
0-402-24
162
80
0-20-89
0-402-35
79
78
0-02-86
75
0-10-80
73
003-44
0-02-80
72
0-02-42
71
70
0-03-03 8450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
2
4
1
5
1
3
69
0-54-29 Gaya
Gaya Barachatti Bhagauti
65
0-08-32
67
0-10-39
66
0-01-72
1-80-44
Total
0-02-64
Karma
Road/202
211
0-03-38
210
0-05-32
209
0-00-17
205
0-01-08
204
0-06-19
206
208
0-00-99
207
0-00-74
199
0-00-84
0-01-72
171
170
0-01-80
169
0-01-03
0-03-35
172
0-04-55
174
0-09-69
173
0-05-17
168
0-02-25
Road/ 157
0-05-41
147/Bund
155
0-04-69
150
0-36-49
149
0-02-16
0-03-29
Road/148
1-02-98
Total
0-01-64
Mananbigha 202
0-18-64
203
0-15-85
204
205
0-02-70
0-01-58
198
0-18-95
197
0-09-73
196
0-00-27
192
0-03-03
191
187
0-03-73
0-05-39
178
179
0-00-17
0-03-62
177
0-05-43
167
165
0-00-98
0-03-58
163
160
0-00-14
0-00-79
162
0-00-67
176
0-00-34
179
175
0403-45
0-10-96
170
0-07-87
172
171
0-02-11
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
3
5 2
0-01-51 Barachatti Mananbigha 12
0-04-79
13
0-01-06
14
0-00-24
11
0-02-72
10
0-07-48
9
8
0-04-61
4
0-15-31
0-52-22
7
0-06-38
5
0-01-21
23
6
0-06-67
2-25-82
Total
0-01-47
58
Gudsari
0-02-06
59
0-03-16
60
0-28-28
63
0-28-74
62
0405-55
166
0-08-77
167
0-06-49
168
0-06-67
170
171
0-19-89
0-02-89
172
0-02-34
173
0-00-45
187
0-13-42
28
0-02-02
Road/21
0-11-45
12
0-01-38
11
0-09-93
10
1-54-96
Total
0-14-75 Dharmastan 180
178 0-00-62
179 0-04-405
0-04-97
181
0-17-53
182
0-13-25
184
183
0-00-53
169
0-03-12
168
0-12-20
166
0-09-81
165
163
0-24-87
153
0-01-87
162
161
0-08-02
0-01-05
160
0-02-50
159
158
0-03-20
0-05-18
154
41
156
0-00-11 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8451
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावेण 8 , 1927
5
1
2
3
4
1
0-05-85 Barachatti Dharmastan 155
Gaya
Gaya
24
0-30-99
25
0-14-36
26
0-16-06
0-19-52
9
0-00-86
10
4
0-11-28
0-24-71
3
Nala/1 0-05-68
2-58-86
Total
0-05-12 Dobhi
265
Surajmandal
264
0-00-88
0-06-30
260
662
0-08-35
0-05-49
280
0-07-82
281
282
0-04-05
0-07-98
283
286 0-00-86
285
0-07-21
0-01-57
229
0-08-33
253
230
(0-32-21
0-13-56
231
244
0-01-22
241
240
0-02-31
0-03-21
249
238
0-11-96
0-00-81
232
0-10-47
235
0-00-28
234
1-40-79
Total
700
0-00-59 Nainsagar
0-405-76
670
0-409-98
671
0-05-58
672
0-05-90
674
675
0-04-85
673
0-00-74
676
0-01-86
655
0-04-48
656
0-02-04
0-02-54
654
653
0-01-64
652
0-01-05
651 0-05-66
0-09-47
646
641
0-07-32
0-07-73
647
0-00-83
648
0-17-74
640
114
0-11-00 2149 G1/05-21
2
4
3
5 Dobhi
0-12-16 Nainsagar 443
0-07-95
432
431
0-04-17
423
0-09-58
424
0-11-46
414
0-15-56
0-09-57
420
0-04-02
422
0-04-14
110
0-00-89
111
0-18-93
112
113
0-00-35
102
0-16-72
103
0-03-39
101
0-00-69
100
Total 2-27-04
0-00-87 Girisindikalan 220
219 0-01-06
0-09-72
218
217
0-03-28
0-08-44
216
0-18-90
215
0-01-65
213
0-02-14
214
0-02-30
137
0-03-13
87
0-08-54
84
83
0-00-24
0-09-84
20
0-12-18
18
0-01-97
17
0-13-88
21
0-44-02
22
0-00-25
28
27
0-16-02
26
0-20-24
25
0-00-21
24
0-52-74
River/ 1
2-31-72
Total
0-51-70
River/ 1979
Nigri
0-03-04
1950
0-10-01
1949
0-03-15
1948
0-03-01
1947
0-10-32
1945
0-09-31
1944
0-403-39
1943
0-00-15
1938
0-02-06
1133
0-03-74
798
0-02-35
801- 8452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
1
2
1
4
5
Dobhi
799
0-04-47 Gaya
Nigri
Gaya
800
0-02-65
792
0-03-56
791
0-02-61
790
0-02-16
789
0-01-37
788
787
0-402-15
786
0-08-73
785
0-01-60
784
0-00-95
Nala/802 0-08-45
806
0-01-94
0-06-28
808
809
0-403-94
0-04-76
810
0-08-28
824
825
0-03-05
837
0-01-54
838
0-00-66
839 0-06-07
0-04-89
840
841
0-10-73
0-00-34
821
842
0-06-27
843
0-02-17
845
0-14-10
844
0-02-35
846
0-03-33
847
0-00-58
997
0-03-53
699
0-37-54
0-02-34
1000
998
0-05-96
999
0-05-51
1015
0-05-11
1016
0-06-71
1028
0-01-87
1018
1017
0-00-16
0-17-95
Road/676
0-04-55
427
426
0-04-80
425
0-04-41
424
0-05-21
0-00-49
423
0-05-16
Nala/447
0-09-97
430
437
0-04-43
438
0-03-81
0-04-82
436
0-07-08
450
0-04-76
484
003-83
485
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2
4
5 3
486
0-04-33 Dobhi Nigri
483
0-05-26
847
0-02-25
0-02-30
849
0-01-17
492
0-00-47
491
494
0-01-82
493
0-02-48
506
0-00-47
505
0-03-82
0-05-65
504
(0-100-40
503
520
0-00-18
530
0-11-44
0-02-07
524
0-17-33
529
0-02-25
595
0-33-13
594
0-21-71
592
0-05-56
591
590
0-402-35
585
0-01-63
584 0-01-07
0-00-82
583
0-01-02
582
581
0-01-04
580 0-02-04
543
0-06-90
554
0-06-73
555
0-14-07
557
0-00-61
556
559
0-12-03
561
0-407-42
5-65-93
Total
0-02-79 Kusabhiga 1364
1365
0-10-05
0-03-73
1366
1367
0-05-34
0-04-35
1368
0-04-42
1369
0-05-06
1370
0-00-78
1373
1374
0-04-09
1371
0-404-82
1372
0-04-56
1337
0-06-09
1336
0-12-72
1335
0-00-71
1327
1326
0-00-87
0-01-47
1325
0-03-18
1328
0-02-91
1329 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
1
5
0-01-49 Dobhi
Gaya
1324
Gaya
Kusabhiga
0-21-47
1330
3124
0-00-22
Road/ 1322 0-16-46
1317
0-05-69
1316
0-01-02
1313
0-10-63
0-01-15
1310
1312
0-11-06
0-00-47
1311
0-01-67
1309
1300
0-12-18
1183
0-18-80
1182
03-22
1181
059
1175
1-82-60
7
1-32-44
0-81-87
8
9
0-50-90
10
0-44-33
0-03-09
3129
19
0-01-98
0-06-93
18
0-02-24
3128
0-40-62
15
0-05-20
16
0-02-16
28
46
0-00-91
47
0-02-39
12
0-04-11
7-47-90
Total
186
0-33-93
Angra
187
0-15-50
1977
0-13-97
2000
0-15-96
1975
0-04-58
1974
0-04-11
0-04-67
1973
0-05-21
1972
1999
0-07-64
1969
0-14-68
0-07-68
1968
(0-02-84
Nala/1949
1967
0-01-40
1948
0-00-35
0-22-96
1947
1946
0-36-30
1945
0-05-09
1-96-87
Total
0-07-97
1170
Gaya
Shergati Lachnaiti
0-02-11
1171
0-05-32
1182
1202
0-02-77
8453 2
3
4
5
0-03-68
1201
Lachnaiti
Shergati
0-51-51
1200
0-05-97
1199
0-05-72
1198
1197
0-09-01
0-01-64
1196
0-04-98
1195
1194
0-01-72
0-407-52
1193
1192
0-02-08
0-09-56
1191
1190
0-01-22
1189
0-01-80
1191
0-24-95
1187
0-13-65
1185
961
959
0-01-39
956
0-03-96
955
0-03-76
0-03-47
950
949
0-02-43
948
0-03-04
947
0-04-74
0-05-46
946
937
0-07-56
0-02-73
936
0-02-75
935
932
0-12-90
933
0-00-82
886 0-01-09
887 0-09-06
888
0-19-52
0-03-43
889
890
0-07-25
891
877
0-20-29
0-04-09
878
315
0-01-90
0-01-04
246
245
0-10-48
228
0-00-38
348
0-06-97
0-04-22
247
244
0-02-80
0-01-66
880
0-01-24
243
0-05-40
242
0-00-35
231
240
0-04-51
0-07-80
347
239
0-00-39
238
0-06-53
0-02-19
208 8454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1 2
3
5 1
0-00-71 Gaya
Gaya
Lachnaiti 207
Shergati
0-01-10
195
0-04-33
206
0-01-62
209
210
0-02-49
205
204
0-01-09
0-08-21
203
201
0-00-22
199
0-02-01
202
0-02-60
167
0-01-47
155
0-00-17
159
0-03-06
127
0405-88
158
0-03-72
126
125 0-02-06
0-08-20
128
135
0402-04
134 0-04-62
0405-31
133
0-00-81
136
0-17-07
132
131
0-08-24
Total 3-27-44
Chilam
1670
0-00-23
0-10-02
1591
1609
( 0-04-40
1612
0-03-30
1620
0-02-69
1651
1608 0-01-01
1622
0-03-60
0-03-76
1621
1623
0-00-58
1624
0-01-54
1636
0-08-95
1635
1632
1637
0-01-74
1638
0-01-83
0-02-97
1838
1791
0-05-08
3071
0-23-42
3072
0-00-26
1792
1793
0-05-92
1789
0-04-13
1790
0-13-86
1916
0-02-19
1917
0-04-19
1918 0-02-06
2676
0-10-77
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2
3
4
5
2675
0-01-67 Shergati Chilam
2674
0-01-33
0-01-25
3673
1963
0-11-14
2072
0-01-28
0-04-41
2071
2070
0-04-58
2068
0-03-33
0-01-38
2069
0-04-77
2067
0-05-31
2066
0-00-53
2059
0-00-85
2060
2061
0-03-67
0-01-35
2062
2051
0-11-42
2055
0-00-11
2054
2053
0-00-41
2052
0-403-05
2048
2050
0-02-87
0-01-20
2041
0-01-65
2049
0-03-35
2043
2045
0-02-21
0-02-69
2044
(0-04-40
2046
2036
0-03-21
0-02-80
2207
2218
0-00-19
0-05-36
2221
2224 0-01-60
2223
0-402-27
0-01-49
2222
0-407-67
2229
2211 0-06-01
2219
0-08-29
2259
0-00-45
0-407-78
2260
2261
0-16-86
2257
0-43-51
2298
0-02-28
2309
0-68-58
2297
0-02-13
2310
0-02-46
2311
2312
0-04-15
0-38-32
2313
0-06-17
2315
0-02-08
2317
2318
0-34-92
2323
0-09-26
3095
0-10-63 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2322
0-06-45 Shergati Chilam
Gaya Gaya
0-01-62
2320
0-09-54
2319
2321
0-02-59
5-12-69
Total
0-01-44
724
Udanbigha
722
0-16-52
721
0-09-92
720
0-17-94
719
0-11-04
618
0-05-51
619
0-07-20
621
0-02-82
616
0-07-88
615
0-11-70
614
0-17-77
613
0-10-71
612
0-06-36
631
0-01-06
632
0-01-06
633
0-00-88
634
0-00-97
635
0-24-85
610
611
0-61-22
608
0-22-59
606
0-13-31
605
0-16-13
604
0-16-68
597
0-05-03
594
0-04-22
593
0-02-83
0-02-42
592
124
0-01-59
123
0-02-76
122
0-01-07
0-02-48
121
120
0-02-59
0-02-65
119
0-02-65
117
116
0-00-94
115
0-01-99
133
0-00-52
114
0-01-98
112
0-01-54
113
0-01-13
134
0-00-11
111 0-03-46
0-00-83
102
0-04-35
101
0-09-73
100
67
0-07-50
60
0-01-92
59
0-01-76
8455
4
2
3
5
0-02-04 Udanbigha 58
Shergati
57
0-01-71
1
0-02-65
3-60-05
Total
0-01-68
598
Salaiya
597
596
0-04-71
0-03-54
73
0-00-94
72
74
0-00-68
0-02-28
71
76
0-00-33
70
0-01-39
69
0-00-88
0-02-55
59
0-01-53
60
58
0-03-70
0-01-03
61
62
0-00-73
0-00-16
63
0-00-58
52
0-00-86
53
54
0-01-50
57
56
0-00-52
55
0-00-93
Total 0-31-39
0-22-99
2305
Bar
0-02-75
2312
2311
0-01-23
2310
0-10-86
0-01-18
2306
2308
0-00-41
2309
0-01-02
2320
0-01-31
0-01-67
2321
0-02-69
2322
0-04-16
2323
0-03-82
2319
0-02-99
2324
2326
0-01-98
2327
0-01-82
2328
0-02-16
2330
0-401-75
0-02-03
2332
0-02-66
2333
2335
0-06-51
2336
0-01-94
2337
0-02-97
0-03-22
2352
0-02-87
2351
2354
0-03-03
2356
0-01-75 8456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
2355
0-03-23 Gaya
Shergati Bar
Gaya
2359
0-03-20
2360
0-03-83
2361
0-34-38
2406
0-05-11
2217
0-03-04
1991
0-00-49
1992
0-00-29
1994
0-04-37
1993
0-19-13
1996
0-00-97
1997
0-03-21
1995
0-01-47
2007
0-00-73
2008
0-05-45
0-02-10
2009
0-05-45
2010
2011
0-07-20
2017
0-09-25
0-05-15
2016
2015
0-04-89
0-01-16
2014
2030
0-00-76
0-06-39
2029
2031
0-01-02
2032
0-13-93
2033
0-00-26
2035
0-00-74
0-00-44
1952
0-06-77
1951
0-01-39
1950
0-00-28
1948
0-00-49
1945
0-01-75
1946
1947
0-09-60
0-01-53
Road/ 1937
0-21-55
1727
0-00-15
1936
0-13-34
1729
0-00-14
1728
1758
0-05-77
1959
0-05-08
1761
0-05-70
1762
0-11-14
1763
0-06-97
1803
0-07-92
1764
0-02-42
1802
0-02-72
1801
Q-03-27
1804
0-04-86
1805
1808
0-01-38
1809
0-03-35
1798
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2
4
3
5
1799
0-13-22 Shergati Bar
1800
0-00-85
1797
0-03-78
1796
0-02-22
1795
0-05-30
1792
0-00-83
1810
0-17-24
1811
0-06-78
1812
0-02-64
0-01-70
1414
1401
0-08-56
1399
0-04-34
1400
0-03-34
1398
0-12-86
1397
0-04-85
1396
0-03-01
1395
0-01-48
4-50-52
Total
0-02-50 Palhat Kalan 118
119
0-03-27
117
0-04-45
120
0-00-27
0-00-34
121
0-32-30
44
0-20-28
31
0-00-15
29
0-02-05
28
0-04-41
1
0-70-02
Total
PalhatKhurd 89
542
0-02-17
0-07-02
541
0-00-31
540
539
538
0-00-18
0-00-81
537
0-00-75
536
535
534
0-01-62
0-02-86
532
0-07-84
533
0-01-63
531
530
0-02-67
375
0-02-41
529
326
0-02-60
327
323
0-01-90
0-00-43
322
0-03-35
325
0-00-27
314
0-01-90
323
0-01-59
324 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1
319
0-00-59 Gaya
Shergati Palhat
Gaya
Khurd
318
0-01-13
315
0-00-83
321
0-01-41
320
0-01-68
317
0-01-70
316
0-00-67
267
266
0-01-44
265
256
0-00-39
253
0-01-06
254
0-00-68
252
0-01-94
251
0-00-66
250
255
249
0-01-02
247
0-04-99
0-05-06
246
243
0-00-16
244
0-01-96
245
0-03-02
239
0-01-58
238
248
0-04-88
RIVER/ 1 0-42-62
1-24-17
TOTAL
0-59-45 Kathar
1211
1206
0-11-32
0-01-62
1155
1154
0-03-83
0-02-43
1158
1153
0-04-52
1157
1160
0-04-21
1159
0-02-65
1161
0-01-93
1162
0-05-82
816
0-00-23
1166
0-02-82
1164
0-00-89
0-00-26
1206
0-00-82
1180
0-07-69
1165
1181
0-04-19
1187
0-02-01
1186
0-01-21
1188
0-00-73
1192
1193
0-01-16
1202
0-04-93
1203
0-04-87
0-00-72
1204
8457 2
4
3
5
1202
0-09-49 Shergati Kathar
678
0-02-04
653
0-20-70
650
0-21-37
649
0-08-15
657
0-04-82
658
0-29-28
659
0-407-55
660
0-03-36
661
0-02-63
663
0-05-56
664
0-00-85
665
0-03-05
666
0-04-53
668
0-02-69
667
0-04-18
670
0-03-29
672
0-20-33
671
0-01-43
674
0-02-64
673
0-05-10
676
0-03-92
675
0-11-06
678
0-05-74
379
0-01-33
598
0-06-86
362
0-05-28
363
0-04-41
366
0-03-35
367
0-08-26
365
0-01-03
368
0-02-78
369
370
0-01-75
371
0-02-10
373
372
0-01-89
382
374
0-00-16
376
0-04-57
381
0-02-84
380
0-21-87
389
0-07-35
385
0-17-17
386
0-08-60
387
0-18-05
0-37-11
388
553
0-08-58
0-05-69
552
0-16-07
445
551
0-00-35
549
547
0-27-17
0-07-05
548
0-73-09
River/1515
Total
6-00-04 8458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2
3
4
5
1 1
Amas Mahuwan 80
0-03-85 Gaya Gaya
0-00-32
202
89
0-28-87
2-02-18
201
0-06-16
199
0-09-09
200
91
0-03-78
196
92
0-11-01
0-00-59
110
195
0-37-78
193
0-01-93
0-15-98
192
0-01-75
191
0-06-19
189
114
0-01-93
113
0-09-67
0-05-19
112
118
0-08-42
1206
1280
0-01-30
1285
0-02-21
1286
0-05-36
River/ 1342
Total
1-64-86
Ahuri
Road/382 0-06-88
0-14-87
370
377
0-03-12
0-02-95
371
0-06-12
369
367
0-01-41
0-07-79
372
374
0-00-29
0-02-52
366
0-00-76
373
365
0-00-58
364
0-17-61
352
0-01-92
354
0-14-75
353
0-05-77
0-13-95
133
0-01-19
134
0-08-63
132
0-12-68
124
0-04-48
131
0-04-28
130
0-14-42
128
125
0-05-20
129
0-11-13
127
0-03-26
126
0-05-42
121
0-00-86
113
0-12-02
112
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 2
3
4
5 Amas Ahuri
111
0-07-92
0-02-79
110
0-02-76
109
0-02-72
108
107
0-01-99
0-01-17
104
0-00-28
106
105
0-00-83
103
119
0-02-27
2-19-10
Total
0-11-63 Karmattu 475
0-03-50
737
0-15-90
736
0-17-37
735
0-07-25
724
0-05-86
733
731
0-17-71
0-03-89
727
0-10-96
726
729
0-01-21
0-02-63
728
0-05-36
723
0-14-97
722
0-11-12
721
0-08-41
718
0-01-98
717
0-06-17
716
0-05-25
715
0-03-19
714
0-04-28
713
0-07-40
712
0-03-08
706
705
0-10-49
0-01-91
703
0-01-56
335
0-07-39
325
0-41-50
324
0-03-53
330
0-02-15
258
0-02-96
234
0-03-32
235
0-32-26
264
0-09-12
263
0-01-73
262
0-06-02
266
729
2-93-08
Total
0-28-22
422
Supai
0-00-17
445
0-15-30
423
0-17-06
420
0-39-19
419 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 Amas
416
0-21-90 Gaya
Supai
Gaya
417
0-10-94
329
0-04-68
328
0-00-47
331
0-17-34
334
0-27-26
0-01-58
305
398
0-02-09
0-08-87
390
0-04-55
391
392
394
0-09-10
0-32-35
395
373
0-32-10
372
0-22-02
368
0-01-32
377
0-02-35
3-03-65
Total
149
Shekh
0-46-29
0-01-65
148
Bigha
147
Total 0-48-04
0-00-55 Gurua Nadiyawa 842
893
0-09-09
0-00-31
841
0-03-39
843
0-01-46
941
0-07-07
939
938
0-05-91
937
0-00-92
0-19-73
849
0-09-70
850
859
0-11-44
0-08-49
860
861
0-04-67
862
0-04-91
865
0-05-02
866
0-01-43
874
0-10-02
875
0-15-48
0-00-78
877
878
0-08-42
0-09-80
879
0-00-58
884
0-01-19
887
886
0-00-69
0-06-80
883
889
0-06-09
0-06-17
890
0-02-63
891
0-03-63
829
788
0-09-23
0-02-51
787
2149 G1/05-22
8459
4
2
3
5
0-06-55 Gurua Nadiyawa 622
786
0-06-63
0-15-87
757
0-06-28
756
755
0-11-32
888
0-00-17
2-25-53
Total
0-10-09
1005
Nandiyain
0-07-51
1007
0-01-15
1008
1045
0-04-79
0-20-62
1043
1044
0-01-04
1036
0-23-78
1037
0-00-27
0-00-56
1038
1032
0-08-89
0-09-58
1033
1013
0-29-11
0-03-69
1014
0-00-27
1012
0-05-89
725
0-05-05
726
724
0-02-99
0-05-71
727
0-01-91
730
0-17-86
732
0-19-26
735
736
707
0-04-31
0-04-67
691
0-04-16
692
0-01-88
706
0-03-27
694
695
0-00-24
693
0-03-21
696
0-06-99
660
0-04-55
659
0-00-47
647
0-14-63
646
0-24-21
645
0-01-20
644
0-01-91
651
0-02-79
650
0-02-16
649
0-11-26
648
0-06-62
654
0-04-34
653
0-18-40
604
0-00-12
601
0-09-55
603
0-51-87
602
0-00-32
172 8460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
4
2
5
1 Gurua
0-33-65 Gaya
Nandiyain 176
Gaya
175
0-18-67
177
0-06-20
178
0-03-54
0-04-64
57
0-03-27
147
97
0-02-25
100
0-09-06
107
0-01-47
0-04-64
101
0-01-55
102
99
0-31-57
98
0-21-61
96
0-06-42
Total
5-11-71
233
Dariaura
0-15-95
195
0-06-05
193
0-03-37
194
0-14-12
192
0-10-93
196
0-03-54
0-03-89
197
0-02-90
198
0-03-32
199
200
0-03-38
202
0-02-78
0-03-07
201
203
0-03-92
206
0-03-79
207
0-04-77
211
0-03-13
210
208
0-00-92
0-00-64
209
283
0-01-48
286
0-01-50
287
0-02-07
284
0-04-15
0-03-97
285
288
0-03-30
0-01-62
179
178
0-29-50
0-30-02
164
169
0-00-68
0-05-96
166
165
0-07-45
160
158
0-25-65
0-00-67
155
0-15-37
154
0-01-28
7
2-28-20
Total
433
0-05-39 Tarapur
0-25-00
434
408
0-00-49
0-30-88
Total
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] 2
4
5 3
435
0-08-21 Amas Mugrain
406
0-11-84
0-00-69
702
0-01-62
407
408
0-02-44
0-02-50
409
0-03-68
411
0-14-81
415
0-01-88
416
0-02-36
413
0-06-20
412
0-02-63
414
421
0-55-48
0-14-05
321
0-01-30
315
0-11-47
316
318
0-02-36
317
0-01-64
0-25-33
297
0-02-40
287
0-04-75
282
286
0-07-72
0-04-58
289
0-05-81
279
280
0-22-35
0-04-07
706
0-03-86
251
250
0-10-23
0-13-66
249
0-07-10
248
252
0-31-86
247
244
0-10-99
0-13-09
243
0-00-21
241
0-08-16
242
0-34-38
238
0-02-90
239
0-03-26
237
236
0-17-61
0-01-24
696
0-29-39
2
1
4-14-12
Total
0-01-07
Road/48
Morhar
39
0-00-53
38
0-01-64
Total
0-04-05
Bandh/ 117
Tilaiya
0-09-85
120
0-01-50
122
300
0-00-11
0-03-92
157 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
8461
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
3
2
5
1
296
Amas
0-03-68 Gaya Gaya
Talaiya
297
0-18-00
295
0-02-99
279
0-12-69
280
0-02-80
277
0-11-94
289
0-02-43
288
0-10-58
281
0-03-19
287
0-03-27
286
0-10-80
318
0-16-06
Total
1-17-86
Karthahi 993
16-15 Gurua
980
095ومز
964
0-02-38
0-06-98
965
966
0-02-59
0-01-78
997
968
0-03-29
0-04-63
970
969
0-00-14
971
0-02-95
972
0-05-20
975
0-00-69
974
0-07-73
910
0-08-79
0-09-64
911
0-00-54
912
916
0-01-53
917
0-02-63
922
0-02-67
920
0-03-31
0-04-69
919
0-02-89
921
0-03-41
Road/908
837
0-00-35
0-17-75
827
828
0-00-63
0-02-23
830
826
0-02-66
825
0-05-14
824
0-04-33
823
0-04-08
822
0-01-42
706
0-02-37
705
0-01-19
674
0-12-81
675
0-07-33
676
0-04-43
0-05-67
677
668
0-05-71
665
0-01-74
664
0-03-17 3
4
2
5
666
0-01-26 Karthahi
Gurua
663
0-06-59
0-05-86
661
656
0-05-53
657
0-05-17
655
0-03-04
654
0-02-82
0-00-61-
647
648
0-00-76
649
650
0-00-35
651
652
0-00-44
653
0-00-42
631
0-11-83
632
0-00-81
0-03-66
Road/636
0-00-42
532
0-00-65
531
0-08-48
530
536
0-00-79
512
0-00-87
513
0-00-88
529
0-03-23
528
0-06-01
537
0-06-20
527
525
0-14-00
0-00-64
526
0-02-47
516
522
0-13-23
0-05-09
517
0-08-58
498
0-06-24
521
0-02-25
518
0-08-73
520
Total
3-21-68
0-10-54 Amas Chutkisawon 12
0-07-04
63
0-26-62
61
0-05-70
21
0-03-20
22
0-02-22
23
0-55-32
Total
0-00-64 Khairitaira 541
542
0-18-64
0-00-95
543
0-01-96
544
0-00-97
545
0-02-28
552
0-16-27
551
0-02-78
5/53
0-01-64
554
0-36-79
555 8462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
4
5
1 1
2
0-01-39
Khairitaira 556
Amas
Gaya
Gaya
557
0-03-20
562
0-13-87
0-03-36
564
565
0-02-83
566
0-05-54
0-03-70
567
568
0-05-59
569
0-05-27
571
0-05-60
573
0-02-78
0-02-83
574
577
0-10-13
584
0-08-85
585
0-04-33
586
0-08-01
589
0-04-02
594
0-04-11
592
0-12-86
0-06-60
593
0-02-50
598
599
0-02-94
602
0-09-25
0-03-37
623
612
0-01-51
624
0-04-33
0-07-78
625
0-08-14
626
619
0-04-69
0-00-37
618
627
0-02-08
0-05-38
632
0-02-27
667
0-07-55
666
0-09-74
693
0-04-32
691
676
0-05-89
0-25-13
690
0-10-38
688
0-02-72
693
699
0-17-48
700
0-03-87
0-02-08
701
702
0-02-28
3-43-84
Total
0-00-59 Bindraban 96
0-01-11
93
0-05-40
94
0-03-28
95
0-11-92
92
0-04-64
247
0-04-33
248
249
0-02-84
250
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
4
5 2
3
0-05-98 Amas Bindraban 251
0-05-11
259
0-06-69
260
261 0-07-06
0-01-53
262
0-02-02
263
265
0-01-15
286
0-01-76
268
0-01-88
281
0-01-26
280
273
0-03-45
270
0-06-03
0-02-72
271
0-00-69
272
0-00-37
264
269
0-06-25
346
0-02-41
354
0-09-18
355
0-04-13
359
0-01-62
357
358
0-00-85
0-03-74
362
365
0-03-40
367
0-01-41
366
0-01-76
0-02-11
370
371
0-01-58
0-02-67
372
374
0-01-32
377
0-02-89
380
0-01-89
0-02-23
381
0-01-81
373
0-01-93
378
0-03-65
379
384
0-00-92
385
0-03-32
0-01-62
386
0-01-84
616
0-20-89
405
0-22-72
404
403
2-03-06
Total
0-42-75
623
Guruwa Kajh
622
0-34-88
0-01-28
621
0-00-87
603
0-89-97
602
1-69-75
Total
0-20-15 Amas Dharampur 68
0-02-57
72
0-00-13
60
66
0-19-27 [भाम - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8463
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
2
5
1
1
0-01-82 Amas
Gaya Dharampur 62
Gaya
61
0-07-28
105
0-03-85
0-03-73
58
0-06-57
57
0-04-59
56
0-05-69
55
0-06-67
52
0-07-14
51
0-15-21
46
0-04-44
49
0-04-87
48
0-13-25
38
0-11-45
50
0-03-72
36
63
1-42-50
Total
0-12-71
261
Gangti
0-19-34
263
0-28-64
95
0-13-01
99
0-09-01
100
0-02-16
98
0-00-65
97
0-07-45
101
86
0-03-06
0-10-54
85
0-07-40
84
75
0-06-32
74
0-18-34
0-07-66-
104
0-07-73
105
0-03-45
106
0-21-96
49
0-00-58
48
0-03-32
47
0-00-59
50
51
0-04-36
1-88-30
Total
0-01-55 Gamariya 449
0-12-72
429
0-03-07
430
0-02-62
427
0-01-56
426
0-00-71
425
424
0-00-25
0-23-48
431
432
0-22-81
0-02-43
420
0-13-98
419
0-01-18
421
0-86-36
Total
2
3
4
5
21
Patra
0-00-24 Amas
19
0-04-93
20
0-09-82
18
0-11-65
16
0-07-64
0-03-92
15
13
0-04-69
0-07-50
12
0-16-00
11
0-07-23
10
0-03-63
9
8
0-05-11
7
0-11-44
6
0-18-70
28
0-01-25
4
0-14-48
5
0-01-12
1
0-00-17
1-29-52
Total
0-00-57 Amas
2087
2086
0-06-78
0-10-53
2089
0-06-04
2088
0-38-32
2085
0-08-31
2082
0-02-72
2081
2080
0-02-72
1299
0-04-05
0-01-45
1300
0-21-12
1298
0-00-82
1297
0-08-74
1295
0-01-90
1294
0-10-10
1296
1333
0-00-19
0-03-66
1334
0-19-37
1335
0-02-27
1337
0-01-21
1361
0-14-87
1338
0-11-52
2147
0-22-01
1339
1414
0-01-61
0-01-17
1415
0-05-42
1413
0-00-28
1412
0-14-05
1411
0-04-12
1410
0-02-21
1409
0-01-74
1408
1407
0-00-91
0-01-08
1405
0-01-51
1429
0-01-24
1430 8464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 Amas Amas
1427
0-01-51 Gaya
Gaya
1426
0-02-37
0-01-17
1431
2103
0-01-29
0-01-79
1425
1435
0-01-43
0-00-99
1434
0-01-25
1436
1439
0-00-81
0-00-47
1440
0-00-14
1441
0-00-28
1442
0-01-78
1438
0-04-15
1437
0-01-49
1443
0-01-61
1451
1450
0-02-02
1449
2166
0-00-88
1445
0-00-37
1416
0-07-92
1447
0-05-95
1463
1462
0-00-12
1464
1466
0-02-29
0-01-97
898
0-02-42
Road/875
0-00-17
897
278
0-06-02
277
0-03-17
276
0-05-93
0-01-01
284
0-03-70
285
0-00-51
286
0-02-93
290
0-03-39
2180
291
309
0-01-79
0-05-95
292
0-07-63
303
0-06-27
2098
305
0-02-31
306
0-01-93
0-01-90
307
304
0-00-58
0-05-88
351
337
0-06-57
336
338
0-03-28
0-00-77
340
0-04-87
341
0-05-68
342
0-19-81
812
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 2
3
4
5
363
0-00-61 Amas Amas
379
0-01-15
811
0-18-63
0-05-46
380
381
0-01-83
382
0-02-47
390
0-04-85
388
393
0-05-11
411
0-02-78
394
0-02-29
395
0-05-05
396
0-03-27
410
0-02-50
397
0-10-50
398
0-04-30
399
400
0-03-11
0-03-48
401
0-07-76
402
437
0-10-20
438
0-13-95
0-22-34
505
503
0-07-53
0-05-04
504
0-00-15
502
0-02-07
501
500
0-03-47
497
0-03-78
Road/495
5-41-70
Total
0-02-57
634
Niman
0-05-10
282
0-26-52
254
0-37-41
253
0-00-57
248
0-02-15
247
0-10-15
246
230
0-12-03
0-01-11
245
0-00-13
244
232
0-02-19
233
0-02-14
234
235
0-01-85
0-01-93
243
0-27-95
242
0-04-78
144
0-06-28
143
0-07-82
142
0-01-14
141
0-00-61
134
0-02-94
133
0-02-57
132 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
8465
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
1
2
4
5
1 Amas Niman
131
0-04-91 Gaya
Gaya
0-01-82
130
129
0-00-15
239
0-00-14
Total
1-67-06
Balkhora 469
0-02-23
488
0-04-41
474
0-03-87
473
0-03-47
472
0-02-21
475
0-00-83
476
0-01-34
477
0-03-71
478
0-01-10
482
0-01-55
481
0-01-32
483
0-00-96
480
0-01-33
479
0-01-45
461
0-01-17
597
0-01-44
524
0-19-40
512
0-07-55
511
0-05-53
513
0-01-96
514
0-05-51
309
0-06-40
306
0-49-61
305
0-01-13
308
0-19-56
304
0-09-87
303
0-02-63
302
522
Total 1-61-66
0-02-76
46
Amas Chotki-
47
chilmi
0-16-79
48
0-00-87
45
57
0-01-32
56
0-14-02
49
0-02-71
0-07-80
51
0-02-70
55
53
0-09-78
50
0-00-14
52
0-07-22
65
54
66
0-11-89
70
0-10-01
71
0-03-17
72
0-07-72 2
3
4
5
0-03-06 Amas Chotkichilmi 76
0-26-63
73
74
0-05-51
75
0-04-41
1-38-78
Total
Badki
537
0-04-67 Chilmi
508
0-02-90
505
0-37-74
504
0-05-30
503
499
0-03-39
0-09-67
498
497
0-06-22
0-06-19
496
488
0-01-73
484
0-02-56
485
0-01-91
372
0-05-91
480
0-02-80
477
0-09-02
476
0-02-25
475
0-01-54
478
479
0-00-92
472
0-18-50
448
0-24-30
443
0-03-91
444
0-07-44
442
0-00-48
1-71-35
Total
0-26-81 Bishunpur 9
10
0-07-72
Total 0-34-53
Nala/105 0-07-89 DalohKala
0-21-67
104
102
0-11-35
0-09-15
101
0-05-03
103
0-04-03
100
0-04-61
99
97
0-01-98
0-11-21
96
0-13-80
94
54
0-03-54
55
0-01-94
52
0-04-98
0-04-77
51
50
0-07-89
0-06-25
49
0-16-07
48
35
0-01-42
0-05-63
29
34
0-06-16 8466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5
1 Amas Daloh Kala 33
0-00-59 Gaya
Gaya
30
0-01-85
21
0-04-93
20
0-01-68
19
14
0-13-05
13
0-09-82
0-04-73
7
6
0-04-57
4
0-05-59
Total
1-96-19
138
0-04-10 Patej
136
0-07-08
137
0-00-14
0-10-52
135
0-04-26
133
0-20-48
132
117
0-08-64
115
0-08-01
116
0-03-09
0-66-32
Total
0-06-54 Naugarh 137
0-04-62
135
136
0-01-09
0-03-67
134
0-03-41
133
126
0-20-77
130
0-00-57
125
0-15-56
124
0-04-32
123
0-05-42
97
96
0-08-41
Nala/92 0-02-50
95
0-03-51
94
0-06-23
0-06-37
93
88
0-04-23
0-05-85
89
86
0-06-17
85
0-05-68
0-03-29
84
83
0-03-25
81
0-03-63
0-03-44
80
77
0-00-65
0-05-67
78
0-05-26
76
0-05-95
75
0-10-68
74
73
0-03-15
0-03-54
72
71
0-06-31
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
5 Amas
65
0-03-80 Naugarh
50
0-11-39
47
0-09-15
48
0-02-84
49
0-03-31
2-00-29
Total
349
0-20-30 Dibra
348
0-02-32
347
0-44-77
342
0-00-11
178
0-02-78
0-17-63
175
174
0-01-16
0-02-06
189
173
0-03-83
165
0-17-41
176
171
0-46-56
166
0-02-81
0-25-49
129
0-30-40
128
126
0-09-21
130
39
0-33-29
37
0-02-15
0-37-13
8
7
0-01-42
5
0-15-26
0-04-80
10
0-01-34
11
0-08-75
13
0-00-61
4
3
0-02-51
2
0-02-12
1
3-43-27
Total
0-03-41 Narayanpur 108
107
0-32-31
0-03-36
105
0-03-63
106
0-02-96
99
0-19-15
111
0-04-53
116
0-05-55
113
0-04-26
112
0-01-26
115
0-10-56
114
95
0-01-97
98
0-93-04
Total
[F. No. -L 14014/12/2005 -G.P. ]
SWAMI SINGH , Director 8467 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
5 नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2005
इलाहाबाद
0-402-15
फुलपुर धुसरा सर्वे नं. 71 व 47 के बीच में
56
0-01-09
47
0-28-33
0-16-71
48
39
0-03-49
49 0-06-69
0-03-06
40
0-01-21
39
37
0-19-17
38
0-10-39
0-02-36
34
217
0-01-01 का.आ. 2657.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2720 तारीख 15 अक्तूबर, 2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में थूलेन्डी से फूलपुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
213
0-19-88
0-01-95
212
और, उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 18 मई, 2005 से 14 जून, 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
0-01-87
214
0-15-00
215
267
0-13-33
268
0-12-00 और, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;
0-00-59
269
267
0-13-85
272
0-07-11 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
0-08-78
271
275
0-34-21
278
0-04-04
0-02-55
279
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;
0-01-84
281
283
0-10-86
280
2-66-86
कुल
45
गहरपुर
0-00-73 अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
49
50
0-06-41
53
0-10-93
54
0-31-76
68
0-01-02
69
0-02-01
71
73
0-00-43
0-04-54
72बी
0-17-39
72ए
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
0-03-99
114
0-04-47
87
अनुसूची
84
तहसील गाँव
जिला
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
89
0-00-35
अर्जित करने
110
0-01-17
0-03-31
88
केलिए
0-02-52
109
(हेक्टेयर में)
0-02-89
108
3
4
5
2
0-03-42 1.
106
112
0-03-74 71
0-03-70
इलाहाबाद
धुसरा
फुलपुर
0-04-85
107
70
0-02-20
0-08-52
105
67
0-11-80
0-00-15
103
69
0-00-61
0-15-13
339
71
0-04-93
2149 GI/05-23 8468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
1
3
4
5
2
0-04-87
347
बसौधा
0-06-84
329 इलाहाबाद फुलपुर गहरपुर
इलाहाबाद फुलपुर
340
0-06-28
0-11-91
330
0-11-89
331
0-03-59
349
332
0-00-38
0-06-65
345
350
0-01-60
03-72-05
कुल
343
0-02-97
91
0-03-80
ओहरपुर
0-03-80
351
0-26-03
94
0-02-20
सर्वे नं. 351 (नाला)
96
0-31-40
353
0-09-64
0-41-47
112
159
0-23-04
01-77-36
कुल
0-26-78
165
0-08-84
बसौधा
254/ए
0-56-44
188
0-00-46
253
189
0-00-97
0-01-85
252
0-04-42
208
249
0-03-70
0-13-81
207
0-02-71
249/543
206
0-02-17
255
0-00-72
241
0-32-08
254/बी 0-00-36
242
0-10-51
0-03-04
249/591
0-04-79
276
0-40-01
297
0-01-85
244
243/53
0-00-45
0-12-61
275
242
0-01-74
274
0-13-96
280
0-08-82
0-01-77
273
0-00-59
241
272
0-15-17
291
0-11-85
271
0-01-12
369
354
0-15-43
0-04-78
355
0-00-94
357
0-03-84
365
0-11-83
0-01-67
366
366
0-10-42
0-04-24
365
364
0-09-79
364
0-24-64
0-07-72
363
0-01-17
382
362
0-19-26
0-00-49
360
361
0-06-93
0-02-99
385
360
0-24-65
0-08-25
383
359
0-01-38
0-14-66
384
358
0-00-68
0-03-30
386
357
0-02-59
0-01-75
387
0-33-18
347/बी
0-01-56
388
313
0-02-67
04-05-39
कुल
0-13-43
346/ए
20
आहरैन
0-08-57
345/ए
0-05-90
30
0-07-35
345/बी
31
0-12-01
344
0-13-10
124
342/ए
0-00-44
123
0-06-31
0.03-53
342/बी
0-00-11
32
0-06-56
333
0-06-48
122
316
0-01-60
0-00-53
125
0-07-53
317
0-08-88
126
0-02-83
318
0-03-11
127
0-02-53
319
0-13-67
128
0-07-74
320
0-17-79
129
324
0-11-08
0-23-02
130
325
0-11-29
सर्वे नं 133व वी.बी. के बीच में 0-00-20
327
0-15-52
0-98-91
कुल
0-10-64
328 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
4
3
5
1
0-05-79 बाराजी
412
इलाहाबाद इलाहाबाद फुलपुर
425
0-13-38
424
0-14-85
0-18-80
430
0-12-28
429
482
0-01-20
490
0-01-02
489
0-00-72
485
0-17-56
486
0-02-60
484
0-14-50
499
0-01-83
0-19-34
501
502
10-04-09
03-64
477
562
0-09-48
0-00-62
564/704
563
0-02-28
564
0-23-01
565
0-00-18
563/706 0-01-34
566
0-03-18
573
0-07-41
-568
0-01-10
569
0-14-01
571
0-19-99
570
578
0-00-42
0-00-24
579
580
0-04-48
0-02-19
538
582
0-03-57
581
0-13-66
0-03-78
सर्वे नं. 581 ( पक्की रोड़ )
2-42-78
कुल
0-02-04
17
भानेमऊ
16
0-06-30
0-23-40
18
0-05-48
19(रोड़)
15
0-00-75
20
0-04-47
97
0-00-51
0-23-60
83
0-08-06
87
89
0-01-76
80
79
0-01-52
90
0-10-79
0-00-86
91
0-04-65
77
75
0-06-87
74
0-05-82
0-05-57
73
0-03-16
144
8469 2
4
3
5
148
0-01-69 भानेमऊ
फुलपुर
165
0-01-54
0-14-79
159
0-00-63
162
161
0-07-17
0-06-80
160
338
339
0-08-51
340
152
0-01-57
348
0-04-18
151
0-00-16
341
0-06-85
0-00-61
342
346
0-19-18
0-02-29
399
400
0-09-46
0-07-49
409
398
0-08-78
402
2-17-86
कुल
1
0-13-11 दयालपुर
0-01-43
सर्वे नं. 1 (नाला)
3
0-01-76
2
0-20-24
0-27-36
59
60
0-19-21
58
0-00-99
65
0-11-24
66
0-21-03
0-09-55
67
0-11-57
137
149
0-07-83
148
0-01-10
157
0-32-10
156
0-01-15
224
155
0-00-27
0-00-66
229
0-12-52
232
0-12-77
230
0-00-84
231
228
0-01-82
287
0-08-02
0-17-10
240
0-22-34
281
0-02-29
283
0-01-22
383/315
0-01-42
282
0-16-29
284
278
0-06-19
279
2-86-52
कुल 8470
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
1
2
4
5
4
1
2
3
5
नारी
0-02-88 43
0-17-54
इलाहाबाद
इलाहाबाद
291/ए
फुलपुर
फजलापुर
फुलपुर
0-05-98
0-30-46
292
44
314
42
0-01-48 50
0-01-75
315
316
0-33-37 52
0-00-54
सर्वे नं 316 व 317 के बीच में 51
0-19-94
0-03-81
317
0-00-74
55
324
40
0-01-39
323
0-00-29 37
322
39
0-09-71
0-04-19
318
38
0-12-06
321
0-03-12 33
0-17-73
0-06-92
319
0-00-68
31
0-29-22
320
0-13-50
29
336
0-09-97 28
0-02-78
27
0-13-34
2-82-94
कुल
1-41-94
0-05-75
सराय अजीत 52
कुल
67
0-06-93
0-13-30
मल्किया 11
12
0-02-97
0-12-68
कुल
13
0-11-33
0-03-12
सराय हरी किश्न 13
0-22-60
14
0-15-51
14
16
0-01-10
0-02-61
21
21
0-19-81
0-00-27
22
0-71-11
0-03-92
23
कुल
0-04-36
24
86
0-04-64
सराये लहरी
0-00-17
26
87
0-02-40
0-09-70
25
89
0-01-81
0-00-18
35
88
0-23-30
0-04-08
27
0-04-90
92
0-01-56
31
93
0-06-16
0-07-13
171
0-43-21
कुल
0-10-56
166
251
0-06-79
नारी
0-01-57
167
0-24-65
250
165
0-10-56
0-15-81
246
0-06-74
184
248
0-02-64
0-08-44
183
0-17-57
249
0-10-12
185
0-04-06
238
189
0-04-55 267
0-03-38
0-17-30
188
269
0-04-52
191
268
0-09-38
0-19-84
190
234
0-00-91
1-46-91
कुल
236
0-00-84
0-02-52
सिकन्दरा 388
0-25-74
235
0-07-95
389
281
0-04-18
402
229
0-03-44
401
0-06-19 284
0-11-09
390
0-00-32 285
0-09-46
400
0-07-65
227
0-01-78
391
0-07-96
287
0-02-26
399
0-09-08
288
398
0-08-06 289
0-00-83
397
0-03-37
0-27-69
293
393
0-00-18 289
0-00-26 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
1
3
4
5
1
395 0-05-86 इलाहाबाद
इलाहाबाद फुलपूर
396 0-07-64 सिकन्दरा (-जारी)
408 0-07-93
407 0-03-91
410 0-00-16
411 0-06-08
0-11-47
412
413
0-00-98
418 0-11-57
416
0-01-23
420 0-17-39
417
0-10-48
421 0-37-24
434 0-05-70
414 0-04-83
1-78-74
कुल
344 0-00-58 सैफखानपुर
365
0-01-86
0-02-44
कुल
70
0-16-05
थारडीह
0-28-35
68
76
0-12-89
79
0-03-48
78
0-22-66
81
0-20-12
208
0-22-47
211
210
0-00-48
212 0-00-93
0-20-28
216
0-17-00
218
219 0-33-11
221
0-12-23
222
0-02-01
474 0-13-31
0-70-25
475
484 0-01-40
490
0-02-60
488
0-04-67
487 0-08-41
486
0-18-18
489 0-01-16
525
0-00-14
485
0-03-88
0-04-77
सर्वे नं. 486
व485 ( पक्की रोड)
443
442 0-11-20
528 0-13-63
0-04-40
529
437
0-07-69
0-00-73
439
436
0-06-49
8471 3
5 2
4
434 0-03-26 फुलपूर
0-00-28
530
थारडीह (-जारी)
532
0-39-23
435
0-00-65
431
0-26-95
549
0-02-24
550
548
0-01-22
0-00-67
546/2104
546 0-06-74
551
0-01-11
550
555
0-05-16
554 0-07-09
0-10-82
553
552 0-07-79
587
0-00-82
586 0-04-10
588 0-12-58
610 0-02-15
0-27-37
611
0-16-05
609
सर्वेनं. 609 व 603
0-10-07
(पक्की रोड)
603 0-02-68
604 0-29-78
607
0-09-77
0-05-36
606
605
659
0-08-84
0-08-12
सर्वे नं. 657 व 659
के बीच में
(रजवाहा कैनाल/पक्कीरोड)
662
0-00-28
661
0-09-27
685
0-31-36
688
0-13-16
1857
0-14-31
1853
0-06-50
0-06-79
1855
1854
1852
0-04-87
0-04-98
1851
1875
0-08-01
1874
1876
0-11-40
1879
0-06-53
0-02-19
1882
1
0-10-69
1881
1885
0-15-92
0-01-55
1884
1892
0-25-33
1895
0-08-51
1896
0-08-12
8-27-74
कुल 8472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
4
3
5
2
0-03-26 पाली
80
इलाहाबाद फुलपूर
79
0-02-29
78
0-39-54
65
0-13-50
0-28-28
53
District
52
0-25-20
47
0-00-84
0-27-69
46
32
0-00-84
1
0-27-93
41
42
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
the declaration, in the GAIL ( India) Limited, proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed , vest in the GAIL ( India) , freefrom all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil Village Survey No. Area to be Acquired forROU (InHectare) 3
4
5 2
71
0-03-70
Allahabad
0-03-81
39
38
0-18-59
37
0-00-44
35
0-00-34
36
0-03-05
1-95-50
कुल
[फा. सं. एल-14014/4/2005-जी. पी. ]
दीपक रतनपाल, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th July , 2005
S.O. 2657. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2720 dated the 15th October, 2004 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purposepose of laying pipelines for transport of Natural Gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 18th May, 2005 to 14th June, 2005 ;
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report , and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines , has decided to acquire the right of user therein .
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on the date of the publication of Phoolpur Dhusra
0-02-20
70
0-11-80
67
69
0-00-61
71
0-04-93
0-02-15
InBet Svy . No.
71 & 47
56
0-01-09
0-28-33
47
0-16-71
48
39
0-03-49
0-06-69
49
0-03-06
40
0-01-21
39
37
0-19-17
0-10-39
38
0-02-36
34
217
0-01-01
0-19-88
213
212
0-01-95
0-01-87
214
0-15-00
215
0-13-33
267
0-12-00
268
0-00-59
269
0-13-85
267
0-07-11
272
0-08-78
271
0-34-21
275
0-04-04
278
279
0-02-55
0-01-84
281
283
0-10-86
280
2-66-86
Total
Gaharpur 45
49
0-00-73
50
0-06-41 .
0-10-93
53
54
0-31-76
68
0-01-02
69
71
3-02-01
73
0-00-43 8473 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
5
3
4
5 1
2
1
2
3
0-04-54
0-13-43
Allahabad Phoolpur Basoudha 346/A
Allahabad Phoolpur Gaharpur 72B
0-08-57
0-17-39
72A
(-Contd. ) 345/A
( Contd . )
0-07-35
345/B
0-03-99
114
0-13-10
344
0-04-47
87
342/A
0-00-44
84
342/B
0-03-53
89
0-00-35
0-06-56
333
0-01-17
110
0-01-60
316
88
0-03-31
0-07-53
317
0-02-52
109
0-02-83
318
108
0-02-89
0-02-53
319
106
0-03-42
0-07-74
320
0-03-74
112
324
0-11-08 107
0-04-85
325
0-11-29
0-08-52
105
327
0-15-52 103
0-00-15
328
0-10-64
0-15-13
339
329
0-06-84 347
0-04-87
330
0-06-28
340
0-11-91
331
0-11-89
0-03-59
349
332
0-00-38
0-06-65
345
3-72-05
Total
0-01-60
350
0-03-80
91
Oharpur
343
0-02-97
0-26-03
94
351
0-03-80
0-31-40
96
0-02-20
In Svy No. 351 (Nala)
0-41-47
112
353
0-09-64
0-23-04
159
1-77-36
Total
0-26-78
165
0-56-44
188
0-08-84
Basoudha 254/A
189
0-00-97
0-00-46
253
0-04-42
208
0-01-85
252
207
0-13-81 249
0-03-70
0-02-17
206
0-02-71
249/543
0-32-08
241
0-00-72
255
242
0-10-51
0-00-36
254/B
0-04-79
276
0-03-04
249/591
244
0-01-85
0-40-01
297
275
0-12-61
0-00-45
243/53
274
0-13-96 242
0-01-74
273
0-01-77 280
0-08-82
0-15-17
272
241
0-00-59
0-11-85
271
291
354
0-01-12
0-15-43
369
0-04-78
355
367
0-00-94
0-03-84
357
365
0-11-83
0-01-67
366
366
0-10-42
0-04-24
365
364
0-09-79
364
0-24-64
0-01-17
382
0-07-72
363
0-00-49
360
362
0-19-26
0-02-99
385
361
0-06-93
0-08-25
383
0-24-65
360
0-14-66
384
0-01-38
359
386
0-03-30
0-00-68
358
0-01-75
387
357
0-02-59
388
0-01-56
0-33-18
347/B
0-02-67
313
Total
4-05-39 8474
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
3
4
5 2
4
5
2
3
1
0-02-04 20
Allahabad Phoolpur Bhanemau 17
Allahabad Phoolpur Aharain
16
0-06-30 30
0-05-90
18
0-23-40 31
0-12-01
0-05-48
19(Road) 124
15
0-00-75
0-06-31
123
0-04-47
20
0-00-11
32
97
0-00-51
0-06-48
122
0-23-60
83
125
0-00-53
0-08-06
87
126
0-08-88
0-01-76
89
127
0-03-11
80
128
0-13-67
0-01-52
79
0-17-79
129
0-10-79
90
0-23-02
130
0-00-86
91
0-04-65 InBet Svy. No. 133 & V.B.0-00-20
77
0-06-87
75
Total 0-98-91
0-05-82
74
412
0-05-79
Baraji
0-05-57
73
425
0-13-38
0-03-16
144
0-14-85
424
0-01-69
148
430
0-18-80
0-01-54
165
429
0-12-28
0-14-79
159
482
0-01-20
0-00-63
162
490
0-01-02
0-07-17
161
489
0-00-72
0-06-80
160
485
0-17-56
338
486
0-02-60
339
484
0-14-50
0-08-51
340
499
0-01-83
152
0-01-57
0-04-18
348
0-19-34
501
0-00-16
151
0-04-09
502
0-06-85
341
0-03-64
477
0-00-61
342
0-09-48
562
346
0-19-18 564/704 0-00-62
0-02-29
399
563
0-02-28
0-09-46
400
564
0-23-01
0-07-49
409
565
0-00-18
398
563/706 0-01-34
0-08-78
402
566
0-03-18
2-17-86
Total 573
0-07-41
0-13-11 568
1
0-01-10
Dayalpur
569
0-14-01
0-01-43
In Svy No. 1 (Nala )
0-01-76
3
571
0-20-24
2
570
0-19-99
59
0-27-36 578
0-00-42
60
0-19-21
0-00-24
579
58
0-00-99 580
0-04-48
65
0-11-24 538
0-02-19
0-21-03
66
582
0-03-57
67
0-09-55 581
0-13-66
137
0-11-57
0-03-78
In Svy. No. 581
0-07-83
149
(Metalled Road)
0-01-10
148
Total
2-42-64
157 8475 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
4
5
1
2
4
1
3
5 156
0-32-10
248
0-02-64 Phodipur Dayalpur
Allahabad
Allahabad
Phoolpur Nari
0-01-15
224
249
0-17-57
0-00-27
155
238
0-04-06 229
0-00-66
267
0-03-38- 232
0-12-52
269
230
0-12-77
0-09-38
268
231
0-00-84
234
0-00-91 228
0-01-82
236
0-00-84
0-08-02
287
235
0-25-74 240
0-17-10
281
0-22-34
281
0-03-44
229
283
0-02-29
284
0-11-09
0-01-22
283/315
285
0-01-42
282
0-07-65
227
0-16-29
284
0-07-96
287
0-06-19
278
288
0-09-08 279
0-00-83
289
0-27-69
293
2-86-52
Total
289
0-00-26 43
0-17-54
Fazlapur
291/A 0-02-88 44
0-30-46
0-05-98
292
42
314
50
0-01-75
315
0-01-48 52
316
0-33-37 51
0-19-94
In Bet Svy. No. 316 3170-00-54 55
0-00-74
317
0-03-81 40
0-01-39
324
37
0-00-29
323
39
0-09-71
322
38
0-12-06
0-04-19
318
0-17-73
33
0-03-12
321
31
0-00-68
0-06-92
319
29
0-13-50
320
0-29-22 28
0-02-78
336
0-09-97 27
0-13-34
2-82-94
Total
Total 1-41-94
0-05-75
SarayAjit 52
11
0-13-30
Malkiya
0-06-93
67
12
0-02-97
0-12-68
0-11-33
13
Total
14
0-22-60
0-03-12
13
SarayHari
0-01-10
16
0-15-51
14
Kishan
0-02-61
0-19-81
21
21
0-00-27
22
0-71-11
Total
23
0-03-92
0-04-64
Sarai Lahari 86
0-04-36
24
87
0-02-40
0-00-17
26
89
0-01-81
0-09-70
25
0-23-30
88
0-00-18
35
92
0-04-90
0-04-08
27
0-06-16
93
0-01-56
31
Total 0-43-21
0-07-13
171
0-10-56
166
0-06-79
Nari
251
0-01-57
167
250
0-24-65
0-10-56
165
246
0-15-81
2149 G1/05-24 8476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
1
5
2
3
5
1
4 c
0-06-74
474
0-13-31 Allahabad Phoolpur Saray Hari 184
Allahabad Phoolpur Thardih
Kishan
183
0-08-44
475
0-70-25
185
0-10-12
484
0-01-40
189
0-04-55
0-02-60
490
0-17-30
188
0-04-67
488
0-04-52
191
0-08-41
487
0-19-84
190
0-18-18
486
Total
1-46-91
489
0-01-16
0-00-14
525 Sikandra 388
0-02-52
389
485
0-07-95
0-03-88
402
0-04-18
0-04-77
401
0-06-19
In Svy. No. 486 & 485 (Metalled Road)
390
0-00-32
443
400
0-09-46
0-11-20
442
391
0-01-78
0-13-63
528
399
0-02-26
0-04-40
529
398
0-08-06
437
0-07-69
397
0-03-37
439
0-00-73
0-00-18
393
0-06-49
436
395
0-05-86
0-03-26
434
396
0-07-64
0-00-28
530
408
0-07-93
532
407-
0-03-91
435
0-39-23
410
0-00-16
0-00-65
431
411
0-06-08
0-26-95
549
412
0-11-47
0-02-24
550
413
0-00-98
0-01-22
418
548
0-11-57
416
0-01-23
0-00-67
546/2104
420
0-17-39
0-06-74
546
417
0-10-48
551
0-01-11
421
0-37-24
550
434
0-05-70
0-05-16
555
414
0-04-83
554
0-07-09
Total
1-78-74
0-10-82
553
0-07-79
552
0-00-58
SaifKhanpur 344
365
0-00-82
0-01-86
587
0-04-10
586
Total
0-02-44
588
0-12-58
0-16-05
Thardih 70
0-02-15
610
0-28-35
68
0-27-37
611
76
0-12-89
0-16-05
609
79
0-03-48
78
0-10-07
81
In Svy. No. 609 & 603 (Metalled Road )
0-22-66
0-02-68
603
208
0-20-12
0-29-78
604
211
0-22-47
607
0-09-77
210
0-00-48
212
0-05-36
606
0-00-93
216
0-20-28
605
218
0-17-00
659
0-08-84
219
0-33-11
0-08-12
InBest. Svy. No.
221
0-12-23
222
0-02-01
657 & 659 ( Minor Canal/Metalled Road) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4
1
5
662
0-00-28 Allahabad Phoolpur Thardih
0-09-27
661
685
0-31-36
688
0-13-16
1857
0-14-31
1853
0-06-50
1855
0-06-79
1854
1852
0-04-87
1851
0-04-98
1875
0-08-01
1874
1876
0-11-40
1879
0-06-53
0-02-19
1882
0-10-69
1881
1885
0-15-92
1884
0-01-55
0-25-33
1892
1895
0-08-51
0-08-12
1896
8-27-74
Total
80
0-03-26
Pali
0-02-29
79
78
0-39-54
65
0-13-50
0-28-28
53
0-25-20
52
47
0-00-84
0-27-69
46
32
0-00-84
41
0-27-93
जिला
42
0-03-81
39
0-18-59
38
37
0-00-44
35
0-00-34
1
36
0-03-05
इलाहाबाद
1-95-50
Total
[F. No. L- 14014/4/2005-G.P. ] DEEPAK RATTAN PAL, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2658.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 360 ( अ ) तारीख 21 मार्च, 2005 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से
8477
संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में धूलेन्डी से फूलपुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 अप्रैल, 2005 से 26 मई , 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित हैं, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चियकिया है;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
तहसील गाँव
सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.
अर्जित करने
के लिए क्षेत्रफल
(हेक्टेयर में)
4
5 2
3
17
0.0213 फूलपुर नसरतपुर
0..0283
16
0.0445
21
0.0188
18
0.0164
19
0.0928
20
0.1867
24
0.2502
39
0.1081
42
0.0088
43
38
0.0241
0.1332
46
0.0140
45 8478
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
4
3
4
5 1
1
2
2
3
5
0.0010 47
0.0230
449
इलाहाबाद
इलाहाबाद
बुआपुर
फूलपुर
फूलपुर नसरतपुर
48
0.0145
0.0857
439
49
0.0828
440
0.0216
0.0202
50
0.0402
438
51
0.0200
3.3247
योग
01.1077
योग
0.0263
460
तुलापुर
0.0472
181
बुआपुर
0.0086
494
0.0549
182
0.0349
योग
0.2909
197
0.1463
196
0.0351
मुस्तफाबाद 1
0.0010
185
0.2444
2
195
0.0010
0.0902
8
194
0.0411
0.0019
9
193
0.2362
4
0.0322 203
0.2272
0.2962
7
0.1171
205
0.0551
6
0.0016
206
5
0.0160
0.0031
240
0.1861
51
0.0187
211
0.0050
53
0.0741
207
74
0.1582
0.0034
210
0.0785
75
0.0878
208
0.2061
72
209
0.0681
0.0947
105
236
0.0101
0.0133 235
104
0.0030
0.0459
237
109
0.1604
0.0825
234
0.0079
106
0.0136
233
0.0568
108
0.1000
232
0.0453
115
346
0.0161
0.1361
116
347
0.1388
0.2461
156
0.0803
362
0.0010
155
0.0073
364
0.1812
166
0.1217
363
0.2688
173
0.0352
360
0.0351
169
365
0.0216
167
0.0143 359
0.0010
0.0073
168
0.0195
369
0.0166
172
0,1243
368
0.0168
171
395
0.0139
0.0306
170
0.0587
405
396
0.0381
0.0615
183
0,0524
397
0.0327
177
0.0763
398
0.0407
184
0.1824
401
0.2418
185
0.0496
411
योग
3.1140 458
0.1228
0.0040 457
0.0010
तुलसी पट्टी 3
4
456
0.0103
0,1917
0.0223
442
0.0413
नाला
423
0.0156
5
0.1382 441
0.1108
0.0609
87 8479 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
1
3
5
SCHEDULE
District Tehsil Village Survey No.
0.0010
इलाहाबाद
तुलसी पट्टी 88
फुलपुर
89
0.3054
0.2072
91
Area to be Acquired forROU (InHectare)
1
3
4
5
2
93
0.0146
0.0213 95
Phulpur
Allahabad
Nasratpur 17
0.1758
16
0..0283 97
0.0171
21
0.0445
18
96
0.0188
0.0144
0.0164
19
0.9902
योग
20
0.0928
24
0.1867 [फा. सं. एल-14014/4/2005- जी. पी. ]
39
0.2502 दीपक रतनपाल, अवर सचिव
42
0.1081
43
0.0088 New Delhi , the 15th July , 2005
38
0.0241
46
0.1332
45
0.0140
0.0230
47
48
0.0145
49
0.0828
50
0.0202
51
0.0200
TOTAL 1.1077
0.0472
181
Buapur
0.0549
182
S.O. 2658. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 360 (E) dated the 21st March, 2005 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for transportation of Natural Gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;
0.2909
197
196
0.1463
0.0010
185
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 30th April, 2005 to 26thMay, 2005;
0.0010
195
0.0411
194
193
0,2362
0.2272 Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority ;
203
0.1171
205
0.0016
206
0.0031
240
And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government ;
0.0187
211
207
0.0741
210
0.0034
0.0878
208
And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report , and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines , has decided to acquire the right of user therein .
0.0681
209
236
0.0101
0.0030
235
0.0459
237
234
0.0825 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines ;
233
0.0136
0,1000
232
0.0161
346
347
0.1388
0.0803
362
0.0073
364
363
0.1217
360
0.0352
365
0.0216
359
0.0010 And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on the date of the publication of this declaration, in the GAIL (India ) Limited , proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed , vest in the GAIL (India ) , free from all encumbrances.
8480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
1
5
369
0.0195 Allahabad Phulpur Buapur
368
0.1243
395
0.0139
405
0.0587
0.0381
396
397
0.0524
398
0.0763
401
0.1824
411
0.0496
458
0.1228
0.0010
457
456
0.1917
0.0223
442
0.0156
423
0.1108
441
449
0.0010
439
0.0857
0.0216
440
438
0.0402
TOTAL 3.3247
0.0263
460
Allahabad Phulpur Tulapur
494
0.0086
0.0349
TOTAL
0.0351 Allahabad Phulpur Mustafabad 1
2
0.2444
0.0902
8
0.0019
9
0.0322
4
0.2962
7
0.0551
6
0.0160
5
0.1861
51
53
0.0050
74
0.1582
75
0.0785
0.2061
72
0.0947
105
104
0.0133
109
0.1604
106
0.0079
0.0568
108
H5
0.0453
116
0.1361
156
0.2461
155
0.0010
166
0.1812
0.2688
173
169
0.0351
167
0.0143
0.0073
168
0.0166
172
0.0168
171
0.0306
170
0.0615
183
177
0.0327
184
0.0407
0.2418
185
TOTAL 3.1140
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2
3
4
5
0.0040
Allahabad Phulpur Tulsipatti 3
4
0.0103
0.0413
Nala
5
0.1382
87
0.0609
88
0.0010
0.3054
89
0.2072
91
93
0.0146
95
0.1758
97
0.0171
96
0.0144
0.9902
TOTAL
[F. No. L- 14014/4/2005 - G.P.] DEEPAK RATTANPAL, Under Secy.
संशोधन
नईदिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2005
का.आ. 2659.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में थुलेण्डी- फूलपुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल (इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और, सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अधीन अधिसूचना का.आ. 881 ( अ ) तारीख 3 अगस्त, 2004 द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सरकार से गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर, उप जिलाधिकारी को सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत किया था;
औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) कीधारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 2722 दिनांक 15-10-2004 और का.आ. 358 ( अ) , 359 ( अ ) , 360 ( अ ) व 361 ( अ ) तारीख 21-03-2005 द्वारा संलग्न तत्संबंधी अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के लिये जारी की थी;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड( क ) और धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना आवश्यक है , यह निर्देश देती है कि नीचे वर्णित सारणी में विनिर्दिष्ट भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना में से उक्त अनुसूची की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में विनिर्दिष्ट रीति से संशोधन किया जा सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
शुद्धि-पत्र
1. भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 30-10-2004 के का.आ. सं. 2722 दिनांक 15-10-2004 में पृष्ठ सं. 7159-7160 पर ।
पढ़िये
राजपत्रके अनुसार
जिला
तहसील गांव तहसील गांव
जिला
सोरांव
इलाहाबाद
सोरांव
प्रलाबालपुर इलाहाबाद
अलावलपुर 2. भारत के राजपत्र असाधारण दिनांक 21-03-2005 के का.आ.सं. 360 (अ ) दिनांक 21-03-2005 में पृष्ठ सं. 48 पर ।
पढ़िये राजपत्रके अनुसार
जिला
गाँव तहसील गांव जिला तहसील
इलाहाबाद सोरांव
प्रतापगढ़ सदर बीरमपुर बीरमपुर
3. भारत के राजपत्र असाधारण दिनांक 21-03-2005 के सं. का.आ. 359 ( अ ) दिनांक 21-03-2005 में पृष्ठ सं. 28 पर । राजपत्र के अनुसार
पढ़िये जिला तहसील गांव
जिला तहसील गांव प्रतापगढ़ कुंडा कुसाही प्रतापगढ़ सदर कुसाही 4. भारत के राजपत्र असाधारण दिनांक 21-03-2005 के का.आ. सं. 358 ( अ ) दिनांक 21-03-2005 में पृष्ठ सं. 2-4 परं । राजपत्रके अनुसार
पढ़िये
तहसील
जिला
गाँव तहसील गांव
जिला
सलोन
रायबरेली
केवई रायबरेली तिलोई
किशुन पुर
8481
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) vide S.O. No. 881 (E) dated 3rd August, 2004; C
And whereas the Central Government in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide notification No. S.O. 2722 dated 15-10-2004 and S.O. 358 (E) , 359 (Ε) , 360(E), & 361 (E) dated 21-03-2005 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) for acquisition of right of user in the land specified in the respective schedule annexed thereto;
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of Section 2 and Sub- section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the Public interest so to do hereby directs that the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the Schedule mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in the said schedule .
CORRIGENDUM
1. In the Gazette of India dated 30-10-2004 vide S.O. No. 2722 dated 15-10-2004 on Page No. 7160-7161 .
Be read as
As per Gazette
District Tehsil Allahabad Soraon Village District Tehsil Village Pralabalpur Allahabad Soraon Alawalpur 2.InExtraOrdinary Gazette of India dated 21-03-2005 vide S.O.No. 360 (E) dated 21-03-2005 on Page No. 53 .
Be read as
As perGazette
किशुनपुर केवई
5. भारत के राजपत्र असाधारण दिनांक 21-03-2005 के का.आ.सं. 361 (अ ) दिनांक 21-03-2005 में पृष्ठ सं. 58-59 पर ।
पढ़िये राजपत्रके अनुसार
गाँव जिला
तहसील
तहसील गांव
जिला
सलोन सरवन
तिलोई सरवन रायबरेली
रायबरेली
[फा. सं. एल-14014/04/2005- जी. पी. ]
दीपक रतनपाल, अवर सचिव
AMENDMENT
New Delhi , the 20th July , 2005
S.O. 2659.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interests that for the transportation of natural gas through Thulendi- Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India) Limited;
And whereas the Government authorised Dy . Collector to Deputation from the State Government ofUttar Pradesh to GAIL ( India ) Limited to perform the functions ofthe Competent Authority under clasue ( a) of Section 2 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
District Tehsil Village District Tehsil Village Allahabad Soraon Birampur Pratapgarh Sadar . Birampur 3. In Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 21-03-2005 vide S.O.No. 359 (E) dated 21-03-2005 on Page No. 41 .
Be read as
As per Gazette
District Tehsil Village District Tehsil Village Pratapgarh Kunda Kusahi Pratapgarh Sadar Kusahi 4.InExtra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 21-03-2005 vide S.O.No. 358 (E) dated 21-03-2005 on Page No. 12-14 .
Be read as
Asper Gazette
Tehsil
District Tehsil
District
Village Village
Rai Bareli Salon
Rai Bareli Tiloi
Kishanpur Kewai
Kishanpur Kewai 5. InExtra Ordinary Gazette of India dated 21-03-2005 vide S.O. No. 361 (E) dated 21-03-2005 on Page No. 61-62 .
Be read as
As per Gazette
Tehsil
District
Village
District Tehsil Rai Bareli Tiloi Sarvan Rai Bareli Salon
Village Sarvan
[F. No. L- 14014/4/2005-G.P. ] DEEPAK RATTANPAL , Under Secy .
8482
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2660.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का.. अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में , तारीख 07 अगस्त 2004 को भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 1922 तारीख 26 जुलाई , 2004 में निम्नलिखित रूप से संशोधन करती है , अर्थातः-
उक्त अधिसूचना की अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 1 में , " श्री ओ.पी. गुप्ता " , शब्दों के स्थान पर " श्री योगेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव " शब्द रखे जाएंगे '
[फा. सं. आर-31 015/50/2000-ओ - आर -1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 26th July , 2005
S. O. 2660.- In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1922 dated 26th July, 2004 , published in the gazette of India on the 07th August , 2004 , namely : -
In the said notification, in the Schedule , in column 1 , for the words , " Shri O.P. Gupta " , the words" Shri Yogesh Kumar Shrivastava" shall be substituted.
[ F. No. R- 31015/50/2000- O.R -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2005.
का. आ. 2661.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 772 तारीख 3 मार्च, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख फरवरी 27- मार्च 5 , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17-06-2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8483
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
सर्कल : : गोसाईगाँव
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
क्रम सं.
दाग सं .
गाँव का नाम
1
3
2
1
505 श्रीरामपुर
504
24
23
22
21
435
432
499
45 2 सिमुलटापु ( भाग 3 )
83
84
49
82
261 3 सिमुलटापु ( भाग 2)
34
247
246
195
104 4 सिमुलटापु ब्लाक
2149 G1/05-25
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर
एयर
6 4
5
0
00
37 0
03
99 0
10
58 0
09
72 0
11
26 0
33
05
0
07
05 0
01
96 0
01
44 0
00
45 0
19
37 0
00
49 0
33
01
0
01
44 0
00
20 0
02
40 0
01
03 0
32
00
0
23
35 0
00
93 [ फा. सं. ओ -12016/10/ 2004-ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी , अवर सचिव [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 8484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
New Delhi , the 27th July , 2005
S. O. 2661.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 772 , dated the 3rd March , 2005 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published inthe Gazette of India dated the February 27 - March 5 , 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State of Assam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited ;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17.06.2005.
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares thatthe right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
State : Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Circle : Gossaigaon
Area
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr .
Sr. No
Dag no.
Name of the Village
6
4
5
3
1
2
37
00
505
0
1 Shri Rampur
0
03
99
504
0
58
10
24
72
0
09
23
0
26
11
22
0
33
05
21
0
05
07
435
0
01
96
432
01
44
0
499
0
45
00
45 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8485 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
1
3
4
5
6
0
83
37
19
2 Simultapu (Part- III )
0
00
49
84
0
49
01
33
0
01
82
44
0
00
261
20 3 Simultapu ( Part- II )
0
02
34
40
247
0
01
03
0
32
246
00
0
195
23
35
0
00
93
104
4 Simultapu Block
[F. No. O-12016/10/2004-O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ] O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2662.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 771 तारीख 3 मार्च , 2005 जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख फरवरी 27 मार्च 5 , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयल हॉहै । लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17.06.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 8486
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
अनुसूची
सर्कल दोटमा
राज्य : असम
जिला : कोकराझार
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का नाम
एयर वर्ग मीटर
दाग सं .
क्रम सं.
हेक्टेयर
3
5
4
6 1
2
0
00
93
450
1 प्रतापखाटा (भाग 1 )
0
00
51
296
0
77
01
295
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/ 10/2004 -ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV]
ओ. पी. बनवारी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th July , 2005
S. O. 2662.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 771 , dated the 3rd March, 2005 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the February 27 - March 5, 2005 the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State of Assam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited ;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17-06-2005.
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares thatthe right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited , free from all encumbrances .
8487 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
SCHEDULE
Circle : Dotma
State : Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Sr. No
Hectare
Area Are Sq.mtr. Name of the Village
Dag no.
1
2
3
4
6
5
0
450
00
93 1 Pratapkhata ( Part-1 )
0
296
00
51
0
295
01
77
[F. No. O -12016/10/2004-O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ] O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2663.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का . आ. 773 तारीख 3 मार्च , 2005, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख फरवरी 27 मार्च 5 , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयेंल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17.06.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 8488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
राज्य : असम
सर्कल कोकराझार
जिला : कोकराझार
क्षेत्रफल
वर्ग मीटर क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं.
हेक्टेयर एयर
3
4
5
6
1
2
0
64
960
13
1 बासुगाँव टाउन (भाग 1 )
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/ 10/ 2004 - ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th July , 2005
S. O. 2663. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 773 , dated the 3rd March , 2005, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the February 27 - march 5, 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State of Assam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17-06-2005.
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted his report to the Central Government,
And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying thepipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
State : Assam
District : Kokrajhar
Circle : Kokrajhar
Area Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. Sr. No
Dag no.
Name of the Village
6
4
5
3
1
2
0
64
13
960
1 Basugaon Town ( Part- 1 )
[ F. No. O- 12016/10/2004- O.N.G . / D.O. - IV ] O. P. BANWARI , Under Secy .
8489
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2664.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 775 तारीख 3 मार्च, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख फरवरी 27- माचं 5 , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में नूमालीगद (असम राज्य) से शिलिगुरी (पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए नूमालीगद शिलिगुरी पाइपलाइन प्रसारण परियोजना के माध्यम से आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 26-05-2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, आयॅल इंडिया लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
सर्कल सीडली
राज्य : असम
जिला : बंगाईगावें
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम
दाग सं .
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर
एयर
सं. गाँव का नाम
4
6
5
3
1
2
01
85
446
0
1 पेटलागावें
0
03
449
50
0
03
42
254
0
255
01
47
0
60
256
04
0
73
453
06 8490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] सर्कल सीडली
राज्य : असम
जिला : बंगाईगायें
क्षेत्रफल
क्रम सं. गाँव का नाम
दाग सं.
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टेयर
एयर
1
4
3
5
6 2
0
454
42
07
1 पेटलागार्ने (जारी )
0
466
01
02
0
34
455
00
0
279
01
25
0
280
00
58
0
21
05
285
0
284
02
19
0
283
07
68
0
26
61
282
0
215
02
50
0
217
78
06
0
184
07
03
0
56
177
02
0
07
97
183
0
182
09
09
0
55
179
01
0
86
180
05
0
33
414
02
0
81
394
20
0
330
05
02 2 डांगटोला
0
16
08
354
0
353
10
01
0
97
05
352
0
351
21
97
0
00
25
343
0
05
18
344
0
62
03
342
0
345
09
00
0
02
31
340
0
40
10
198
0
18
85
199
0
196
09
86
0
10
54
197
0
21
72
173
0
00
81
172
0
05
14
171
0
35
00
126
3 दबली
0
33
43
125
0
00
28
123
0
14
46
119
0
01
33
330 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8491
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
सर्कल सीडली
राज्य : असम
जिला : बंगाईगायें
क्रम सं.
गाँव का नाम
दाग सं .
1
3
2
3.
122
दुबली (जारी)
121
112
111
109
108
333
106
107
4
10
358 4 क्मरहंगा
357
359
313 5 घिलागुरी
15
195/374
202/379
203/400 5 बिलायुरी
204
13 क्षेत्रफल
हेक्टेयर
वर्ग मीटर एयर
4
6
5
35
00
1
44
00
0
21
80
0
62
00
0
62
06
0
37
03
0
00
42
0
01
04
0
02
66
0
13
67
0
10
10
0
52
01
0
45
09
0
00
77
0
46
10
0
24
20
0
65
18
0
32
05
0
03
07
0
13
28
0
51
03
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/8/2004- ओ.एन.जी/डी.ओ.- IV ]
ओ. पी. बनवारी, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th July , 2005
S. O. 2664.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 775, dated the 3rd March , 2005, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the February 27 March 5 , 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Numaligrah Siliguri Pipeline Expansion Project from Numaligarh in the State of Assam to Siliguri in State of West Bengal by Oil India Limited ;
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 26.05.2005.
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
8492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Oil India Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
Circle : Sidli
State: Assam
District : Bongaigaon
Dag no. Sr. No Name of the Village
1
2
3
446 1 Petlagaon
449
254
255
256
453
454
466
455
279
280
285
284
283
282
215.
217
184
177
183
182
179
180
414
394
330 2 Dangtol
354
353
352
351 Area
Hectare Are Sq.mtr .
5
6
4
01
85
0
0
50
03
0
42
03
0
47
01
0
60
04
0
73
06
0
42
07
0
02
01
0
34
00
0
01
25
0
00
58
0
21
05
0
02
19
0
07
68
0
61
26
0
02
50
0
06
78
0
03
07
0
56
02
0
07
97
0
09
09
0
01
55
0
05
86
0
02
33
0
20
81
0
05
02
0
16
08
0
10
01
0
05
97
0
21
97 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
Sr. No Name of the Village
Dag no.
2
3 1
343 2Dangtol
344
342
345
340
198
199
196
197
173
172
171
126 3 Dabaly
125
123
119
330
122
121
112
111
109
108
333
106
107
4
10
358 4 Kamardanga
357
359
313 5 Ghilaguri
15
195/374
202/379
203/400
204
13
8493
Area
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr. 4
6
5
0
00
25
0
05
18
0
62
03
C
00
09
0
02
31
0
10
40
0
18
85 0
86
09
0
10
54 0
72
21
0
00
81
0
14
05
0
35
00
0
33
43 0
28
00
0
14
46 0
33
01
0
35
00
1
44
09
0
80
21
0
62
00
0
62
06
0
37
03
0
00
42
01 0
04
0
66
02
0
67
13
0
10
10 0
52
01
45 0
09
0
77
00
0
10
46 0
24
20
0
65
18
0
05
32 0
07
03 0
13
28
0
03
51 [F. No. O-12016/8/2004- O.N.G ./D.O. - IV ] O. P. BANWARI , Under Secу .
8494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
1 2
3
4 नईदिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005
3459
0.2784
1. पाँचोलास (जारी...)
3460
0.1296
3480/4082
0.0060
3480
0.0576
3466
0.1296
3479
0.0381
3478
0.0540
3476
0.0360
3475
0.0648
3474
0.0432
3473
0.0216 का. आ. 2665. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 477 तारीख 7 फरवरी, 2005, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 12 फरवरी , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा, एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थीः
3472
0.0216 और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 8 अप्रैल, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
3471
0.0720
3467
0.0493 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
3331/4081
0.0504
3332/4080
0.0504
3334
0.0504 और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
3335
0.0288
0.0144
3254/4075
3254
0.0288
3254/4074
0.0040 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;
3336/4073
0.0020
3336/4072
0.0432
3336/4071
0.0720
3253
0.0468 और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमो से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
0.0864
3252
3250
0.0040 अनुसूची
3251
0.0648
राज्य: राजस्थान
तहसील: सवाई माधोपुर जिला सवाई माधोपुर
3243/4057
0.0720 क्र० ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नंबर क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
3243/4056
0.0540
3242
0.0456 2
3
1
4
3173
0.1440 1. पाँचोलास
3853
0.0961
3174
0.0216 3854
0.0432
3097
0.0504 3855
0.0792
3098
0.0792 3855/4406
0.0238
3099
0.0936 3855/4401
0.0072
3168/4055
0.0144 3855/4248
0.0067
3106
0.1080 3850
0.3240
3107
3862
0.0792
0.0020
3110
3849
0.0288
0.1008
3111
0.0108 3864
0.1944
3113
3865
0.0741
0.0612
3116
3866
0.0468
0.0072
3119
3867
0.0864
0.3384
3872
3120
0.0020
0.2448
3121
3665
0.1080
0.3290
3127
0.0040
0.1080
3665/3978
3128
0.0720
3658
0.1080
3129
0.0576
0.0108 3877
3130
0.0504 3879
0.0432
3517
3135
0.0630
0.3240
3131
3880
0.0504
0.0020
3518
3133
0.0288
0.0252
3134
0.0370
3519
0.0144 3520
3136
0.0252
0.0144
2316
0.0393
3521
0.0288 3458
0.1440
2319
0.0648 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
2
1
2322
0.0360
8495 3
4
794
0.0144
3. जुवाड़ (जारी...)
1. पाँचोलास (जारी...)
2323
0.0020
2324
0.0432
2326
0.0792
2325
0.0040
2344
0.0648
2345
0.0648
2378
0.2016
2387
0.0576
0.0088
2391
2392
0.0161
2398
0.0072
0.0216
2397
2401
0.0432
2413
0.0360
2415
0.1296
2416
0.1440
2420
0.0144
2423
0.1008
0.1800
2422
0.3240
2431
0.0140
2228
0.0216
2211
2207
0.0108
0.3024
2209
0.0936
2176
2186
0.1986
0.0072
2185
2153
0.0576
2155
0.1224
0.0144
2158
0.1008
2154
0.0216
2152
0.0072
2121/4282
0.1080
2149
0.1800
2148
0.0576
2147
0.1224
2146/3945
2143/4275
0.0936
0.1080
2144
0.0556
84
2. खांजना डूंगर
85
0.0720
56
0.0623
0.0216
54
57
0.0216
0.1080
58
59
0.0504
0.0720
78
0.0020
63/1864
0.1008
63
64
0.1620
0.0144
65
0.0360
62/1997
0.1280
796
3. जुवाड़
0.2454
795
0.2631
801
0.0962
811
793
0.1965 792
0.0175 791
0.1443 789
0.1333 782
0.1434 769
0.0351 764
0.0591 765
0.0424 766
0.0662 767
0.0051 768
0.0097 752
0.0741 699
0.0605 698
0.0420 703
0.0278 704
0.0402 705
0.0050 706
0.0575 714
0.0252 715
0.0252 742
0.0470 744
0.0180 743
0.0497 745
0.0175 747
0.0239 495
0.0788 493
0.0238 492
0.1703 491
0.0193 490
0.2055 485
0.0116 489
0.0518 479
0.1122 245
0.1252 478
0.0406 328
0.0227 256/2468
0.0954 256
0.1117 257
0.0847 260
0.0933 327
0.1146 326
0.0020 318
0.0313
0.0046 320
319
0.1224 316
0.1768
0.0676 315
314
0.0050 298
0.2194
0.0180 295
0.1254 299
0.1646 293
292
0.1709
0.2448 290
360
0.0317
0.0360 359
0.0144 361 8496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927-
1 2
3
4
1 2
0.0020
781
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3
4
14
8. बम्बोरी
3. जुवाड़ (जारी...)
475
0.0020
106
4. नीमलीकलां
0.0244
105
0.0613
104
0.1822
110
0.0316
103
0.0048
111
0.0950
102
0.0020
113
0.0889
114
0.2022
9. खेरदा
117
0.1957
118
0.0197
13
5. बोरीफ
0.0221
0.2594
15
16
0.1598
4
0.1224
5
0.0072
3390
0.0144 6. गम्भीरा
3391
0.2090
3387
0.0872
3385
0.0823
0.0260
3383
0.0288 15
0.0432 17
0.1584 16
0.1584 13
0.0576 11
0.0432 10
0.2088 9
0.1800 4
0.0720 1
0.0648 45
0.0720 11
0.1800 12
0.0020 13
0.0864 14
0.0648 15
0.0576 16
0.0020 17
0.0144 7
0.0144 6
0.1800 5
0.1080 4
0.1944 139
0.0216
10. जटवाड़ा खुर्द
0.0406
2836
2850
0.0201
2851
0.0116
2849
0.0288
2840
0.0042
2841
0.0072
2848
0.0532
2842
0.0073
0.0544
2847
0.0576
2846
2845
0.0654
2833
0.2034
0.0811
2832
0.0044
2651
0.0031
2650
0.0020
2649
0.0936
212
7. जीनापुर
0.1368
172
0.1656
164
0.1368
162
0.1440
161
0.0720
160
0.0792
159
0.2736
99
0.1224
98
0.3456
97
0.1656
96
0.2952
53
0.4104
41
0.0216
40
36
0.0072
0.3528
33
0.0144
32
140
0.1440 138
0.1080 136
0.0108 137
0.0108 126
0.0576 128
0.0216 123
0.0288 117
0.1080 115
0.1152 92
0.0216 197
0.0072
0.0144 198
0.0864 199
200
0.0864 201
0.0020 202
0.0576
0.0360 203
204
0.1296
0.0576 221
0.0576 223
0.0097 220
224
0.0216
0.1440 225
0.0792 226
0.0504 233
0.0576 234
0.0720 235
0.0114 241
0.0108 242
0.1152 254
0.1172 253
0.1080 251
0.0464 246
11. ठींगला
0.2232
1
0.3600 244 8497
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2
3
4
1
2
3
218
0.0432
1369
0.0288 11. ठींगला (जारी...)
12. करमोदा (जारी...)
212
1370
0.2448
0.0072 213
0.0576
1371
0.0072 214
0.0020
1589
0.0450 205
0.0144
1694
0.0648 206
0.0144
1690
0.0288 198
0.1167
1691
0.0030 200
0.0392
1806
0.0864 142
0.4288
1807
0.0504 130
0.0326
1803
0.0720 128
0.1355
1802
0.0216 100
0.0020
1823
0.0864
0.1024
0.0504 105
1825
0.1581
102
1799
0.0720
0.1093
98
0.1116
1798
155
0.1123
1797
0.0144
0.2886
158
1796
0.0792
0.0470
157
1829
0.0792
0.0360
1262
12. करमोदा
0.0020
1830
0.0864
1273
0.1728
1793
0.0070
1272
1792
0.0020
0.0144
1274
1786
0.0100
0.0684
1275
1787
0.0020
0.0288
1276
0.0288
1784
0.0108
1278
1785
0.0216
0.0252
1288
1833
0.0360
0.0504
1289
1783
0.1440
0.0504
1290
1762
0.0432
0.1008
1291
1748
0.0020
0.0648
1296
1764
0.0020
0.0216
1297
1763
0.0288
0.0720
1298
1775
0.0216
0.0720
1424
0.0072
1765
0.0864
1418
1766
0.0216
0.0020
1417
1776
0.0020
0.0720
1419
1774
0.0080
0.0050
1421
0.0360
1773
0.0900
1420
1772
0.0288
0.1152
1410
1768
0.0288
0.0144
1409
1771
0.0100
0.0864
1406
0.0072
1769
0.1152
1407
1770
0.0648
0.0020
1408
1777
0.0270
0.0432
1387
1091
0.0070
0.0504
1388
0.0288
1090
0.0504
1389
0.0020
1828
0.0360
1383
51
0.0151
13. लोधीपुरा
0.0050
1382
48
0.0152
0.0288
1391
11
0.0153
0.1008
1381
35
0.1412
0.0288
1377
34
0.0233
0.0360
1376
9
0.0500
0.0792
1375
15
0.0500
0.0144
1365
17
0.0420
0.0360
1373
5
0.1022
0.0216
1366
19
0.0100
0.0216
1367
20
0.1059
0.0144
1368 8498
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4
1
2
3
1
2
4
3
23
0.0576
135
0.0360
13. लोधीपुरा (जारी...)
16. मखोली (जारी...)
21
136
0.0576
0.1299
137
1
0.0576
0.0144
138
0.0576
0.0100
49
119
0.1224 50
0.0050
114
0.0648 33
0.0100
111
0.0792 18
0.0020
110
0.1440 6335
0.2088
14. सूरवाल
0.0720
103
6334
0.0087
0.0180
104
0.0210
6333
0.2232
84
0.0720
6332
0.2232
71
6331
0.0260
0.0020
69
6330
0.0396
0.0288
53
6329
0.0738
0.1224
55
6328
0.0720
0.0864
54
5473
0.0227
0.0936
49
5441
0.0583
0.0072
43
0.0020
5443
0.1656
44
5442
0.1273
0.2376
29
5438
0.0215
0.0252
28
0.0762
5436
33
0.0010 5430
0.0428
0.0010
180
5431/7369
0.0529
0.0010
178
5432
0.0198
0.1296
17. चकेरी
1259
5428
0.0010
0.0072
1261
5427
0.1251
0.0576
1262
5427/7368
0.0745
0.0144
1284
5426
0.0696
0.0864
1282
0.0405
5422
0.0216
1283
5424
0.0448
0.0432
1281
6338
0.0288
0.0288
1305
2412
0.0178
15. धनोली
0.1008
1306
2413
0.0619
0.0072
1307
2418
0.2152
0.0720
1314
2420
0.1763
0.0504
1315
0.0100
2432
0.0072
1313
0.2011
2449
1317
0.0360 2447
0.1196
1327
0.0504 2448
0.1459
0.0216
1326
2490
0.3176
0.0216
1331
2488
0.0184
0.0432
1324
0.0626
2494
0.0072
1332
2495
0.0197
0.0360
1333
2501
0.0438
0.0360
1334
2443
0.0020
0.0216
1352
179
0.0144
0.0576 16. मखोली
1351
173
0.0792
0.0216
1348
172
0.0288
0.1872
1347
0.1224
0.0214 153
1367
0.0020 154
0.0360
1358
0.0072 155
0.0360
1369
0.0072 156
0.0648
1370
0.0288 157
0.0216
1373
0.1080 145
0.0043
1374
0.0288 144
0.0144
1375
0.1080
1376
158
0.1008 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भरित का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8, 1927
2
1
3
4
1
2
1381
0:0360
8499
4
3
0.0216 335
17. चकेरी (जारी...)
17. चकेरी (जारी...)
1382
0:0072
1392
0.1656
259
0.0648 197
0.2684
18. र३था कलां
0.0072
1391
1393
0.1440
1397
0.0576
0.0720
1398
1411
0:1440
0.0576
1410
1412
0.0144
1413
0:0792
1423
0.0040
1422
0.1008
1419
0.1656
0.0072
1420
1421
0.1944
1432
0.0216
0.0792
895
0.0072
1348
0.0072
888
0.1656
889
0.1080
808
0.0288
807
0.0216
809
0.2304
801
0.1224
785
0.1008
786
0.0288
767
0.0432
750
0.0504
751
6.6040
752
0.0288
754
0.0216
759
0.0936
758
0.1728
757
0.2160
755
0.0216
368
0.0040
217
0.0288
367
0.0360
366
0.2016
365
0.0432
358
187
0.0108 183
0.1116
0.0086 184
0.2232 149
0.0072 160
0.0100 147
0.0180 148
0.0936 146
0.0468 145
0.0586 144
0.0072 138
134
0.2376
0.2592 118
0.0792 107
0.0288 104
0.0288 103
0.0144 101
0.0864 98
0.0144 97
0.0216 65
0.0216 66/1832
0.0216 66
0.0216 62
0.0576 61
0.0576 44
0.0144 45
0.0144 58
0.0216 57
0.0288 47
0.0504 48
0.0020 49
0.0072 56
0.0072 50
0.1224 51
0.0432 3
0.0072 4
0.0432 2
0.0360 1
0.0049 1637
19. रइथा खुर्द
0.2160
357
0.1008
265
0.0216
266
0.0432
284
0.1080
283
0.0720
0.0025 1636
0.0957 1631
0.0246 1630
0.0124 1628
0.0029 1626
0.0275 7
20. नीनोनी
270
0.1080
271
0.0144
276
0.0072
277
0.0144
275
0.0040
278
0.2160
274
0.0983 6/562
0.0839 6
0.1019 1
0.0020 6/503
0.0020 8
0.1224 4611
21. रवांजना चौड़
0.0648
273
0.0072
333
0.2160
334
2149 G1/05-27
0.0720 4612
0.0936 4613
0.0020 4609 8500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
1
2
3
4 1 2
3
4
3344
4608
0.0072
0.0020
21. रवांजना चौड़ (जारी...)
21. खांजना चौड़ (जारी...)
3409
4614
0.0045
0.0072
3369
4615
0.0504
0.0144
3391
4616
0.0432
0.0144
3390
4524
0.1728
0.0432
3386
4520
0.0864
0.0720
3385
4527
0.0020
0.0576
3382
4523
0.0504
0.0432.
3383
4521
0.1368
0.0050
3380
4522
0.0216
0.0050
3381
4471
0.0288
0.0432
3379
4469
0.0288
0.0072
3378
4470
0.1296
0.0792
3377
4468
0.0050
0.0072 4467
3376
0.0864
0.0432
3375
4466
0.0020
0.0432
3374
4443
0.0020
0.0576
3373
4447
0.0020
0.0216
3482
4131
0.0086
0.0576
3372
4083/5087
0.0144
0.0050
3590/4998
4074/5309
0.0576
0.0504
3591
4083
0.0020
0.1872
1907
4074
0.0576
0.0144
1925
0.0144
0.0216 4132
1926
4075
0.0288
0.0072
2066
4133
0.0216
0.0864
2188
0.0360
4147
0.1080
2187/5121
0.0576
0.1224 4148
2186
0.1080
0.0288
4076
2185
0.0072
0.1152 4077
2191
0.1368
0.0504
4071
0.2088
2192
0.1440
4149
2193
0.1440
0.0050
4164
0.1152
2194
0.1512
4163
2195
0.1800
0.0792
4166
2201
0.2088
0.0792
4167
0.2304
2199
0.0020
4174
0.0144
0.0720
2459
4168
2458
0.0648
0.0072
4169
2457
0.0936
0.0936
4173
2456
0.0648
0.0504
4172
2455
0.0864
0.0432
4171
2411
0.1296
0.0576
3415
2412
0.1728
0.0288
3416
2413
0.1944
0.0050
3414/5093
2404
0.0864
0.0030
3412
2405
0.0864
0.0936
3413
957
0.3960
0.0504
22. कुस्तला
3411
0.3024
859
0.0504
3352
866
0.1655
0.0792
3410
863
0.2448
0.0020
3409
907
0.0552
0.0050
3407
908
0.0295
0.1080
3355
909
0.0432
0.0072
3356
912
0.1280
0.0288
3342
911
0.0126
0.0072
3357
914
0.1213
0.1296
3358 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
2
2 1
3
4
1
915
0.0820
22. कुस्तला (जारी...)
8501 3
4 4484
0.0065
22. कुस्तला (जारी...)
916
0.0216
0.2160
5167
5165
0.0288
5165/5334
0.0285
5164
0.1440
5160
0.1140
0.0010
5159/5333
5136
0.1944
5138
0.1506
5139
0.1440
5127
0.0432
5128
0.0144
5129
0.0266
5002
0.1728
4994
0.3638
4997
0.1921
4996/5574
0.1440
4972
0.0190
4960
0.1296
4930
0.0432
0.0144
4959
4932
0.1944
4932/5470
00144
4943
0.0576
4944
0.0504
4945
0.0720
4946
0.0255
0.0504
4947
4948
0.0145
4910
0.0157
0.0166
4909
4830
0.0360
4858
0.1512
4860
0.0648
4861
0.0648
4862
0.0432
4878
0.1152
4871
0.2077
4258
0.0216 4238/5615
0.0360 42.42
0.0681 4241
0.0720 4243
0.0050 4247
0.1235 4230
0.0504 4249/5386
0.1920 4228
0.1063 4006
0.0126 3887
0.0432 4005
0.0186 3889
0.1179 3890
0.2278 3896
0.2789 3895
0.0254 3897
0.0985 3900
0.0399 3901
0.0141 3902
0.0487 3903
0.1966 3904
0.0304 3906
0.1072 3855
0.0360 3819
0.0216 3820
0.0160
0.0020 3848
0.0050 3843
3842
0.0072 3838
0.1118 3837
0.0216
0.0864 3838
0.0050 3841
0.0216 3840
3854
0.0144 3834
0.0010 3835/5221
0.0010
23. पंचीपल्या
4873
0.0020
4872
0.0020
4901/5545
0.2088
4902
0.1152
4697
0.0288
4469
0.0861
4467
0.1725
4461
0.2350
4462
0.0072
4460
0.1409
4456
0.0864
4459
0.1080
4458
0.2016
4261
0.0764
4262
0.0432
0.0144
4261/5329
4260
0.0144
4260/5328
0.0890
508
0.3024 510
0.1440
0.0144 511
0.0504 519
529
0.0504 528
0.0432 520
0.0432
0.0216 521
526
0.0010 527
0.0936 524
0.0144 525
0.0216 396
0.0936 395
0.3096 394
0.0864 385
0.1728 384
0.0072 379
0.1944 346
0.0360 8502
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
4
1
2
4 1 2
3
0.0020
179
343
0.1440
24. फुसोदा (जारी...)
23. पंचीपल्या (जारी...)
171
0.0504
0.1008
342
178
0.1008 809
0.0072
0.0072
0.0072
341
177/1806
177
0.1476
0.0144
340
174
0.1728 812
0.0072
176
0.0900 813
0.0144
0.1656
153
0.0072
219
0.0432
151
0.2016
215
0.1296
0.0864
149
214
150
0.0072
0.0216
911
147
0.0900 213
0.0288
146
0.0216 191
0.0288
0.2448
134/1744
0.0504
190
132
0.0432 183
0.1584
130
0.0504
0.0288
913
0.0360
221
0.0360
914
222
0.1800 915
0.0360
225
0.1440 916
0.0020
224
0.0054
0.0072
993
0.0057
228/1750
0.0504
992
0.0025
226
0.0720
991
0.1584 987
228
0.2088
397
0.0972
0.0720
983
0.2160
394/1814
990
0.0020
0.0504
394
1010
0.1080
0.0216
394/1815
1008
0.0020
405
0.0072
0.0144
1009
0.2232
407
1029
0.1152
408
0.0144 1029/2195
0.0288
0.0576
439/1700
1027
0.0936
409
0.0720
0.0432
1026
435
0.0020 1121
0.0020
436
0.0216 1122
0,0216
0.1152 1123
0.0360
411
434
0.1080 1124
0.0648
418
0.0720 1125
0.0288
419
0.1296 1126
0.0058
802
0.0504
0.0576
1165
801
0.0504 1177
0.1224
0.0144
800
1196
0.0028
0.1728
808
1178
0.1440
0.0648
809
1179
0.0144
810
0.0050 1180
0.0576
812
0.0504 1181
0.0432
813
0.0216 1186
0.0432
0.0020
1290
1183
0.0020
0.1224
1289
0.0720
1184
818
0.1008 1207
0.0432
817.
0.0180 1211
0.1080
0.0144
822
1212
0.0576
823
0.0216
0.0025
1210
836
0.0072 1209
0.1224
0.0756
837
1215
0.0072
856
0.0108 1216
0.0576
857
0.0648 1217
0.0144
858
0.0288 164
0.1800
24. फुसोदा
859
0.0612
0.0216
168
0.0576
852
0.0072 170
860
0.0432 161
0.0072 8503 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
4 1
2
4
2
3
861
0.0020
136
0.0360
25. कानसीर (जारी...)
24. फुसोदा (जारी...)
878
0.0020
168
0.1008
167
880
0.0576
0.0792 879
0.1512
172
0.0504
0.0252
172/1371
0.0432 882
920
166
0.0180
0.0144
0.0720 922/1779
0.0180
213
921
0.0432
214/1324
0.0144 1002
0.0432
214
0.0360 1001
214/1323
0.0144
0.0144 1020/1776
0.0216
212/1322
0.0072 1020
0.1584
212
0.0432
212/1327
0.0216
1016
0.0288 1017
0.0504
0.0040
211
0.0576 1028
0.0020
211/1328
1029
0.0576
208/1329
0.0040 1030
0.0864
0.0864
216
1037
0.0288
217
0.0040
0.0040
0.0072
243
1031
0.1224
239
1034
0.1080 1033
238
0.0072
0.0050
0.0020
240
1036
0.0648
0.0288
237
0.0576 1035
1056
236
0.2232
0.1224
235
0.0040 1055
0.0216
0.0576
559
0.1800
1054
560
0.1080 1052
0.0576
0.0432 1002/1825
0.0020
575/1471
511
0.1296
0.0720
575
25. कानसीर
515
0.1080
575/1510
0.0216
582
0.0864 514
0.1152
0.0216 520
583
0.1080
520/1521
0.0504
0.0432
583/1464
0.1728
584
0.0216 525/1459
585
490
0.1584
0.0144
0.0504
489
599
0.1440
571
487
0.0864
0.0040
0.0020
0.1728
488
598/1508
600
0.1224
0.1008
411
0.0072
484
601
0.1008
0.0936
0.0648 413
603
602
0.0040
0.0576 412
1636
0.1728
0.0863 415
26. बाडोलास
0.0072
1645
0.1460 416
0.0520
0.2016
1649
429
0.0576
0.0144
1643
431
1651
0.0894
0.0792
433/1513
1656
0.0983 433
0.0792
0.1424 434
0.0040
1610
0.0228
1609
0.1008
299
0.0165
1659
301
0.0072
0.0732
1667
298
0.1944
1668
0.0144
0.0929 279
1672
0.0020
0.1080
104/1374
0.0736
1674
104
0.0144
0.0507
1673
107
0.1296
1676
0.0134 106
0.0360
1677
0.0568 109
0.1368
0.0325
0.0144
1678
135
1687
0.0504
0.0040
108 8504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8, 1927
4
2 1 2
3
1
1686
0.0462
26. बाडोलास (जारी...)
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
663
0.1008
26. बाडोलास (जारी...)
1698
0.0134
1696
0.0580
1697
0.0786
0.1422
1705
1714
0.1378
1715
0.0284
1723
0.1296
1723/2306
0.0020
1724
0.0020
0.0770
1730
1731
0.0072
0.0864
1738
1737
0.0540
0.0540
1741
1742
0.0982
662
0.1512 674
0.0216 675
0.0805 660
0.0504
0.2016 659/2228
659
0.1368 658
0.0020
0.0062 658/2292
680
0.2124 656
0.1800 656/2238
0.0250 655
0.0504 652
0.1800 653/2145
0.0326 561
0.1584
27. कीरपुरा
1743
0.0789
1744
0.0888
1756
0.0719
1773
0.0920
1757
0.0936
1772
0.0216
0.0216
1770
1771
0.1065
1833
0.0726
0.1389
1852
0.0100
1853
0.1236
1854
1855
0.0888
0.0020
1846
0.0538
1845
1859
0.0159
1872
0.0491
1871
0.0504
1873
0.0324
1870
0.0216
1874
0.1067
1946
0.0343
1945
0.0216
0.0464
1944
1941
0.1584
1952
0.1506
1953
0.0020
1955
0.1368
0.0774
1960
1961
0.0256
1967
0.0774
1966
0.0417
0.0216
1965
1964
0.0144
1973/2124
0.0054
1973/2123
0.0130
1977
0.2284
1978
0.0020
1982
0.0936
0.0610
1981
1980
0.0796
665
0.0918
665/2192
0.0216
664
0.1107
560
0.0050 562
0.0050 559
0.2334 555
0.0576 554
0.1584 529
0.0360 531/985
0.1617 531/984
0.0360
0.0072 531/957
0.0216 531/955
532
0.0432 532/939
0.0257 532/977
0.0050
0.1728 534/1005
499/952
0.1440 536
0.1080
0.0413 488
495
0.0072
0.0144 494
493
0.0565 492
0.0223 498
0.0432 370
0.7056
0.0543 368
362
0.4032 234
0.0432
0.0254 354/1006
353
0.1512 352
0.0208 333
0.0076 348
0.2160
0.0216 347
346
0.1224 326
0.0067
0.0576 327
340
0.0432
0.0557 341
0.0360 337
0.0573 342
0.0360 336
343
0.0864 306
0.0020 (फा.सं. आर-31015 /78 / 2004-ओ आर- II )
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव 8505 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005
1 2
4
3
3460
0.1296
1. Pancholas (Contd . )
0.0060
3480/4082
3480
0.0576
3466
0.1296
3479
0.0381
3478
0.0540
3476
0.0360
3475
0.0648
3474
0.0432
3473
0.0216 5. O. 2665.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 477 , dated the 7th February , 2005, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 12th February , 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai-Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
3472
0.0216
3471
0.0720 Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 8th April , 2005;
3467
0.0493
3331/4081
0.0504 Andwhereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government;
3332/4080
0.0504
3334
0.0504
3335
0.0288 And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;
3254/4075
0.0144
3254
0.0288
3254/4074
0.0040 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
3336/4073
0.0020
3336/4072
0.0432
0.0720
3336/4071
3253
0.0468 And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ,freefrom all encumbrances .
3252
0.0864
3250
0.0040 SCHEDULE
3251
0.0648 Tehsil : Sawai Madhopur District : Sawai Madhopur State : Rajasthan
3243/4057
0.0720
3243/4056
0.0540
Area in Hectare
Survey No.
S.No. Name of Village
3242
0.0456 2
3
4
1
3173
0.1440 1. Pancholas
3853
0.0961
3174
0.0216 3854
0.0432
3097
0.0504 3855
0.0792
3098
0.0792 3855/4406
0.0238
3099
0.0936 3855/4401
0.0072
3168/4055
0.0144 3855/4248
0.0067
3106
0.1080 3850
0.3240
3107
0.0792 3862
0.0020
3110
0.0288 3849
0.1008
3111
0.0108 3864
0.1944
3113
0.0612
0.0741
3865
3116
0.0468 3866
0.0072
3119
0.0864 3867
0.3384
3120
0.0020 3872
0.2448
3121
0.1080 3665
0.3290
3127
0.0040 3665/3978
0.1080
3128
0.1080 3658
0.0720
3129
0.0108 3877
0.0576
3130
0.0504 3879
0.0432
3135
0.0630 3517
0.3240
3131
0.0504 3880
0.0020
3133
0.0288 3518
0.0252
3134
0.0144 3519
0.0370
3136
0.0144 3520
0.0252
2316
0.0288 3521
0.0393
2319
0.0648 3458
0.1440
2322
0.0360 3459
0.2784 8506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
3
2
4 1
2323
0.0020
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 1
2
4
3
793
0.1965 3. Juwad ( Contd . )
1. Pancholas ( Contd.)
2324
0.0432
2326
0.0792
2325
0.0040
2344
0.0648
2345
0.0648
2378
0.2016
2387
0.0576
2391
0.0088
2392
0.0161
2398
0.0072
0.0216
2397
2401
0.0432
2413
0.0360
2415
0.1296
2416
0.1440
2420
0.0144
2423
0.1008
2422
0.1800
2431
0.3240
2228
0.0140
2211
0.0216
2207
0.0108
2209
0.3024
2176
0.0936
2186
0.1986
2185
0.0072
2153
0.0576
2155
0.1224
2158
0.0144
2154
0.1008
2152
0.0216
2121/4282
0.0072
0.1080
2149
2148
0.1800
2147
0.0576
2146/3945
0.1224
2143/4275
0.0936
2144
0.1080
84
0.0556 .2. Rawanjana Dungar
85
0.0720
56
0.0623
54
0.0216
57
0.0216
58
0.1080
59
0.0504
78
0.0720
63/1864
0.0020
63
0.1008
64
0.1620
65
0.0144
62/1997
0.0360
796
3. Juwad
0.1280
795
0.2454
801
0.2631
811
0.0962
794
0.0144
0.0175
792
0.1443
791
789
0.1333
0.1434
782
0.0351
769
764
0.0591
0.0424
765
0.0662
766
767
0.0051
0.0097
768
752
0.0741
0.0605
699
698
0.0420
0.0278
703
704
0.0402
705
0.0050
706
0.0575
714
0.0252
715
0.0252
742
0.0470
0.0180
744
743
0.0497
745
0.0175
0.0239
747
495
0.0788
0.0238
493
492
0.1703
491
0.0193
490
0.2055
0.0116
485
489
0.0518
479
0.1122
245
0.1252
478
0.0406
0.0227
328
256/2468
0.0954
256
0.1117
257
0.0847
260
0.0933
327
0.1146
0.0020
326
0.0313
318
0.0046
320
0.1224
319
0.1768
316
0.0676
315
0.0050
314
0.2194
298
0.0180
295
0.1254
299
0.1646
293
0.1709
292
0.2448
290
0.0317
360
0.0360
359
0.0144
361
0.0020
781 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4 1
2
1 2
3
475
0.0020 3. Juwad ( Contd . )
8507 3
4
15
0.0432
8. Bambori (Contd . )
4. Nimli Kalan
106
0.0244
105
0.0613
104
0.1822
110
0.0316
103
0.0048
111
0.0950
102
0.0020
113
0.0889
114
0:2022
117
0.1957 17
0.1584 16
0.1584 13
0.0576 11
0.0432
0.2088 10
9
0.1800
0.0720 4
1
0.0648 45
0.0720 11
0.1800
!
9. Kherda
118
0.0197
13
5. Borif
0.0221
15
0.2594
16
0.1598
4
0.1224
5
0.0072
3390
0.0144
3391
0.2090 6. Gambhira !
3387
0.0872
3385
0.0823
3383
0.0260
2836
0.0406
2850
0.0201
2851
0.0116
0.0288
2849
0.0042
2840
0.0072
2841
0.0532
2848
0.0073
2842
0.0544
2847
0.0576
2846
0.0654
2845
0.2034
2833
0.0811
2832
0.0044
2651
0.0031
2650
0.0020
2649
0.0936
212
7. Jinapur
0.1368
172
0.1656
164
0.1368
162
0.1440
161
0.0720
160
0.0792
159
0.2736
99
0.1224
98
0.3456
97
0.1656
96
0.2952
53
0.4104
41
0.0216
40
0.0072
36
0.3528
33
12
0.0020 13
0.0864 14
0.0648 15
0.0576 16
0.0020 17
0.0144 7
0.0144 6
0.1800 5
0.1080 4
0.1944 139
10. Jatwada Khurd
0.0216 140
0.1440 138
0.1080 136
0.0108 137
0.0108 126
0.0576 128
0.0216 123
0.0288 117
0.1080 115
0.1152 92
0.0216 197
0.0072
0.0144 198
199
0.0864
0.0864 200
0.0020 201
0.0576 202
0.0360 203
0.1296 204
0.0576 221
0.0576 223
0.0097 220
0.0216 224
0.1440 225
0.0792 226
0.0504 233
0.0576 234
0.0720 235
0.0114 241
0.0108 242
0.1152 254
0.1172 253
0.1080 251
0.0464 246
11. Thingla
0.0144
32
0.2232
1
0.0288
14
8.. Bambori
2149 GI/05-28
0.3600 244
0.0432 218 8508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4 3
2
4
1
1 2
3
212
1370
0.0072
0.2448
12. Karmoda (Contd.)
11. Thingla (Contd.)
0.0072 213
1371
0.0576
214
0.0020
1589
0.0450
0.0648 205
0.0144
1694
0.0288
0.0144
1690
206
0.1167
0.0030 198
1691
0.0864 200
1806
0.0392
0.0504
1807
0.4288
142
0.0720 130
0.0326
1803
128
0.1355
1802
0.0216
0.0020
100
1823
0.0864
0.0504
0.1024
105
1825
0.0720 102
0.1581
1799
0.1093
0.1116 98
1798
0.1123
0.0144 155
1797
0.2886
158
0.0792
1796
0.0470
157
0.0792
1829
0.0360
1262
12. Karmoda
0.0020
1830
0.0864
1273
0.1728
1793
0.0070
1272
0.0020
1792
0.0144
1274
0.0100
1786
0.0684
1275
0.0020
1787
0.0288
1276
0.0288
1784
0.0108
1278
0.0216
1785
0.0252
1288
0.0360
1833
0.0504
1289
0.1440
1783
0.0504
1290
0.0432
1762
0.1008
1291
0.0020
1748
0.0648
1296
0.0020
1764
0.0216
1297
1763
0.0288
0.0720
1298
0.0216
1775
0.0720
1424
0.0072
1765
0.0864
1418
0.0216
1766
0.0020
1417
0.0020
1776
0.0720
1419
0.0080
1774
0.0050
1421
0.0360
1773
0.0900
1420
0.0288
1772
0.1152
1410
0.0288
1768
0.0144
1409
0.0100
1771
0.0864
1406
1769
0.0072
0.1152
1407
0.0648
1770
0.0020
1408
0.0270
1777
0.0432
1387
1091
0.0070
0.0504
1388
1090
0.0288
0.0504
1389
1828
0.0020
0.0360
1383
0.0151
51
13. Lodhipura
0.0050
1382
0.0152
48
0.0288
1391
0.0153
0.1008
1381
35
0.1412
0.0288
1377
0.0233
34
0.0360
1376
0.0500
9
0.0792
1375
0.0500
15
0.0144
1365
0.0360
17
0.0420 1373
0.1022
0.0216
5
1366
0.0100
0.0216
19
1367
0.0144
0.1059
20
1368
0.0288
23
0.0360 1369 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
* भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927 1
2
4
2
3
1
21
0.1299
13: Lodhipura (Contd.)
8509 3
4
136
0.0576
16. Makholi (Contd .)
1
0.0144
0.0100
49
50
0.0050
33
0.0100
18
0.0020
14. Soorwal
6335
0.2088
6334
0.0087
6333
0.0210
0.0720
6332
6331
0.0260
6330
0.0396
6329
0.0738
6328
0.0720
5473
0.0227
5441
0.0583
5443
0.0020
5442
0.1273
0.0215
5438
5436
0.0762
5430
0.0428
5431/7369
0.0529
5432
0.0198
137
0.0576 138
0.0576 119
0.1224 114
0.0648 111
0.0792
0.1440 110
103
0.0720 104
0.0180 84
0.2232 71
0.2232
0.0020 69
53
0.0288 55
0.1224 54
0.0864 49
0.0936 43
0.0072 44
0.1656 29
0.2376 28
0.0252 33
0.0010 180
0.0010 178
0.0010 1259
0.1296
17. Chakeri
5428
0.0010
5427
0.1251
5427/7368
0.0745
5426
0.0696
5422
0.0405
0.0448
5424
6338
0.0288
2412
0.0178
2413
0.0619
15. Dhanoli !
2418
0.2152
2420
0.1763
2432
0.0100
2449
0.2011
2447
0.1196
2448
0.1459
2490
0.3176
2488
0.0184
2494
0.0626
2495
0.0197
2501
0.0438
2443
0.0020
16. Makholi
179
0.0144
0.0792
173
172
0.1872
153
0.1224
0:0360
154
155
0.0360
156
0.0648
157
0.0216
145
0.0043
144
0.0144
158
0.1008
135
0.0576
1261
0.0072 1262
0.0576
0.0144 1284
1282
0.0864 1283
0.0216 1281
0.0432 1305
0.0288 1306
0.1008 1307
0.0072
0.0720 1314
1315
0.0504 1313
0.0072 1317
0.0360 1327
0.0504 1326
0.0216 1331
0.0216 1324
0.0432 1332
0.0072 1333
0.0360 1334
0.0360
0.0216 1352
1351
0.0576 1348
0.0216 1347
0.0288 1367
0.0214 1358
0.0020 1369
0.0072 1370
0.0072 1373
0.0288 1374
0.1080 1375
0.0288 1376
C.1080 1381
0.0360 8510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
4
4
1 2
3
2
3
1
0.0648
259
0.0072
1382
17. Chakeri (Contd.)
17. Chakeri (Contd.)
197
0.2684
18. Reitha Kalan
1392
0.1656
187
0.0108
0.0072
1391
183
0.1116 1393
0.1440
0.0086
0.0576
184
1397
0.2232
149
0.0720
1398
160
0.0072
0.1440
1411
147
0.0100
0.0576
1410
148
0.0180 1412
0.0144
146
0.0936 1413
0.0792
0.0040
145
0.0468 1423
0.0586
144
1422
0.1008
0.0072
138
0.1656
1419
134
0.2376 1420
0.0072
118
0.2592 1421
0.1944
107
0.0216
0.0792 1432
104
0.0288 895
0.0792
103
0.0288
0.0072
1348
0.0144
101
0.0072
888
0.0864
98
889
0.1656
97
0.0144 808
0.1080
65
0.0216 807
0.0288
66/1832
0.0216
0.0216
809
66
0.0216 801
0.2304
0.0216
62
785
0.1224
61
0.0576 786
0.1008
44
0.0576 767
0.0288
45
0.0144 750
0.0432
0.0144
58
0.0504
751
0.0216
57
752
0.0040
0.0288
47
754
0.0288
48
0.0504
0.0216
759
0.0020
49
0.0936
758
0.0072
56
0.1728
757
0.0072
0.2160
50
755
0.1224
0.0216
51
368
0.0432
3
0.0040
217
0.0072
4
367
0.0288
0.0432
2
0.0360
366
0.0360
1
0.2016
365
0.0049
1637
0.0432
358
19. Reitha Khurd
0.0025
1636
0.2160
357
0.0957
1631
0.1008
265
0.0246
0.0216
1630
266
0.0124
1628
0.0432
284
1626
0.0029
0.1080
283
0.0275
7
0.0720
20. Ninoni
270
0.0983
6/562
0.1080
271
6
0.0839
0.0144
276
0.1019
1
277
0.0072
0.0020
6/503
0.0144
275
0.0020
8
0.0040
278
0.1224
4611
0.2160
274
21. Rawanjana Chod
0.0720
4612
273
0.0648
0.0936
4613
0.0072
333
0.0020
4609
334
0.2160
0.0020
4608
335
0.0216 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
4614
0.0045
4615
0.0504 21. Rawanjana Chod (Contd.)
8511 1
2
3
4
3409
0.0072
3369
0.0144 21. Rawanjana Chod (Contd.)
4616
0.0432
4524
0.1728
4520
0.0864
4527
0.0020
4523
0.0504
4521
0.1368
4522
0.0216
4471
0.0288
4469
0.0288
4470
0.1296
4468
0.0050
4467
0.0864
4466
0.0020
4443
0.0020
4447
0.0020
4131
0.0086
4083/5087
0.0144
4074/5309
0.0576
4083
0.0020
4074
0.0576
4132
0.0144
4075
0.0288
4133
0.0216
4147
0.0360
4148
0.0576
4076
0.0288
4077
0.0072
4071
0.0504
4149
0.1440
4164
0.0050
4163
0.1512
4166
0.0792
4167
0.0792
4174
0.0020
4168
0.0720
0.0072.
4169
0.0936
4173
0.0504
4172
0.0432
4171
0.0576
3415
0.0288
3416
0.0050
3414/5093
0.0030
3412
0.0936
3413
0.0504
3411
0.0504
3352
0.0792
3410
0.0020
3409
0.0050
3407
0.1080
3355
0.0072
3356
0.0288
3342
0.0072
3357
0.1296
3358
0.0072
3344
3391
0.0144
3390
0.0432
3386
0.0720
3385
0.0576
3382
0.0432
3383
0.0050
3380
0.0050
3381
0.0432
3379
0.0072
3378
0.0792
3377
0.0072
3376
0.0432
3375
0.0432
3374
0.0576
3373
0.0216
3482
0.0576
3372
0.0050
3590/4998
0.0504
3591
0.1872
1907
0.0144
1925
0.0216
1926
0.0072
2066
0.0864
2188
0.1080
2187/5121
0.1224
2186
0.1080
2185
0.1152
2191
0.1368
2192
0.2088
2193
0.1440
2194
0.1152
2195
0.1800
2201
0.2088
2199
0.2304
2459
0.0144
2458
0.0648
2457
0.0936
2456
0.0648
2455
0.0864
2411
0.1296
2412
0.1728
2413
0.1944
2404
0.0864
2405
0.0864 22. Kushtala
857
0.3960
859
0.3024
866
0.1655
868
0.2448
907
0.0552
908
0.0295
0.0432
909
912
0.1280
911
0.0126
914
0.1213
915
0.0820 8512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
2
1
3
4
1
3
4 2
916
0.0216
0.0216
4258
22. Kushtala ( Contd .)
22. Kushtala ( Contd.)
0.2160
4238/5615
0.0360 5167
4242
0.0288
5165
0.0681
4241
5165/5334
0.0720
0.0285
0.0050 5164
0.1440
4243
5160
4247
0.1140
0.1235
0.0504
0.0010
4230
5159/5333
0.1920 5136
4249/5386
0.1944
0.1063 5138
0.1506
4228
0.1440
4006
0.0126 5139
0.0432 5127
0.0432
3887
4005
0.0186 5128
0.0144
0.1179 5129
0.0266
3889
5002
0.1728
3890
0.2278
0.3638
3896
0.2789 4994
0.0254 4997
3895
0.1921
0.0985
3897
0.1440
4996/5574
3900
0.0399 4972
0.0190
4960
3901
0.0141
0.1296
4930
0.0432
0.0487
3902
0.1966 4959
0.0144
3903
0.0304 4932
0.1944
3904
0.1072
3906
4932/5470
0.0144
4943
0.0576
3855
0.0360
0.0216 4944
0.0504
3819
3820
0.0160 4945
0.0720
0.0020 4946
0.0255
3848
3843
0.0050 4947
0.0504
0.0145
3842
0.0072 4948
3838
0.1118
0.0157
4910
0.0216
3837
4909
0.0166
4830
0.0864
0.0360
3839
0.0050 4858
0.1512
3841
4860
3840
0.0648
0.0216 4861
0.0648
3854
0.0144
0.0432
0.0010 4862
3834
4878
0.0010
0.1152
3835/5221
0.2077
508
0.3024 4871
23. Panchipalya
4873
0.0020
510
0.1440 4872
0.0020
511
0.0144 4901/5545
0.2088
519
0.0504 4902
529
0.0504
0.1152
0.0432 4697
0.0288
528
4469
0.0861
520
0.0432
0.0216 4467
0.1725
521
4461
0.2350
526
0.0010 4462
527
0.0072
0.0936
524
0.0144 4460
0.1409
0.0216 4456
0.0864
525
396
0.0936 4459
0.1080
4458
0.2016
395
0.3096 4261
0.0764
394
0.0864 4262
0.0432
385
0.1728
0.0072 4261/5329
0.0144
384
4260
0.0144
379
0.1944
0.0890
346
0.0360 4260/5328
0.0065
343
0.1440 4484 8513 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
3
4
1
1 2
171
0.0504
0.1008
24. Fusoda ( Contd . )
342
23. Panchipalya (Contd.)
178
0.1008
0:0072
809
177/1806
0.0072
0.0072
341
177
0.1476 340
0.0144
174
812
0.1728
0.0072
176
0.0900 813
0.0144
153
0.1656 219
0.0072
0.0432
0.2016
151
215
214
149
0.1296
0.0864
0.0072
150
0.0216
911
147
0.0900 213
0.0288
146
0.0216
0.0288
191
134/1744
0.2448 190
0.0504
132
0.0432 183
0.1584
0.0504
130
913
0.0288
221
0.0360 914
0.0360
222
0.0360
0.1800 915
225
0.1440
0.0020
916
224
0.0054 993
0.0072
228/1750
0.0057
0.0504
992
226
0.0025
0.0720
991
0.1584
228
987
0.2088
397
0.0972
0.0720
983
0.2160
394/1814
990
0.0020
0.0504
394
1010
0.1080
0.0020
394/1815
0.0216 1008
405
0.0072 1009
0.0144
0.2232
407
0.1152
1029
408
0.0144 1029/2195
0.0288
0.0576
439/1700
1027
0.0936
409
0.0720 1026
0.0432
435
0.0020 1121
0.0020
0.0216
436
0.0216 1122
411
0.1152 1123
0.0360
0.1080
434
1124
0.0648
0.0720
418
1125
0.0288
419
0.1296
0.0058
1126
802
0.0504 1165
0.0576
801
0.0504
0.1224
1177
800
0.0028
0.0144 1196
0.1728
808
1178
0.1440
0.0648
0.0144
809
1179
810
0.0050
0.0576
1180
812
0.0504
0.0432
1181
813
0.0216 1186
0.0432
1290
0.0020 1183
0.0020
1289
0.1224
0.0720
1184
818
0.1008
0.0432
1207
817
0.0180
0.1080
1211
822
0.0144
0.0576
1212
823
0.0216
0.0025
1210
836
0.0072
0:1224
1209
837
0.0756
0.0072
1215
856
0.0108
0.0576
1216
0.0648
857
1217
0.0144
858
0.0288 164
0.1800
24. Fusoda
0.0612
859
168
0.0216
852
0.0072
0.0576
170
860
0.0432
0.0072
161
0.0020
861
0.0020
179 8514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
3
4
1 2
3
4 1
878
0.0020
168
0.1008
25. Kansir ( Contd . )
24. Fusoda (Contd .)
880
0.0576
167
0.0792
172
879
0.1512
0.0504 882
172/1371
0.0252
0.0432
166
920
0.0180
0.0144
0.0180
213
0.0720 922/1779
921
0.0432
214/1324
0.0144 1002
0.0432
214
0.0360 1001
0.0144
214/1323
0.0144 1020/1776
212/1322
0.0072
0.0216
1020
212
0.1584
0.0432 1016
212/1327
0.0216
0.0288
0.0504
211
0.0040 1017
1028
0.0020
211/1328
0.0576 1029
0.0576
208/1329
0.0040 1030
0.0864
216
0.0864
217
1037
0.0288
0.0040 1031
0.0040
243
0.0072
0.1224
0.1080 1034
239
238
0.0050
0.0072 1033
1036-
240
0.0020
0.0648
0.0288
237
1035
0.0576
236
0.1224 1056
0.2232
1055
0.0216
235
0.0040 1054
0.1800
559
0.0576
560.
1052
0.0576
0.1080 1002/1825
0.0020
0.0432
575/1471
0.1296
575
0.0720 25. Kansir
511
515
0.1080
0.0216
575/1510
514
0.1152
582
0.0864 520
0.1080
583
0.0216 520/1521
0.0504
583/1464
0.0432 525/1459
0.1728
584
0.0216 490
0.1584
585
0.0144 489
0.0504
599
0.1440 487
0.0864
571
0.0040 488
0.1728
0.0020
598/1508
411
0.1008
600
0.1224 484
0.0072
0.1008
601
413
603
0.0936
0.0648 412
602
0.0040
0.0576 415
1636
0.0863
0.1728
26. Badolas
416
0.0072
1645
0.1460 429
0.2016
1649
0.0520
0.0144
431
1643
0.0576 433/1513
0.0792
1651
0.0894 433
1656
0.0792
0.0983 434
1610
0.0040
0.1424 299
0.1008
1609
0.0228 301
0.0072
1659
0.0165 298
1667
0.0732
0.1944
279
1668
0.0144
0.0929
1672
104/1374
0.1080
0.0020 104
1674
0.0144
0.0736 107
0.1296
1673
0.0507 106
0.0360
1676
0.0134 109
0.1368
1677
0.0568
1678
135
0.0144
0.0325 108
0.0040
1687
0.0504 136
0.0360
1686
0.0462 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
3
1
2 1
2
1698
0.0134
26. Badolas (Contd.)
8515 3
4
0.1512 662
26. Badolas (Contd . )
0.0580
1696
1697
0.0786
1705
0.1422
1714
0.1378
1715
0.0284
1723
0.1296
0.0020
1723/2306
1724
0.0020
1730
0.0770
0.0072
1731
1738
0.0864
1737
0.0540
1741
0.0540
1742
0.0982
674
0.0216 675
0.0805 660
0.0504
0.2016 659/2228
659
0.1368 658
0.0020 658/2292
0.0062,
0.2124 680
656
0.1800 656/2238
0.0250 655
0.0504 652
0.1800 653/2145
0.0326 561
0.1584
27. Kirpura
1743
0.0789
0.0888
1744
1756
0.0719
1773
0.0920
1757
0.0936
1772
0.0216
1770
0.0216
1771
0.1065
1833
0.0726
1852
0.1389
0.0100
1853
1854
0,1236
1855
0:0888
1846
0.0020
1845
0.0538
1859
0.0159
1872
0.0491
1871
0.0504
0.0324
1873
1870
0.0216
1874
0.1067
0.0343
1946
0.0216
1945
1944
0.0464
0.1584
1941
1952
0.1506
1953
0.0020
1955
0.1368
1960
.0.0774
1961
0.0256
0.0774
1967
1966
0.0417
1965
0.0216
0.0144
1964
1973/2124
0.0054
0.0130
1973/2123
0.2284
1977
0.0020
1978
1982
0.0936
1981
1980
0.0796
0.06.10
0.0918
665
0.0216
665/2192
664
0.1107
0.1008
663
2149 G1/05-29
560
0.0050
0.0050 562
559
0.2334 555
0.0576 554
0.1584 529
0.0360
01617 531/985
531/984
0.0360
0.0072 531/957
531/955
0.0216 532
0.0432
0.0257 532/939
532/977
0.0050 534/1005
0.1728
0.1440 499/952
536
0.1080 488
0.0413
0.0072 495
494
0.0144
0.0565 493
0.0223 492
0.0432 498
370
0.7056
0.0543 368
362
0.4032 234
0.0432 354/1006
0.0254 353
0.1512
0.0208 352
333
0.0076
0.2160 348
0.0216 347
0.1224 346
0.0067 326
327
0.0576
0.0432 340
341
0.0557 337
0.0360
0.0573 342
0.0360 336
343
0.0864 306
0.0020 [ F.No -31015/78 /2004 -OR - II ] Harish Kumar, Under Secretary 8516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2666. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्त्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नंदी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, 1 - सी , बाल मंदिर कॉलोनी, होटल पिंक पैलेस के पास, सवाई माधोपुर -322001 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
तहसील: सवाई माधोपुर जिला सवाई माधोपुर राज्य: राजस्थान क्र० ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नंबर क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 2
3
4 1
3826/4157
1. पाँचोलास
0.0135 2. खेरदा
3
0.1728
1
0.0144
246
0.0094 3. जटवाडा खुर्द
247
0.0127
368/2778
0.0072 4. चकेरी
0.1800
273/2782 802
0.0144
1027/2196
0.0288 5. पंचीपल्या
0.0144
970/2404
6. दूंदरी
922/1778
0.0020 7. फूसोदा
143
0.0072
0.0576 8. कानसीर
984
216/1332
0.0144
0.0010
602/1339
(फा. सं. आर-31015/78 /2004-ओआर- II)
हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005
S. O. 2666 .-- Whereas it appears to the Central Government thatit is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijawasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroluem Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to aquire the right of user therein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , CompetentAuthority, Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Exten- sion Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1-C, Bal Mandir Colony , Near Hotel Pink Palace , Sawai Madhopur-322001 ( Rajasthan ) .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Sawai Madhopur District: Sawai Madhopur State: Rajasthan
Area in Hectare S.No. Name of Village Survey No.
2
3
4 1
1. Pancholas
3826/4157
0.0135
0.1728 2. Kherda
0.0144 3. Jatwada Khurd
0.0094
0.0127
3 1 246 247
4. Chakeri
0.0072
0.1800
368/2778 273/2782 802
0.0144
1027/2196
0.0288 5. Panchipalya
6. Dundari
970/2404
0.0144
922/1778
7. Fusoda
0.0020
143
0.0072 8. Kansir
984
0.0576
216/1332
0.0144
0.0010
602/1339
[ F.No 31015/ 78/ 2004 - OR-II ] Harish Kumar , Under Secretary [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2667.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नंदी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, 1 - सी, बाल मंदिर कॉलोनी, होटल पिंक पैलेस के पास , सवाई माधोपुर -322001 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य: राजस्थान
जिला सवाई माधोपुर
तहसील: सवाई माधोपुर
सर्वे नंबर क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
8517 New Delhi, the 28th July , 2005 S. O. 2667.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijawasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroluem Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that forthe purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Miner- alsPipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. , 1962( 50 of 1962 ) ,1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to aquire the right of user therein; Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority, Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Exten- sion Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1-C, Bal Mandir Colony , Near Hotel Pink Palace , Sawai Madhopur-322001 ( Rajasthan).
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Sawai Madhopur District: Sawai Madhopur State : Rajasthan
Area in Hectare S.No. Name of Village
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
4
3
1 2
118
0.1008
Survey No.
3
1 2
4
118
0.1008 1. Lakshmipura
1. लक्ष्मीपुरा
119
0.8280
120
0.3456
138
0.0720
139
0.0720
182
0.2412
184
0.1080
185
0.1080
464
0.0216
462
0.0360
186
0.0072
0.0072
186/622
0.0020
220
0.1440
461
0.0069
221
0.0864
461/603
0.1368
456/619
0.0288
236
0.1800
237
0.0936
237/587
0.0792
250
267
0.0020
0.0504
266
0.0504
265
0.1008
270
0.0020
271
269
0.0315
0.0871
319
0.1965
39
0.0360
320
0.0432
321
0.0576
322
(फा. सं. आर-31015/78 /2004-ओआर- II)
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
119
0.8280
120
0.3456
138
0.0720
139
0.0720
182
0.2412
184
0.1080
185
0.1080
464
0.0216
462
0.0360
186
0.0072
186/622
0.0072
220
0.0020
461
0.1440
221
0.0069
461/603
0.0864
456/619
0.1368
0.0288
236 237
0.1800
237/587
0.0936
250
0.0792
267
0.0020
266
0.0504
265
0.0504
270
0.1008
271
0.0020
269
0.0315
319
0.0871
39
0.1965
320
0.0360
321
0.0432
322
0.0576
[ F.No 31015 / 78 / 2004 - OR- II ] Harish Kumar Under Secretary 8518
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नईदिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2005
3
1 2
4
442
0.2016
1. लबान (जारी...)
439
0.3024
432
0.0936
460
0.0288
484
0.1800
485
0.1080
486
0.1440
488
0.3240
490
0.2664
495
0.2448
501
0.2520 का. आ. 2668. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 630 तारीख 21 फरवरी, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 26 फरवरी, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
511
0.4032
518
0.2088 और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 7 मई , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
520
0.0360
532
0.0720 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
0.0576
533
531
0.3024
0.0432
530
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
1109
0.0144
2. पापड़ी
1110
0.0216
0.1296 अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
1112
0.1152
1114
0.1086
1121
0.1080
1120
0.2088
1119
0.0720 और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकारको केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगी से मुक्त भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
1090
0.1494 अनुसूची
0.1512
1089
0.2160
1084
तहसील : इन्द्रगढ़
1071
0.1008 जिला : शर्थक्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में राज्य : राजस्थान
क्र ० ग्राम का नाम
1072
0.1152 1
2
4
3
1108
0.0144 1. लबान
0.0360
1073
0.0020 179
0.2248
180
170
3. बड़गाँव
0.0864
0.2520
181
165
0.0288 115
0.0720
166
0.1584
0.0720
114
180
0.0288 112
0.0144
179
0.1440
0.0072
113
181
0.1224 108
0.0576
194
0.0648 109
0.1080
182
0.0504 102
0.1872
193
0.0144 103
0.0504
183
0.1296 72
0.0288
186
0.0144 71
0.1296
187
0.2376 373
0.0432
147
0.0936 382
0.1152
148
0.3240 383
0.0050
88
0.4176 393
0.0144
0.0432
87
411
0.0288
86
0.0504 412
0.1440
84
0.1728 415
0.3096
85
0.1512 417
0.0864
169
0.0144 414
0.0040
167
0.0216 420
0.0504
146
0.0072 456
0.2736
145
0.0072
0.1872
454
144
0.0072 452
0.3024
23
0.1008
4. सखावदा
0.0216
444
0.1800
22
0.0864
443 8519 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
1 2
3
2
3
4 20
0.0072
0.3024
70
4. सखावदा (जारी...)
8. धाकड़खेड़ी (जारी...)
19
4
0.5904
0.1800
2
17
0.5904
0.2520 16
3
0.9936
0.0050 276
0.3456
1
0.2952 5. बिशनपुरा
277
71
0.3312
0.0144 194
2.0376
21
9. हरदेव गंज
0.0072 193
333
0.0020
0.4752 188
332
0.0576
0.4824 189
0.0792
326
0.3312 240
0.0720
210
0.1368 6. कँवरपुरा
285
0.0020
209
0.0040 7. देवपुरा
350
0.0732
208
0.0040 287
0.0751
207
0.0040 288
0.1296
206
0.1656 322
0.3744
198
0.0216 314
0.1584
196
0.0720 318
0.1008
191
0.0792 317
0.0390
183
0.2520 316
0.0144
181
0.2448 315
0.0360
61
0.1944 312
0.0576
60
0.2376 326
48
0.0576
0.0144 325/457
0.0072
56/434
0.0576 329
0.1296
56
0.2304 336
0.1800
54
0.0288 333
0.2736
55
0.1368
332
0.0144
0.0216
40
374
0.0072
0.0020
41
373
35
0.0072
0.0288 372
0.0576
33
0.1728 375
32
0.0072
0.2448 376
22
0.1872
0.0576 377
19
0.0648
0.1296
378
16
0.0144
0.1584
7/744
379
0.1440
0.1584 380
0.0216
7
0.1440 383
0.1222
3
0.0216 381
0.0288
0.0864
10. अंघोरा
175
382
0.0144
0.0216
155
130
0.0216
0.0236
154
8. धाकड़खेड़ी
0.1224
153
0.5040
131
141
0.1296
118
0.0050
11. सुनारी
0.0648 138
0.0288
118/246
0.2050
99
137
0.1398
136
115
0.0072
0.0050
135
105
0.0040
0.1658
162
106
0.0144
0.1296
0.0040 163
107
0.1656
0.0504
108
170
0.0216
109
0.0040 171
0.0050
168
0.0040
111
0.1368
0.0576
112
181
0.0649
114
182
0.0050
0.0936
94
0.0576 183
0.0945
81
87
0.0216
0.1152
0.0792 80
0.1260
90
89
0.1656 79
0.2782
55
0.0216 220
0.0170
43/233
0.0648 69
0.0216 8520
[PART II-SEC..3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
2
1
3
4
1 2
3
4 43
0.0792
0.1944
32/296
11. सुनारी (जारी...)
13. टोकसपुरा (जारी...)
42/232
0.0020
0.0288
32/296/304
32
0.1694
32
0.0911 32/242
0.0072
0.3240
35
29
0.0360
0.2016
14. रामनगर
169/188
30
0.0020
0.1298
169
29/210
0.2808
0.0100
168
28
0.0216
137
0.0100
0.0864 28/256
161
0.0436
14
0.0288
160
0.1368
0 0726 15
0.0864
138/196
16
0.2224
138
0.0072
0.0080
0.0792
17
158/201
18
139
0.0432
0:1296 20
0.0040
140
0.0360
0.1944 19
0.0648
152
0.0309 183
108
12. नया गाँव
0.0916
0.0522 181
84
0.0451
0.0172 172
85
0.0432
0.1435 170
83
0.0072
0.0071
82
169
0.1269
0.1419 168
0.0576
81
0.0360 167
136
0.0648
15. रामपुरिया
0.3384 155
0.1368
126
0.0100
122
108/485
0.2160,
0.1080 109
125/165
0.0900
0.0360 108
125
0.3888
0.2664 75
123
0.2592
0.0020 7
124
0.0576
0.0936
367/495
8
0.0288
16. गुढ़ा
0.0864 6
367
0.0632
0.3096
341
10
0.0072
0.0792 11
335
0.0720
0.0576
334/4
12
0.0576
0.1080
334/3
14
0.0504
0.0792 15
334/2
0.0451
0.0648
334
16
0.0288
0.1008 3
333
0.0141
0.1008
332
2
0.0072
0.0072
331
1
0.0072
0.1728
0.0110
315
151
13. टोकसपुरा
0.0144
321
150
0.2160
0.1296 149
322
0.1440
0.0040
328
148
0.1833
0.1440
323
146
0.1255
0.1800
324
144
0.0720
0.0288
325
0.0288
76
0.0720
309
75
0.1512
0.0864 62
308
0.0072
0.1008
307
74
0.1584
0.0576
247
63/286
0.0050
0.0288
248
63
0.1080
0.2304
306
0.0720
68
0.0072
249
64
0.1512
0.1872
305
64/295
0.0648
0.1584
304
83
0.0199
0.1008
303
84
0.1152
0.0792
302
44
0.1296
0.0360 31/291
0.2952
301
0.0360
300
0.0936
31 8521 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005 299
0.0720
16. गुढ़ा (जारी...)
0.0288
298
297
0.0504
251
0.0936
252
0.0576
253
0.0504
254
0.1224
256
0.1080
257
0.0720
258
0.2160
S. O. 2668.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 630 , dated the 21st February , 2005, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 26th February , 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an exten- sion pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai-Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
284
0.1008
260
0.4464
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 7th May, 2005;
255
0.0020
1511
0.0236
17. बड़ाखेड़ा
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Govern- ment;
1512
0.0288
1516
0.5472
1522
0.2830
1530
0.0720
1541
0.2016
1531
0.0144
Andwhereasthe Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ;
1540
0.0864
1533
0.0504
0.1872
1534
1538
0.2160
1440
And further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (4) ofsection 6 of the said Act , the Central Government directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corpora- tion Limited, free from all encumbrances .
0.0864
1442
0.0576`
SCHEDULE
1441
0.0288
1443
0.1224
Tehsil: Indargarh District : Bundi State : Rajasthan 1471
0.0792
Area in Hectare
S.No. Name of Village SurveyNo.
1444
0.1336
3
1 2
4 1445
0.1141
1. Laban
179
0.0360 1470
0.0218
180
0.2248 1468
0.1976
181
0.2520 1464
0.0020
115
0.0720 1465
0.2233
114
0.0720 1405
0.1224
112
0.0144 1383
0.0946
113
0.0072 1384
0.0931
108
0.0576 1385
0.1828
109
0.1080 1388
0.1008
102
0.1872 1389
0.2256
103
0.0504
0.1800
1390
72
0.0288 1391
0.0288
71
0.1296 1392
0.0216
373
0.0432 1395
0.0030
382
0.1152
383
1393
0.0144
0.0050
0.0144
393
1368
0.1893
411
0.0288 1361
0.2592
412
0.1440 1362
0.0100
0.3096
415
1348
0.0113
417
0.0864 1349
0.1152
414
0.0040 1347
0.4118
420
0.0504 1346
0.0030
456
0.2736
0.2880
1341
454
0.1872 1345
0.0189
452
0.3024
444
0.0216 (फा.स. आर.-31015 / 85/2004-ओ आर-II )
443
0.0864 हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव 8522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
4 2
3
442
0.2016 1. Laban (Contd. )
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
2
4
3
19
0.5904 4. Sakhavada (Contd. )
439
0.3024
432
0.0936
460
0.0288
17
0.5904
16
0.9936
0.3456
276
5. Bishanpura
484
0.1800
485
0.1080
0.1440
486
488
0.3240
490
0.2664
495
0.2448
277
0.3312
194
2.0376
193
0.0020
188
0.0576
189
0.0792
240
0.0720 6. Kanwarpura
501
0.2520
285
0.0020 7. Devpura
511
0.4032
518
0.2088
520
0.0360
532
0.0720
533
0.0576
531
0.3024
530
0.0432
1109
0.0144 2. Papdi
1110
0.0216
1111
0.1296
1112
0.1152
1114
0.1086
1121
0.1080
1120
0.2088
1119
0.0720
1090
0.1494
1089
0.1512
1084
0.2160
1071
0.1008
1072
0.1152
1108
0.0144
1073
0.0020
170
0.0864 3 .. Badgaon
165
0.0288
166
0.1584
180
0.0288
179
0.1440
181
0.1224
194
0.0648
0.0504
182
193
0.0144
183
0.1296
186
0.0144
187
0.2376
147
0.0936
148
0.3240
88
0.4176
87
0.0432
86
0.0504
84
0.1728
85
0.1512
169
0.0144
167
0.0216
0.0072
146
145
0.0072
144
0.0072
23
0.1008 4. Sakhavada
22
0.1800
0.3024
20
350
0.0732
287
0.0751
288
0.1296
322
0.3744
314
0.1584
318
0.1008
317
0.0390
316
0.0144
315
0.0360
312
0.0576
326
0.0576
325/457
0.0072
329
0.1296
336
0.1800
333
0.1368
332
0.0144
374
0.0020
373
0.0072
372
0.0576
375
0.0072
376
0.1872
377
0.1296
378
0.0144
379
0.1440
380
0.0216
383
0.1222
381
0.0864
382
0.0144
130
8. Dhakadkhedi
0.0236
131
0.5040
141
0.0050
138
0.0288
137
0.1398
136
0.0050
135
0.1658
162
0.0144
163
0.1656
170
0.0216
171
0.0050
168
0.1368
181
0.0649
182
0.0050
183
0.0945
0.1152
81
80
0.1260
0.2782
79
220
0.0170
69
0.0216
70
0.0072 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
3
4 2
4
0.1800 8. Dhakadkhedi ( Contd .)
8523
4
3
1
2
42/232
0.0020 11. Sunari ( Contd .)
2
0.2520
3
0.0050
1
0.2952
71
0.0144
21
0.0072 9. Hardev Ganj
333
0.4752
332
0.4824
326
0.3312
0.1368
210
0.0040
209
208
0.0040
0.0040
207
206
0.1656
0.0216
198
0.0720
196
32
0.1694
32/242
0.0072
29
0.2016
30
0.0020
0.0100
29/210
0.0100
28
28/256
0.0436
14
0.0288
15
0.0864
16
0.0072
17
0.0792
0.0432
18
20
0.0040
19
0.0648
0.0016
183
12. Naya Gaon
191
0.0792
183
0.2520
0.2448
181
61
0.1944
60
0.2376
48
0.0144
56/434
0.0576
56
0.2304
54
0.0288
55
0.2736
40
0.0216
41
0.0072
0.0288
35
33
0.1728
0.2448
32
0.0576
22
19
0.0648
16
0.1584
0.1584
7/744
7
0.1440
3
0.0216
175
0.0288 10. Anghora
0.0216
155
0.0216
154
153
0.1224
0.1296
118
11. Sunari
181
0.0451
172
0.0432
170
0.0072
169
0.1269
168
0.0576
167
0.0648
155
0.1368
108/485
0.2160
109
0.0900
108
0.3888
0.2592
75
7
0.0576
0.0288
8
6
0.0632
10
0.0072
0.0720
11
12
0.0576
0.0504
14
15
0.0451
0.0288
16
0.0141
3
2
0.0072
1
0.0072
0.0110
151
150
0.2160
0.1440
149
13. Tokaspura
!
0.0648
118/246
0.2050
99
0.0072
115
0.0040
105
0.1296
106
107
0.0040
108
0,0504
109
0.0040
0.0040
111
112
0.0576
114
0.0936
0.0576
94
0.0216
87
0.0792
90
0.1656
89
55
0.0216
0.0648
43/233
0.1944
43
2149 G1/05-30
0.1833
148
146
0.1255
0.0720
144
76
0.0288
75
0.1512
62
0.0072
74
0.1584
0.0050
63/286
63
0.1080
0.0720
68
0.1512
64
0.0648
64/295
83
0.0199
0.1152
84
0.1296
44
0.2952
31/291
0.0936
31
32/296
0.0792 8424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
5
3
4
1 2
गया
0-01-68
रोड/153
गया मोहनपुर खजुराहीं
152
1-05-33
0-01-80
नाला/135
1-26-24
144
5-09-39
कुल
300
0-85-70
केन्दुआ
0-01-38
नाला/298
291
1-29-07
0-28-27
285
286
388
1-26-70
387
0-00-83
3-72-85
कुल
668
1-04-29
बन्दीगढ़
1-06-65
63
0-03-82
कुल
0-02-65
3512
कहुदाग
3511
0-79-24
3507
0-05-21
3506
0-40-41
3504
0-02-34
3502
1-48-98
3485
1-38-93
3486
0-20-32
3471
2-21-08
62
0-37-71
0-02-20
63
0-01-45
58
57
0-02-67
0-00-44
64
0-23-56
56
55
0-02-26
54
0-55-74
53
0-06-29
52
0-07-87
66
0-10-94
168
0-06-99
169
0-01-54
170
0-00-45
171
0-00-45
0-46-45
51
47
0-14-19
0-21-23
196
43
0-03-66
50
0-39-85
9-45-10
कुल
0-07-97
664
बाराचट्टी प्रतापी
663
0-74-66
653
0-03-60
0-19-45
652
651
0-01-52
646
0-11-70
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
4
2
3
5
647
0-00-25 प्रतापी
बाराचट्टी
643
0-09-03
640
0-00-91
0-06-05
641
0-02-10
642
638
0-05-47
0-00-13
639
633
0-02-32
634
0-03-32
632
0-02-20
626
0-03-78
612
0-01-64
617
0-19-92
0-03-23
618
0-03-65
613
0-05-61
614
0-08-21
615
0-10-62
616
0-06-32
608
0-12-20
592
591
0-00-42
0-11-81
590
570
0-07-73
569
0-05-47
566
0-16-46
0-05-84
565
0-29-08
551
542
0-15-08
0-03-22
541
0-14-38
69
0-02-90
70
0-01-24
71
72
0-00-38
73
0-06-67
0-15-44
75
74
0-04-98
63
0-04-95
76
0-02-38
0-03-43
0-01-18
62
78
0-05-76
108
0-09-37
109
0-01-37
115
0-12-48
116
0-02-77
114
0-06-28
117
0-10-59
126
0-03-68
रोड/78
बांध/77 0-02-79
0-00-82
54
53
0-01-33
0-12-02
45
46
0-03-69 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
4
1 2
3
5
0-03-35 गया
41
गया बाराचट्टी प्रतापी
रोड/40 0-01-69
39
0-25-71
2-40-78
कुल
0-22-23
1527
पदमचक
1526
0-12-88
1483
0-01-17
0-12-36
1481
0-86-66
1480
1484
0-03-51
1487
1479
0-16-68
1478
0-11-48
1477
0-19-45
0-26-06
1475
1474
0-15-55
0-36-65
1472
1470
0-34-31
1423
0-12-54
0-08-28
1388
0-09-53
1389
0-02-08
1390
1416
1415
0-00-33
0-01-21
1414
1413
0-00-93
0-03-07
1393
1411
0-03-37
1412
0-14-16
0-05-70
1408
1410
1407
0-01-20
1406
0-02-44
0-02-79
1405
0-01-89
1404
1383
1385
0-16-60
1313
0-00-65
1293
1292
0-02-57
1291
0-11-48
1294
0-01-88
0-02-06
1295
0-02-10
1297
0-00-12
1296
1299
0-02-85
0-02-63
1298
0-16-64
1302
0-01-89
1254
0-05-85
1160
1159
0-00-95
1158
0-02-49
1161
0-01-09
1162
8425 3
4
2
5
1163
0-03-44 बाराचट्टी पदमचक
1151
0-00-39
1189
0-00-34
0-00-16
1188
1164
0-01-56
1165
0-01-87
0-00-34
1151
0-02-81
1166
1167
0-02-45
0-00-79
1172
1173
0-00-44
0-03-11
1171
1168
0-01-81
0-02-18
1141
0-02-89
1169
1170
0-02-97
905
0-03-22
1125
0-01-68
0-01-53
1124
0-01-99
906
0-01-52
909
0-01-44
910
0-00-99
911
912
0-01-15
914
0-01-66
0-00-68
913
908
0-04-38
1123
0-02-12
915
837
0-10-86
897
0-00-77
838
0-07-28
836
0-05-51
835
0-03-55
0-04-29
832
834
0-02-68
833
0-03-16
823
0-02-58
0-03-23
824
825
821
0-06-69
820
0-07-13
0-06-10
802
803
0-03-13
0-01-87
804
792
0-03-11
793
0-01-33
0-02-40
794
795
785
0-08-33
788
0-02-50
0-00-19
789
787
0-03-37
786
0-00-51 8526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] 2
1
3
4
1
4
2
3
366
0.1274
1332
0.0404 4. झपायता (जारी...)
5. देही खेड़ा (जारी...)
365
0.2114
1333
0.3084 369
0.0330
0.2372
1329
376
0.0285
0.1603
1319
378
0.1658
1320
0.0500
0.0176
377
0.1091
1318
1091
0.0576
1321
0.1371 5. देही खेड़ा
0.0792
1092
1323
0.1621 1093
0.0072
1292
0.0439 1094
0.0504
1293
0.2902 1103
0.0560
0.0110
1294
1104
0.0045
1295
0.0468 1102
0.0118
1296
0.0216 1106
0.2160
1301
0.1296 1107
0.0072
1297
0.1700 1108
0.1872
1285
0.1201 1134
0.0288
0.0173
1284
1133
0.2191
1282
0.1440 1126
0.0288
1283
0.0419 1127
0.0251
1278
0.1872 1149
0.0145
1273
0.0144 1188
0.0291
0.2230
1107
(फा.स. आर. - 31015/85 / 2004-ओ आर-II ) हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव 1186
0.0072
1190
0.2448
New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005
0.0648
1191
244
0.0720
0.1224
1243
1223
0.0720
0.1944
12
0.1080
1218
0.2616
1215
0.0200
1216
0.0100
S. O. 2669.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government thatit is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijawasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laidby Bharat Petroluem Corporation Limited ;
1210
0.0288
0.0357
1076
0.0100
779
778
0.2232
0.0288
780
0.0020
Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
781
782
0.0302
775
0.1063
774
0.0498
0.1944
772
0.0360
773
0.1813
767
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to aquire the right of user therein;
766
0.0097
769
0.0936
770
0.0504
738
0.0020
0.1017
739
740
0.0360
737
0.1296
0.1080
736
0.0030
735
0.0702
1266
0.3573
1357
0.0040
1358
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority, Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Lim- ited , 1 - C , Bal Mandir Colony, Near Hotel Pink Palace, Sawai Madhopur - 322001 ( Rajasthan) .
8527 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
3
Tehsil : Indargarh District : Bundi State : Rajasthan
0.0974
3. Ghat Ka Barana ( Contd.) 494
Area in Hectare
493
0.0414 S.No. Name of Village SurveyNo.
495
0.2152 3
4
1
2
504
0.0195
0.0124
94
1. Baldevpura
496
0.1269 93
0.0504
503
0.0172 96
0.1800
502
0.1218
0.2856
97
501
0.1439 90
0.2346
508
0.0144 87
0.3223
$09
0.1766
0.0772
83
511
0.2108
0.0231
82
512
0.0200
0.0305
2. Kotdi
25
202
0.0218
4. Jhapayata
0.1500
24
201
0.2448 19
0.0094
205
0.2722 15
0.1668
206
0.0123 14
0.0020
215
0.0210
0.6726
20
267
0.0168
0.0276
20/1104
266/851
0.1255
0.0166
3. Ghat Ka Barana
702
266
0.2569 701
0.0830
269
0.3510 704
0.1629
277
0.1921
0.1244
705
278
0.0597 703
0.0020
276
0.1925
0.0144
706
303
0.0792 706/1337
0.1296
302
0.2363 707
0.1674
301
0.0115 710
0.0902
300
0.0224 708
0.0104
299
0.0110 709
0.1540
304
0.0520
0.0045
720
358
0.0634 721
0.0977
359
0.2949
0.0120
694
0.1274
366
0.3101
693
365
0.2114
0.0900
691
369
0.0330 568
0.0134
376
0.0285 571
0.0087
378
0.1658 570
0.0642
377
0.0176 574/3
0.0098
5. Dehi Kheda
1091
0.0576 573
0.0916
1092
0.0792
0.0929
577
1093
0.0072
0.2310
578
1094
0.0504 557
0.0020
1103
0.0110 580
0.1817
1104
0.0045
0.0020
581
1102
0.0118 556
0.1196
1106
0.2160 553
0.0906
1107
0.0072 552
0.0020
1108
0.1872 554
0.0652
1134
0.0288
0.0612
594
1133
0.2191
0.1059
596
1126
0.0288 597
0.2160
1127
0.0251 598
0.0108
1149
0.0145 589
0.0316
1188
0.0291
0.2672
601
1187
0.2230 602
0.1829
1186
0.0072 603
0.0223
1190
0.2448 543
0.0368 8528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3
2
4
1
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005 1191
0.0648
5. Dehi Kheda (Contd .)
0.0720
1244
0.1224
1243
0.0720
1223
0.1944
1225
1224
0.1080
0.2616
1218
का. आ. 2670.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोर्काहेत में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
0.0200
1215
0.0100
1216
0 0288
1210
0.0357
1076
0.0100
779
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
778
0.2232
0.0288
780
781
0.0020
782
0.0302
775
0.1063
774
0.0498
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
772
0.1944
0.0360
773
767
0.1813
766
0.0097
769
0.0936
770
0.0504
0.0020
738
0.1017
739
740
0.0360
0.1296
737
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नंदी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड , 1 - सी, बाल मंदिर कॉलोनी , होटल पिंक पैलेस के पास , सवाई माधोपुर - 322001 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
0.1080
736
0.0030
735
अनुसूची
0.0702
1266
1357
0.3573
राज्य : राजस्थान
तहसील : इन्द्रगढ़
बूंदी
जिला:
0.0040
1358
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
सर्वे नंबर
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
0.0404
1332
4
0.3084
2
3
1333
1
0.2372
1329
0.0360
25
1. कोटा खुर्द
0.1603
1319
0.1296
24
1320
0.0500
0.0288
1
0.1091
1318
0.1584
4
0.1371
1321
0.0144
3
0.1621
1323
0.1728
9
0.0439
1292
0.0090
8
0.2902
1293
0.0216
2
0.0560
1294
0.0072
294
2. लबान
0.0468
1295
0.3456
293
0.0216
1296
0.0216
297
0.1296
1301
0.1800
298
1297
0.1700
0.0020
299
0.1201
1285
0.0936
300
0.0173
1284
0.1296
301
0.1440
1282
0.1296
306
0.0419
1283
0.0020
307
0.1872
1278
0.1440
0.0144
305
1273
0.0504
331
[F.No. R - 31015/85/2004-OR - II ]
0.1224
332
Harish Kumar , Under Secretary 8529 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
SCHEDULE
1
2
333
0.1008
Tehsil : Indargarh District : Bundi State: Rajasthan 2. लबान (जारी...)
0.3312
304
S.No. Name of Village Survey No. Area in Hectarev 225
0.0144
4
1
2
3
338
0.0144
25
1. Kota Khurd
0.0360 224
0.0020
0.1296
24
0.1440
211
0.0288
1
210
0.1296
4
0.1584
0.0576
2,09
0.0144
3
0.2304
208
0.1728
9
0.2304
205
0.0090
8
203
0.0020
0.0216
2
204
0.1440
0.0072
294
2. Laban
0.0020
200
0.3456
293
0.2088
198
0.0216.
297
161
0.1224
0.1800
298
0.0288
197
0.0020
299
166/1406
0.2016
0.0936
300
0.0144
162
0.1296
301
166
0.0360
0.1296
306
178
0.0360
0.0020
307
45/229
0.0504
3. सुनारी
0.1440 .
305
48/257
0.0270
0.0504
331
0.1282
299
4. जाड़ला
0.1224.
332
0.0506
290
0.1008
333
0.1212
1341
5. बड़ाखेड़ा
0.3312
304
1344
0.0700
0.0144
225
1342
0.0778
0.0144
338
(फा.स. आर.-31015/85/2004-ओ आर-II )
0.0020
224
हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव
0.1440
211
0.1296 New Delhi , the 28th July, 2005
210
0.0576
209
0.2304
208
0.2304.
205
0.0020
203
0.1440
204
S. O. 2670.- Whereas it appears to the Central Governmentthat it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijawasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroluem Corporation Limited;
0.0020
200
0.2088.
198
0.1224
161
0.0288
197
0.2016
166/1406
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
0.0144
162
0.0360
166
0.0360
178
0.0504
3. Sunari
45/229
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and , Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to aquire the right of user therein ;
0.0270
48/257
0.1282
4. Jadla
299
0.0506
290
0.1212
1341
5. Badakheda
0.0700
1344
0.0778
1342
[F.No. R-31015/85/2004- OR - II ] Harish Kumar, Under Secretary Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority , Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Exten- sion Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , 1 -C, Bai Mandir Colony , Near Hotel Pink Palace , Sawai Madhopur-322001 ( Rajasthan).
8530
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005
' का. आ. 2671.-केम्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता हे कि मध्य प्रदेश में मांगल्या (इन्दौर ) संस्थापन से हरयाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और केन्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नन्दी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, बी-105 , इन्द्र विहार , तलवंडी, कोटा 324005 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
तहसील : झालरापाटन
अनुसूची
जिला: झालावाड़
राज्य: राजस्थान क्र०
ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नम्बर
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
3
1
2
4
1
चंगेरी
43
0.0504
108
0.4464
64
0.6048
127
0.0360
273
0.1512
289
0.2880
296
0.0432
277
0.0072
42
0.0216
53
0.1440
63
0.0216
70
0.2088
457
2 गिन्धोर
0.0288
474
0.0159
406
0.0152
387
0.0196
339
0.0181
327
0.0335
309
0.0360
249
3 चैंदिया खेड़ी
0.1669
158
0.0538
225
0.0072
160
0.1515
4
272
मालीपुरा
0.0738
275
0.3356
257
0.0451
282
0.0144
281
0.0144
280
0.2016
277
0.0576
5
887
झालरापाटन
0.0965
6
टोलखेड़ा
12
0.0216
13
0.1296
14
0.0396
7
जरेल
379
0.0216
381
0.1800
382
0.1800
384
0.2076
8 डाबलीकलां
152
0.0072
245
0.0108
302
0.0072
183
0.0216
9
35
माधोपुर
0.0072
फा०सं ०आर०-31015/77/ 2004-ओ आर- || हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव, भारत सरकार 8531 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[भाग II-खण्ड3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 28th July, 2005
S. O. 2671.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleumproducts from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana andBijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein ;
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority, Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , B- 105 , Indravihar , Talwandi , Kota- 324005 (Rajasthan) .
SCHEDULE
DISTRICT : JHALAWAR
STATE : RAJASTHAN TEHSIL : JHALARAPATAN
NAME OF VILLAGE
SURVEY NO .
AREA IN HECTARE S.No.
2
3
4
1
1
CHANGERI
43
0.0504
108
0.4464
64
0.6048
127
0.0360
273
0.1512
289
0.2880
296
0.0432
277
0.0072
0.0216
42
53
0.1440
63
0.0216
70
0.2088
2
GINDHOR
457
0.0288
474
0.0159
406
0.0152
387
0.0196
0.0181
339
327
0.0335
309
0.0360
3
CHANDIA KHEDI
249
0.1669
158
0.0538
225
0.0072
160
0.1515
MALIPURA
272
0.0738
275
0.3356
257
0.0451
282
0.0144
281
0.0144
280
0.2016
277
0.0576
5
JHALARAPATAN
887
0.0965
6
TOLKHEDA
12
0.0216
13
0.1296
14
0.0396
7
JAREL
379
0.0216
381
0.1800
382
0.1800
384
0.2076
8
DABLIKALAN
152
0.0072
245
0.0108
302
0.0072
183
0.0216
9
MADHOPUR
35
0.0072
[ F.N. R - 31015 / 77 / 2004 -OR- II ] Harish Kumar,Under Secretary 2149 GI /05-31 8532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
3
4
1 2
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2672 .
519
0.0020
1. मन्तोकपुरा (जारी...)
92
0.0360
0.0404
185
184
0.0360
0.0576
181
केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ,
0.1008
179
180
0.0040
178
0.0204
169
0.1080
170
0.0648 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ,
167
0.0720
171
0.1391
0.0072
166
168
0.1152
124
0.1086 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ,
118
0.0108
1029
0.0144
462
0.0322
0.0200
516
173
0.0100
0.0719
2. सिकन्दरा
844
0.0144
836
838
0.0792
837
0.0576 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमिके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नंदी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, 73. प्रताप विला, रोज विला स्कीम , बर्ड सेन्चुरी रोड़, भरतपुर (राज०) 321001 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
0.1008
817
0.0288
795
0.0100
796
797
0.1241 तहसील : बयाना
राज्य: राजस्थान
934
0.0216 अनुसूची जिला: भरतपुर
0.0144
935
सर्वे नंबर
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
0.0864
944
3
4
0.0360 1 2
914
915
0.0216 461
0.0621
1. सन्तोकपुरा
912
0.0072 457
0.1440
0.0156
912/2992
458
0.0962
0.0540
891
459
0.0216
911
0.0288 478
0.0020
910
0.0360 476
0.0017
0.0936
909
477
0.0216
908
0.0150 479
0.1296
898
0.0288 482
0.2232
897
0.0360 738
0.0708
893
0.0792 737
0.0718
894
0.0540 736
0.0503
895
0.0020 725
0.0216
965/2996
0.0400 723
0.0792
880
0.0216 498
0.0110
883
0.0432 724
0.0010
884
0.0020 500
0.0433
0.1440
882
502
0.0144
877
0.0324 503
0.0621
0.0504
876
504
0.0154
0.0504
872
505
0.0762
863
0.0216 506
0.0820
862
0.0504 507
0.0072
861
0.0504 511
0.1080
856
0.0010 508
0.0772
857
0.0648 512
0.0144
855
0.0864 524
0.1368
842
0.0072 523
0.0858
845
0.1440 522
0.0059
790
0.2016 517
0.0072
778
0.0020 518
0.0209 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
2
3
4 1
788
0.1944 2. सिकन्दरा (जारी...)
775
0.0072
0.0600
776
0.0504
779
777
0.0266
780
0.0072
383
0.0180
385
0.0108
384
0.1626
381
0.0030
0.0612
408
404
0.0336
0.0576
405
401
0.0778
442
0.0615
0.0030
447
448
0.0936
0.0030
449
0.1216
451
0.0040
460
461
0.0360
0.0306
462
463
0.0989
0.0040
464
0.0360
467
468
0.0931
0.1020
474
475
0.0040
8533 New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005
S. O. 2672. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for thetransportation of petroleum productsfrom Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijawasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroluem Corporation Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipelineis proposed to be laid and which is described in theSchedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Miner- alsPipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. , 1962( 50 of 1962 ), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to aquire the right of user therein;
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this no- tification are made available to the public, object in writ- ing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying ofthepipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Com- petent Authority, Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 73, Pratap Vila, Rose Vila Scheme , Bird Sanctuary Road , Bharatpur-321001 ( Raj . ) .
SCHEDULE
Tehsil : Bayana
492
0.0038
495
0.0855 District: Bharatpur State: Rajasthan
Area in Hectare
S.No. Name of Village
496
0.0700
0.0386
497
0.0020
515
Survey No.
1 2
4
3
461
0.0621
1. Santokpura
516
0.1103
514
0.1008
513
0.0040
0.1203
533
535
0.1316
0.0034
541
0.0026
539
540
0.0832
493
0.0950
517
0.0020
470
0.0010
0.0252
728
743
0.0152 3. बॉसरोली !
744
0.0072
864
0.0216
863
0.0504
862
0.0360
861
0.0288
860
0.0360
859
0.0360
0.0432
858
897
0.0720
896
0.0432
898
0.0020
895
0.1080
0.0720
893
906
0.0360
0.0040
905
908
0.0792
0.0144
907
909
0.0040 (फा. सं. आर-31015/79/ 2004- ओआर-II )
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
457
0.1440
458
0.0962
0.0216
459
478
0.0020
0.0017
476
0.0216
477
479
0.1296
0.2232
482
0.0708
738
0.0718
737
0.0503
736
0.0216
725
0.0792
723
0.0110
498
0.0010
724
0.0433
500
0.0144
502
0.0621
503
0.0154
504
0.0762
505
0.0820
506
0.0072
507
0.1080
511
0.0772
508
0.0144
512
0.1368
524
0.0858
523
0.0059
522
0.0072
517
518
0.0209
0.0020
519
0.0360
92
0010
185 8534
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
1
3
4
4 2
2
3
1
184
777
0.0360
0.0266 1. Santokpura ( Contd.)
2. Sikandra (Contd.)
181
780
0.0072
0.0576
179
0.1008
383
0.0180 180
0.0040
385
0.0108 178
384
0.0204
0.1626 169
0.1080
381
0.0030 170
0.0648
408
0.0612 167
0.0720
0.0336
404
171
0.1391
405
0.0576 166
0.0072
401
0.0778 168
0.1152
442
0.0615 124
0.1086
447
0.0030 118
0.0108
448
0.0936 1029
0.0144
0.0030
449
462
0.0322
451
0.1216 516
0.0200
460
0.0040 173
461
0.0100
0.0360 844
2. Sikandra
0.0719
462
0.0306 836
0.0144
463
0.0989 838
0.0792
464
0.0040 837
467
0.0360
0.0576
817
0.1008
468
0.0931 795
0.0288
474
0.1020 796
0.0100
475
0.0040 797
0.1241
492
0.0038
0.0216
934
495
0.0855 935
0.0144
496
0.0700
0.0864
944
497
0.0386 914
0.0360
515
0.0020 915
0.0216
516
0.1103 812
0.0072
514
0.1008 912/2992
0.0156
513
0.0040 891
0.0540
533
0.1203 911
0.0288
535
0.1316 910
0.0360
541
0.0034 909
0.0936
539
0.0026
0.0150
908
540
0.0832 898
0.0288
493
0.0950
0.0360
897
517
0.0020 893
0.0792
470
0.0010 894
0.0540
728
3. Bansroli
0.0252 895
0.0020
743
0.0152 965/2996
0.0400
744
0.0072 880
0.0216
864
0.0216 883
0.0432
863
0.0504 884
0.0020
862
0.0360 882
0.1440
861
0.0288 877
0.0324
860
0.0360 876
0.0504
859
0.0360 872
0.0504
858
0.0432 863
0.0216
897
0.0720 862
0.0504
896
0.0432 861
0.0504
898
0.0020 856
0.0010
895
0.1080 857
0.0648
893
0.0720 855
0.0864
906
0.0360 842
0.0072
905
0.0040 845
0.1440
908
0.0792 790
0.2016
907
778
0.0144
0.0020
909
0.0040 788
0.1944
775
0.0072
776
0.0600
779
[F.No 31015/79/2004 -OR - II ] Harish Kumar, Under Secretary
0.0504 8535
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
1
2
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005
576
0.0216
1. डुमरिया (जारी...)
563
0.0864
562
0.0020
564
0.0576
572
0.0144 का. आ. 2673. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए,
760
2. रीछोली
0.0080
666
0.0160
496
0.0268
780
0.0144 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
520
0.0050
518
0.0020
0.0144
534
269
0.0228
3. नगला कुरवारिया
237
0.0280
4. नगला खटका
299
0.0112 अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50); की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपसे आशय की घोषणा करती है. 1
5. लहचोरा कलां
1239
0.0792
1358
0.0030
531
0.0128
6. मिलकपुर
91
0.0113
669/2507 0.0188
87
0.0040
603
0.0040
10
0.0020
7. भाग ब्रहमवाद
0.0050
81
कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नंदी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, 73. प्रताप विला, रोज विला स्कीम, बर्ड सेन्चुरी रोड, भरतपुर (राज०) 321001 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
0.0040
293
300
0.0020
982
0.0020 अनुसूची
978
0.0020 तहसील: बयाना
राज्य: राजस्थान
जिला: भरतपुर
958
0.0020
973
0.0400 सर्वे नंबर
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
(क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
833
0.0020 2
1
4
51
3
8. चहल
0.0328
9. कारवारी
225
0.0340 662
0.0496
1. डुमरिया
764
0.0252 660
0.0192
257
0.0414 665
0.0036
284
0.0360
!
637
0.0370
279
0.0424 635
0.0057
276
0.0180
0.0412
634
317
0.0265 632
0.0339
323
0.0504 577
0.0792
331
0.0680 575
0.0795
329
0.0817 571
0.0176
97
0.1692 568
0.1456
172
0.0288 429
0.1080
169
0.0432 659/
0.0216
168
0.0536 647
0.0216
327
0.0576 646
0.0648
280
0.0040
0.0360
645/
283
0.0072 644
0.0040
226
0.0288
0.0072
643/
763
0.0360 638
0.0072
211
0.0360 633
0.0144
165/1259 0.0040 597
0.0020
166
0.0360 600
0.0144
102
0.0360 599
0.0900
101
0.0072 592
0.0144
167
0.0576 591
0.0108
121
0.0216 590
0.0020
120
602
0.0432
0.0576
603
119
0.0720
0.0020
582
118
0.1040
0.0648 581
0.0072
118/1246
0.0072
549
0.1224
112/1245
0.1476 8536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1 2
3
4
2005
0.0381 10. धाधरेन
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4 1
2
3
0.0020
551
16. कोठी खेड़ा (जारी...)
2097
0.3240
1909
0.0174
0.0131
1910
0.0072
565
0.0720
909
0.0782
1605
17. शेरगढ़
0.0105
1908
0.0540
1912
1887
0.0102
0.0189
1814
0.0436
1752
1626
0.0497
0.0112
1614
0.0184
1613
0.0374
1567
0.0216
1903
1603
0.0176
1566
0.0176
1574
0.0040
1565
0.0020
0.0072
1604
0.0020
1601
1615
0.0020
0.0144
1654
0.0288
1755
1762
0.0020
0.0020
1749
0.0020
1789
1793
0.0144
0.0020
1870
0.0020
1913
0.0216
2189
0.0504
2153
0.0144
2049
0.0864
2109
0.0288 11. सिंघाडा
309
0.0279
311
0.0216
1868
1832
0.0268
283
0.0270
0.0136
823
310
0.0080
0.0576
312
0.0050
1869
678
0.0288 12. सेवला
0.0144
682
0.0072
684
686
0.0288
459
0.1110 13. सिंघान खेड़ा
0.0372
458
442
0.0500
441
0.0792 14. समोगर
539
0.0068
593
0.0252
596
0.0436
0.0144
671
700
0.0720
594
0.0252
873
0.0020
0.1657 15. नहरोली
1040
1039
0.1216
1108
0.0306
1105
0.0288 16. कोठी खेडा
5
0.0863
526
0.0288
0.0391
1544
0.0382
1411
1477
0.0288
0.0247
1037
0.0148
975
0.0144
971
0.0472
939
0.0298
904
0.0720
934
0.0273
1021
0.0216
618
0.0368
907/2399
0.0158
530
0.0273
1584
0.0634
1387
0.0432
1387/2462
0.0590
1402/2489
0.0072
1204
0.0432
1479
0.0436
1559/2490
0.0216
1197
0.0216
1198
0.0144
1200
0.0216
1480
0.0216
1481
0.0216
1482
0.0216
1484
0.0072
1053
0.0216
1056
0.0072
1055
0.0144
1057
0.0040
1051
0.0288
1024
0.0792
1025
0.0216
1026
0.0072
978
0.0360
976
0.0288
970
0.0200
931
0.0072
933
0.0072
935
0.0144
939
0.0216
906
0.0072
890
0.0100
892
0.0360
893
0.0072
894
0.0216
896
0.0648
704.
0.0288
619
0.0432
706
0.0040
529
0.0216
895
0.0900
1550
0.0360
1557
0.0288
1549
0.0288
1375
0.0072
1386
0.0288
1386/2461
0.0144
1384
(फा. सं. आर-31015/79 / 2004-ओआर-II)
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव 8537 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4 New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005
1 2
563
0.0864
1. Dumariya ( Contd. )
562
0.0020
564
0.0576
572
0.0144
760
2. Richholi
0.0080
666
0.0160 S. O. 2673. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijawasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroluem Corporation Limited;
496
0.0268
780
0.0144
0.0050
520
518
0.0020
534
0.0144 And whereas it appearsears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid artd which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
0.0228
269
3. Nagla Kurvariya
237
0.0280
299
0.0112
4. Nagla Khatka
1239
0.0792
5. Lachora Kalan
1358
0.0030 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Miner- alsPipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act . , 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to aquire the right of user therein;
0.0128
531
6. Milakpur
Any person , interested in the land described in the said
91
0.0113 Schedule , may , within twenty one days from the date on
669/2507
0.0188 which copies of the Gazette of India containingthis no-
87
0.0040 tification are made available to the public, object in writ-
603
0.0040 ing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying
0.0020
10
7. Bhag Brahmavad
ofthepipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Com-
81
0.0050 petentAuthority , Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension
293
0.0040 Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 73 ,
300
Pratap Vila , Rose Vila Scheme , Bird Sanctuary Road ,
0.0020 Bharatpur- 321001 ( Raj .) .
982
0.0020
978
0.0020 SCHEDULE
958
0.0020 Tehsil : Bayana District: Bharatpur State : Rajasthan
973
0.0400
833
0.0020
Area in Hectare
S.No. Name of Village Survey No.
51
0.0328
8. Chahal
3
4
1
2
225
9. Karvari
0.0340
764
0.0252 662
0.0496
1. Dumariya
257
0.0414 660
0.0192
0.0360
284
665
0.0036
279
0.0424 637
0.0370
276
0.0180
0.0057
635
317
0.0265 634
0.0412
323
0.0504 632
0.0339
331
0.0680 577
0.0792
329
0.0817 575
0.0795
97
0.1692 571
0.0176
172
0.0288 568
0.1456
169
0.0432 429
0.1080
168
0.0536 659
0.0216
327
0.0576 647
0.0216
0.0040
280
646
0.0648
283
0.0072 645
0.0360
226
0.0288 644
0.0040
763
0.0360 643
0.0072
211
0.0360 638
0.0072
165/1259
0.0040 633
0.0144
166
0.0360 597
0.0020
102
0.0360 600
0.0144
101
0.0072 599
0.0900
167
592
0.0144
0.0576
121
591
0.0108
0.0216
0.0432
120
590
0.0020
602
0.0576
119
0.0720 603
0.0020
118
0.0648 582
118/1246
0.1040
0.0072 581
0.0072
112/1245
0.1224
0.1476
549
2005
10. Dhadhren
0.0381 576
0.0216
0.3240
2097 8538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
4 1
2
3
0.0174
1909
10. Dhadhren (Contd . )
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4 1
2
0.0782
1605
17. Shergarh
0.0131
1910
0.0105
1908
0.0540
1912
0.0102
1887
0.0189
1814
0.0436
1752
0.0497
1626
0.0112
1614
0.0184
1613
0.0374
1567
0.0216
1903
0.0176
1603
0.0176
1566
0.0040
1574
0.0020
1565
0.0072
1604
0.0020
1601
0.0020
1615
0.0144
1654
0.0288
1755
0.0020
1762
0.0020
1749
0.0020
1789
0.0144
1793
0.0020
1870
0.0020
1913
0.0216
2189
0.0504
2153
0.0144
2049
0.0864
2109
0.0288
309
11. Singhada
0.0279
311
0.0216
1868
0.0268
1832
0.0270
283
0.0136
823
0.0080
310
0.0576
312
0.0050
1869
0.0288
678
12. Sewla
0.0144
682
0.0072
684
0.0288
686
0.1110
459
13. Singhan Kheda
0.0372
458
0.0500
442
0.0792
441
0.0068
539
14. Samogarh
0.0252
593
0.0436
596
0.0144
671
0.0720
700
0.0252
594
0.0020
873
0.1657
1040
15. Nahroli
0.1216
1039
0.0306
1108
0.0288
1105
0.0863
5
16. Kothi Kheda
0.0288
526
0.0020
551
0.0072
565
0.0720
909
1544
0.0931
0.0382
1411
0.0288
1477
0.0247
1037
0.0148
975
0.0144
971
0.0472
939
0.0298
904
0.0720
934
0.0273
1021
0.0216
618
0.0368
907/2399
530
0.0158
1584
0.0273
0.0634
1387
1387/2462
0.0432
1402/2489
0.0590
1204
0.0072
0.0432
1479
0.0436
1559/2490
0.0216
1197
0.0216
1198
1200
0.0144
1480
0.0216
0.0216
1481
1482
0.0216
0.1224
1484
0.1224
1053
0.0072
1053
1056
0.0216
0.0072
1055
1057
0.0144
0.0040
1051
0.0288
1024
1025
0.0792
1026
0.0216
0.0072
978
0.0360
976
970
0.0288
931
0.0200
0.0072
933
0.0072
935
0.0144
939
0.0216
906
0.0072
390
0.0100
892
0.0360
893
894
0.0072
0.0216
896
704
0.0648
0.0288
619
0.0432
706
0.0040
529
0.0216
895
1550
0.0900
1557
0.0360
1549
0.0288
0.0288
1375
0.0072
1386
0.0288
1386/2461
0.0144
1384
[F..No . R31015 /79/2004- OR - II ] Harish Kumar, Under Secretary 8539 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
4
2
1
711
0.0144 नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2005
1 रीछोली (जारी......)
712
0.0216
723
0.0040
722
0.0400
721
0.0335
714
0.0300
665
0.0792
664
0.0040
667
0.0300
0.0072
668
0.0737
669
670
0.0072
652
0.0150
652/837
0.0216
0.0124
653/818
0.0709
653
का. आ. 2674.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 556 तारीख 14 फरवरी , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 19 फरवरी , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;
0.0314
491
0.0010
499
497
0.0216 और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 09 मई , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;
0.0100
495
0.0080
492
493
0.1472
494
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
0.0216
519
0.0100
0.1455
526
0.0864
527
0.0020
530
0.0072
531
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;
0.0144
471
0.1152
470
0.0050
466
465
0.0360
0.0432
464
0.0072
463
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोाणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता हैं ;
462
0.0157
461
0.0172
460
0.0432
0.0144
453
454
0.0981
451
0.0555 और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त. भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
0.0010
1300
2 पीलूपुरा
0.0110
1301
0.0479 अनुसूची
610
3 नगला कुरवारिया
561
0.1200 तहसील : बयाना
राज्य: राजस्थान
जिला: भरतपुर
0.2389
563.
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नंबर क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में
573
0.1923
0.1279
574
3
4
1
2
584
0.1610 1
778
0.0360
रीछोली
582
0.1096 779
0.0010
0.0173
454
753
0.0108
0.0100
175
762
0.0936
176
0.0504 759
0.0216
177
0.0916
0.0920
754
443
0.0022 758
0.0140
442
0.0087 757
0.0031
179
0.1158 755
0.0612
439/622
0.0020 710
0.0914
2149 G1/05-32 8540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3
4
1
2
4
2
3
1
5
1386
0.0219
0.0040
281
1385
0.0280
लहचोरा कलां (जारी ..... )
280
0.0393
3 नगला कुरवारिया (जारी ...... )
1384
0.0206 279
0.1215
1388
0.0144 289
0.0445
0.0339
1383
291
0.0669
1382
0.0261 292
0.0920
0.0202
1381
244
0.0826
1380
0.0402
0.1565
246
0.0203
1369
247
0.0020
1360
0.0207 236
0.0020
0.0336
1361
231
0.0340
0.0040
1367
230
0.0683
0.0601
1362
0.0700
229
1363
0.0555 225
0.1096
0.0180
1262
363
0.1142
4 नगला खटका
1262/1523 0.0144 367
0.1425
0.0288
1263
347
0.0703
1384/1584 0.0040
0.1375
348
0.0020
1390
0.1636
341
0.0576
1349
342
0.0851
1345/1531 0.0216 326
0.0147
1345/1532 0.0648
0.1368
338
0.0040
1345/1530
0.0576
329
1253
0.0042 328
0.0080
0.0562
1252
89
0.0864
0.0357
6
1085
नारोली
88
0.0216
0.0648
979
87
0.0360
0.0180
978
81
0.1351
0.0022
970
0.0288
84/797
0.0334
977
84
0.1308
0.0432
971
83
0.0124
0.1763
975
34
0.0120
0.0040
976
33
0.0898
0.0733
1439
32
0.0353
1274
0.0224 31
0.0253
0.2620
1273
30
0.0138
0.0792
1276
27
0.0010
0.0020
1275
1237
5 लहचोरा कला
0.0144
0.0817
1283
1238
0.0100
0.0131
1217
1236
0.0462
0.0930
1126
0.0576
1221
0.0175
1124
1235
0.0040
1115
0.0569 1222
0.0524
1114
0.0216 1219
0.0513
0.0576
1116
1218
0.0775
1087
0.0975 1206
0.0504
0.0017
1084
1207
0.0504
1086
0.1008 1208
0.0574
1441
0.0020 1209
0.0072
7
535/2579 0.1728
मिलकपुर
1205
0.0040
535
0.1440 1345
0.0288
533
1345/1529 0.0792
0.1584
530
0.0492 1348
0.0018
529
1352
0.1254
0.0317
528
1353
0.0785
0.0214
0.0576
527
1402/1571 0.0504
526
0.0040 1391
0.1020
1387
517
0.0018
0.0289 8541 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
3
2
4
4
2
3
7
693
0.0024 7
516
0.0040
मिलकपुर (जारी ..... )
मिलकपुर (जारी..... )
601
0.0968 537
0.0279
602
0.1022 539
0.1772
694
0.0020 110
0.0144
604
0.0020 111
0.1296
700
0.0040 106
0.0739
8
12
0.0360 105
भाग ब्रह्मवाद
0.0040
13
0.0512 104
0.0078
14
0.0544 103
0.0176
15
0.0437 102
0.0258
0.1051
61
101
0.0252
60
0.0360 93
0.0261
68
0.0144 92
0.0302
69
0.1177 90
0.0220
70
0.0820 86
0.1736
71
0.0949 61
0.0771
72
0.0020 63
0.0020
83
0.0184 58
0.0040
84
0.1038 60
0.0397
100
0.1031 59
0.0042
101
0.0020 47
0.0393
104
46
0.0336
0.1093
102
0.0110 32
0.0375
103
0.0886 31
0.0376
112
0.0116 21
0.0360
133
0.0757
0.0504
19
147
0.0024 7
0.0520
146
0.0728 5
0.0720
144
0.0216 4
0.0576
6
145
0.0288
0.0020
149
776
0.0144
0.0312
143
0.0434 758
0.0417
294
0.1073 759
0.0534
295
0.1020 774
0.0166
296
0.0474
773
0.0782 760
302
0.0360
0.0219
761
305
0.0400
0.0239
772
303
0.0288
0.1730 762
314
0.0525
0.0504
316
764
0.0288
0.0792 768
1106
0.0288
0.0243
1107
0.0728 738
0.0287
767
0.0864
1114
0.1032 766
1113
0.0864
0.0024 667
0.0670
1116
0.0459
669
1093
0.0371
0.0725 675
0.0554
1073
0.0236 674
0.0283
1066
0.0273 673
0.0020
1024
0.0316 676
0.0288
1023
0.1332 668
0.0504
1022
0.0316 680
0.0040
999
0.0475 672
0.0648
1000
0.0566 685
0.0099
1001
0.1197 686
0.1192
1002
0.0760 699
0.0808
981
0.0476 698
0.0678
969
0.1728 695
0.1350
980
0373 8542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3
4
2
2
3
4 8
979
0.0504
311
0.2978
10 कारवारी (जारी ...... )
0.0210
968
0.0305 भाग ब्रह्मवाद (जारी ...... )
319
959
0.0616
318
0.1202 960
0.0227
321
0.0042 962
0.0040
334
0.0360 961
0.0398
699
0.0288
0.0936
966
330
0.1728 965
0.1315
103
0.0216 834
0.0958
109
0.0040 991/1224 0.1110
110
0.0288
0.0360
903
111/1252 0.0216 974
0.1224
115
0.0216 970
0.0108
0.0216
116
0.0216
9
50
चहल
117
0.0216 49
0.0576
175
0.0216 48
0.0504
174/1258 0.0288 43
0.0040
174
0.0216 52
0.0360
173
0.0576
0.1054
42
171
0.0288 31
0.1018
170
0.0288 269
0.0820
0.1008
208
283
0.2088
0.0288
209
282
0.0742
210
0.0288
0.1656
281
212
0.0288 276
0.0672
11 धाधरेन
2095
0.0864 270
0.0540
2094
0.0576 271
0.0588
2093
0.0785 272
0.1217
2091
0.0864
0.0040
274
2084
0.1039 10 कारवारी
0.0199
213
2083
0.0757
0.0218
214
2071
0.0845 215
0.0383
2072
0.0859
0.0254
216
2073
0.1137 217
0.0240
2105
0.0253
0.0279
218
2033
0.1327
0.0141
219
2007
0.0126 220
0.0216
2006
0.0903 221
0.0386
2004
0.0836 222
0.0463
2067
0.1390 223
0.0389
2066
0.0354
0.0230
224
2065
0.0181 765
0.0040
2064
0.1132 759
0.0919
0.0078
2048
760
0.0360
2047
0.0115 758
0.0465
2051
0.1046 757
0.0288
2020
0.0152 756
0.0536
2038
0.1296 286
0.0360
2036
0.1728 277
0.0216
2101
0.0936 278
0.0216
2152
0.0576 290
0.0040
2154
0.0685 291
0.0654
2155
0.0749 292
0.0360
2156
0.0306 293
0.0716
2157
0.0106 294
0.0076
2158
0.0013 310
0.1420
1905
0.0102 308
0.0668
1904
0.0304 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
3
1 2
1902
0.0312
8543
1
2
3
4
296
0.0144
13 सिंघाड़ा (जारी.....)
11 धाधरेन (जारी ..... )
1901
0.0574
0.0416
1895
1896
0.0232
0.0361
1889
1888
0.0071
1886
0.0103
0.0192
1885
1884
0.0101
1883
0.0307
1881
0.0214
1877
0.0148
1875
0.0040
1871
0.0817
1807
0.0093
0.0149
1813
1809
0.0266
1801
0.0354
1796
0.0216
1736
0.0051
1750
0.0360
0.0682
1751
1753
0.0216
1628
0.0358
1632
0.0359
1631
0.0325
1633
0.0419
1635
0.0288
1640
0.0075
1612
0.0409
1600
0.0371
1602
0.0288
1596
0.0020
0.0681
1594
1577
0.0020
1576
0.0720
1575
0.0446
0.0554
1573
2082
0.0020
2008
0.0072
2034
0.1368
2153
0.0576
1890
0.0144
1882
0.0072
1876
0.0432
1790
0.0072 1834
0.0101
1835
0.0736
1831
0.0504
1830
0.0030
0.0432
1829
1703
0.1152
1827
0.0255
0.0483
1706
0.0132
941
0.0228
845
0.1296
843
0.0216
842
833
0.0648
834
0.0967
835
0.0316
836
0.0177
0.0864
828
827
0.1224
0.0276
874
0.0108
875
886
0.1296
887
0.0064
885
0.0720
272
0.0139
284
0.0648
285
0.0040
286
0.1872
290
0.0483
289
0.0356
0.1296
291
0.0200
292
293
0.0792
0.0260
295
294
0.0445
0.0040
850
0.0020
281
14 सेवला
665
0.0069
666
0.0184
667
0.0374
0.0557
668/1043
669
0.0459
680
0.0685
681
0.0801
i 466
0.1000
457
0.1515
15 सिघान खेड़ा
1791
0.0040
0.0144
1754
1627
0.0072
2189
0.0251
1597
0.0072
1595
0.0144
351
0.0879 12 सराय भम्बू
347
0.0216
346
0.2016
1867
0.1041 13 सिंघाड़ा
1866
0.0144
792
0.0040 450
0.1775
476/505
0.0797
0.1018
449
0.0132
451
445
0.0301
444
0.0232
443
0.0864
438
0.1440
437
0.0010
434
0.0720
442/504
0.0072
433
0.1121 8544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 1
2
3
1
3
4
2
591
0.0578
0.1587
15 सिघान खेड़ा (जारी .....) 431
430
0.0119
592
0.0140
16 समोगर (जारी ..... )
601
0.2360
0.0108 492
495
597
0.0792
0.0108 496
0.0686
0.0020
598
984
0.0072
599
0.0072 16 समोगर
600
985
0.0720
0.0072 986
0.0020
664
0.0432 987
666
0.0216
0.1440
665
990
0.0648
0.0108
0.3576
667
881
0.0216 879
0.0504
668
0.0504 878
670
0.0288
0.0504
875
0.0360
701
0.0720 874
0.0504
696
0.4392 876
0.0216
1185
0.0360
17 नहरोली
897
0.0144
1047
0.2376 896
0.0360
1046
0.1872
1114
899
Q.0288
0.0648 900
0.0216
1091
0.0288 903
0.0144
1092
0.0432 894
0.0720
1093
0.0288 893
0.0040
1094
0.0576 892
0.0040
1087
0.0144 906
0.0288
1098
0.0504 907
0.0504
0.0832
1099
909
0.0108
1100
0.0072 908
0.0432
1109
0.0144 841
0.0360
0.0480
1103
839
0.0504
1104
0.0288 840
0.0040
1106
0.0144 838
0.0216
3
0.0072
18 कोठी खेड़ा
837
6
0.0792
0.0885 834
0.0288
9
0.0020 833
0.0108
10
0.0286 832
0.0072
11
0.0866 831
0.0108
19
0.0432 821
0.0216
22
0.0517 822
0.0144
25
0.0828 823
0.0288
27
0.0843 819
0.0020
28
0.0343 818
0.0072
29
0.1478 815
0.1080
31
0.0401 488
0.2016
786
0.0869 486
0.0072
785
0.0895 487
0.0288
784
0.0603 476
0.0040
779
0.0793 489
0.0080
778
0.0026 475
0.0576
495
0.1050 528
0.1440
496
0.0106 519
0.0040
494
0.0657 521
0.0040
493
0.0698 522
0.0040
522
0.0886 523
0.0360
523
0.0562 526
0.0432
525
0.0072 538
0.0720
524
0.0624
00216
5go
553
0.0719 8545 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
1208
0.0833
0.0223
18 कोठी खेड़ा (जारी ..... ) 555
19 शेरगढ़ (जारी.....)
561
0.0286
1203
0.0900 566
0.0504
1202
0.0216
1205
576
0.0020
0.0809
1201
577
0.0269
0.0655
0.1080 579
0.0648
1483
618
0.0486
1069
0.0250 617
0.0118
1478
0.0216 619
0.1807
0.0517
1476
632
0.0250
0.0288
1067
631
0.0542
0.0496
1494
630
0.0892
0.1092
1060
629
0.0777
1188
0.0216 934
0.0799
902
0.0040 932
0.0576
1050
0.0450 933
0.1128
1018
0.0144 900
0.0794
1019
0.0440 901
0.1264
1058
0.0225 646
0.0247
977
0.0504 902
0.1284
972
0.0869 904
0.0432
658
0.0314 930
0.0020
1027
0.0288 12
0.0288
930
0.0216 15
0.0216
936
0.0040 16
0.0144
942
0.0144 17
0.0144
937
0.0040 20
0.0020
908
0.0072 30
0.0020
907
0.0040 772
0.0360
606
0.0360 773
0.0144
1049
0.0221 552
0.0432
888
0.0486 564
0.0504
889
0.0286 578
0.0072
624
730
0.0468
0.0020
896
891
0.0040
0.0072 19
1552
0.0144
शेरगढ़
910
0.0040 1550
0.0792
909
0.0040 1549
0.0144
659
0.0144 1547
0.0144
702
0.0216 1545
0.1088
703
0.0216 1559
0.0720
705
0.0216 1560
0.0053
707
0.0388 1543
0.0779
616
0.0504 1376
0.0473
609
0.0072 1397
0.0291
615
0.0398 1398
0.0657
611
0.0643 1399
0.0072
612
0.0072 1400
0.0215
903
0.0040 1383
0.0010
577/2402 0.0341 1401
0.0669
577
0.0720 1402
0.0498
579
0.1153 1403
0.1270
535
0.0016 1409
0.0083
534
0.0504 1225
0.0534
532
0.0260 1216
0.0167
533
0.0504 1415
0.0596
531
0.0027 1414
0.0609
(फा० सं ० आर०-31015 / 79 / 2004 - ओ आर- II )
(हरीश कुमार) अवर सचिव 8546
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
4 New Delhi , the 28th July , 2005
1
0.0144
RICHHOLI ( Contd ...... ) 711
712
0.0216
723
0.0040
722
0.0400
721
0.0335
714
0.0300
665
0.0792
0.0040
664
667
0.0300
668
0.0072
669
0.0737
670
0.0072
0.0150
652
0.0216
652/837
653/818
0.0124
653
0.0709 S. O. 2674. Whereas by a notification of the Gov- ernment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.556, dated the 14th February, 2005, is- sued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum andMinerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 19thFebruary, 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified inthe Schedule appended to that notification for the pur- poseoflaying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Mangiya ( Indore ) terminal in the State ofMadhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;
0.0314
491
0.0010
499
497
0.0216 Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification weremade available to the public on the 9thMay , 2005;
0.0100
495
0.0080
492
0.1472
493
0.0216
494
And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;
0.0100
519
526
0.1455
0.0864
527
0.0020
530
0.0072
531
And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein ;
471
0.0144
0.1152
470
0.0050
466
0.0360
465
464
0.0432
0.0072
463
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
0.0157
462
0.0172
461
460
0.0432
453
0.0144
0.0981
454
0.0555
451
0.0010
1300
2 PILUPURA
1301
0.0110 And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Gov- ernment directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .
0.0479
610
3 NAGLA KURVARIYA
0.1200
561
SCHEDULE
0.2389
563
Tehsil : Bayana District: Bharatpur State : Rajasthan
0.1923
573
Area in Hectare
0.1279
574
S.No. Name of Village Survey No.
0.1610
584
4
1
3
2
582
0.1096 778
0.0360
1 RICHHOLI
0.0173
454
779
0.0010
0.0100
175
753
00108
0.0504
176
762
0.0936
177
0.0916 759
0.0216
0.0022
443
0.0920
754
0.0087
442
758
0.0140
0.1158
179
757
0.0031
0.0020
439/622
755
0.0612
0.0040
281
710
0.0914 8547 [ भर्भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
2
3
4
3
2
280
0.0393
3 NAGLA KURVARIYA
1386
5 LAHCHORA KALAN
0.0219
0.1215
279
1385
0.0280 (Contd ......)
(Contd ...... )
0.0445
289
1384
0.0206 291
0.0669
1388
0.0144 292
0.0920
1383
0.0339 244
0.0826
1382
0.0261 246
0.1565
1381
0.0202 247
0.0020
1380
0.0402 236
0.0020
1369
0.0203 231
0.0340
1360
0.0207
0.0683
230
0.0336
1361
229
0.0700
1367
0.0040 225
0.1096
1362
0.0601 4
363
NAGLA KHATKA
0.1142
1363
0.0555 367
0.1425
0.0180
1262
347
0.0703
1262/1523 0.0144
0.1375
348
1263
0.0288 341
0.1636
1384/1584 0.0040 342
0.0851
1390
0.0020 326
0.0147
1349
0.0576 338
0.1368
1345/1531 0.0216 329
0.0576
1345/1532 0.0648 328
0.0080
0.0040
1345/1530
89
0.0864
1253
0.0042 88
0.0216
0.0562
1252
87
0.0360
0.0357
6 NAROLI
1085
81
0.1351
979
0.0648
0.0288
84/797
978
0.0180 84
0.1308
970
0.0022. 83
0.01-24
977
0.0334 34
0.0120
971
0.0432 33
0.0898
975
0.1763 32
0.0353
976
0.0040 31
0.0253
1439
0.0733 30
0.0138
1274
0.0224 27
0.0010
1273
0.2620 1237
5 LAHCHORA KALAN
0.0144
1276
0.0792 1238
0.0100
0.0020
1275
0.0462
1236
1283
0.0817 1221
0.0576
1217
0.0131
0.0040
1235
1126
0.0930 1222
0.0524
1124
0.0175
0.0513
1219
1115
0.0569 1218
0.0775
1114
0.0216 1206
0.0504
1116
0.0576 1207
0.0504
1087
0.0975 1208
0.0574
0.0017
1084
1209
0.0072
1086
0.1008 1205
0.0040
1441
0.0207 1345
0.0288
7 MILAKPUR
535/2579
0.1728 1345/1529 0.0792
535
0.1440 1348
0.0018
533
0.1584
0.0317
1352
0.0492
530
1353
0.0214
0.1254
529
1402/1571 0.0504
528
0.0785 1391
0.1020
527
0.0576 1387
0.0018
526
0.0040 2149 GI/05-33 8548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 3
2
4
4
2
3
1
7
0.1350
695
517
0.0289
0.0024
693
516
0.0040
MILAKPUR (Contd ...... )
7 MILAKPUR (Contd ...... )
601
0.0968 537
0.0279
0.1022
602
539
0.1772
0.0020
694
110
0.0144
604
0.0020 111
0.1296
0.0040
700
106
0.0739
0.0360
12
8 BHAG BRAHMAVAD
105
0.0040
13
0.0512 104
0.0078
0.0544
14
103
0.0176
0.0437
15
102
0.0258
61
0.1051 101
0.0252
0.0360
60
0.0261
93
0.0144
68
92
0.0302
0.1177
69
0.0220
90
70
0.0820 86
0.1736
71
0.0949
0.0771
61
0.0020
72
0.0020
63
0.0184
83
0.0040
58
84
0.1038
0.0397
60
0.1031
100
59
0.0042
0.0020
101
47
0.0393
0.1093
104
46
0.0336
0.0110
102
32
0.0375
0.0886
103
0.0376
31
0.0116
112
21
0.0360
133
0.0757
0.0504
19
147
0.0024
0.0520
7
0.0728
146
5
0.0720
0.0216
144
0.0576
4
0.0288
145
0.0020
6
149
0.0144 776
0.0312
0.0434
143
0.0417
758
0.1073
294
759
0.0534
0.1020
295
774
0.0166
0.0782
296
0.0474
773
302
0.0360 760
0.0219
0.0400
305
761
0.0239
0.1730
303
772
0.0288
0.0525
314
0.0504
762
0.0792
316
764
0.0288
0.0288
1106
768
0.0243
0.0728
1107
738
0.0287
1114
0.1032
0.0864
767
1113
0.0024
0.0864
766
0.0670
1116
667
0.0459
0.0725
1093
669
0.0371
0.0236
1073
675
0.0554
0.0273
1066
674
0.0283
0.0316
1024
0.0020
673
0.1332
1023
676
0.0288
0.0316
1022
668
0.0504
0.0475
999
680
0.0040
0.0566
1000
672
0.0648
1001
0.1197
0.0099
685
0.0760
1002
686
0.1192
0.0476
981
699
0.0808
0.1728
969
698
0.0678 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8549
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4 2
3
1
980
0.0373 8
979
0.0504 BHAG BRAHMAVAD (Contd....)
968
0.0210
0.0616
959
960
0.0227
962
0.0040
961
0.0398
966
0.0936
965
0.1315
834
0.0958
991/1224
0.1110
903
0.0360
974
0.1224
970
0.0108
50
0.0216 9 CHAHAL
49
0.0576
48
0.0504
43
0.0040
52
0.0360
42
0.1054
31
0.1018
269
0.0820
283
0.2088
282
0.0742
281
0.1656
0.0672
276
270
0.0540
271
0.0588
272
0.1217
274
0.0040
213
10 KARVARI
0.0199
214
0.0218
215
0.0383
216
0.0254
217
0.0240
218
0.0279
219
0.0141
220
0.0216
0.0386
221
222
0.0463
223
0.0389
224
0.0230
765
0.0040
0.0919
759
760
0.0360
758
0.0465
757
0.0288
756
0.0536
286
0.0360
277
0.0216
278
0.0216
290
0.0040
291
0.0654
0.0360
292
293
0.0716
294
0.0076
310
0.1420
4 1
2
3
308
0.0668
10 KARVARI ( Contd ....)
311
0.2978
0.0305
319
0.1202
318
321
0.0042
334
0.0360
699
0.0288
330
0.1728
103
0.0216
109
0.0040
110
0.0288
111/1252
0.0216
115
0.0216
116
0.0216
117
0.0216
175
0.0216
174/1258 0.0288
174
0.0216
173
0.0576
171
0.0288
170
0.0288
208
0.1008
209
0.0288
0.0288
210
212
0.0288
11 DHADHREN
2095
0.0864
2094
0.0576
2093
0.0785
2091
0.0864
2084
0.1039
2083
0.0757
2071
0.0845
0.0859
:2072
2073
0.1137
2105
0.0253
2033
0.1327
2007
0.0126
2006
0.0903
2004
0.0836
2067
0.1390
2066
0.0354
2065
0.0181
2064
0.1132
2048
0.0078
2047
0.0115
2051
0.1046
2020
0.0152
2038
0.1296
2036
0.1728
2101
0.0936
2152
0.0576
2154
0.0685
2155
0.0749
2156
0.0306
2157
0.0106
2158
0.0013
1905
0.0102 8550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) 3
4
2
4
3
1
2
0.0040
0.0304
11 DHADHREN (Contd ....) 1904
13 SINGHADA (Contd ....) 792
0.0144
296
0.0312
1902
0.0101
1834
0.0574
1901
0.0736
0.0416
1835
1895
0.0504
1831
1896
0.0232
0.0030
1830
0.0361
1889
0.0071
0.0432
1829
1888
1703
0.1152 1886
0.0103
0.0255
1827
1885
0.0192
0.0483
0.0101
1706
1884
0.0132
0.0307
941
1883
0.0214
0.0228 1881
845
1877
0.0148
0.1296
843
0.0040
842
1875
0.0216 1871
0.0817
833
0.0648
0.0967 1807
0.0093
834
0.0316 1813
0.0149
835
836
0.0266
0.0177 1809
1801
828
0.0864
0.0354
827
1796
0.0216
0.1224 1736
0.0051
874
0.0276 1750
875
0.0108
0.0360
0.0682
1751
886
0.1296 1753
0.0216
0.0064
887
1623
885
0.0358
0.0720
0.0359
272
0.0139 1632
0.0325
0.0648
284
1631
285
1633
0.0419
0.0040
0.0288
0.1872 1635
286
0.0075
290
1540
0.0483 1612
0.0409
0.0356
289
1600
0.0371
0.1296
291
1602
0.0288
292
0.0200 1596
0.0020
0.0792
293.
0.0681
1594
295
0.0260
0.0020
1577
0.0445
294
1576
0.0720
0.0040
850
1575
0.0446
0.0020
281
0.0554
1573
14 SEWLA
665
0.0069
0.0020
2082
666
0.0184 2008
0.0072
667
0.0374 2034
0.1368
668/1043
0.0557
0.0576
2153
669
0.0459 1890
0.0144
680
0.0685 1882
0.0072
681
0.0801
0.0432
1876
15 SINGHAN KHEDA
466
0.1000 1790
0.0072
457
0.1515
0.0040
1791
450
0.1775 1754
0.0144
476/505
0.0797 1627
0.0072
449
0.1018 2189
0.0251
451
0.0132 1597
0.0072
445
0.0301 1595
0.0144
444
0.0232 12 SARAI BHAMBU
351
0.0879
443
0.0864 347
0.0216
438
0.1440 346
0.2016
437
0.0010 1867
13 SINGHADA
0.1041
434
0.0720 1866
0.0144
442/504
0.0072 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
8551 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
4
1
3
2
1
3
2
433
0.0576
0.1121
16 SAMOGARH ( Contd .... ) 591
592
431
0.1587
0.0140 15 SINGHAN KHEDA (Contd....)
430
601
0.0108
0.0119
597
0.2360
0.0108 492
0.0020 495
598
0.0792
0.0072 496
0.0686
599
0.0072
16 SAMOGARH
984
600
0.0072 985
0.0720
664
0.0432
0.0020
666
0.0216 986
665
0.0108 987
0.1440
0.0216 990
0.0648
667
881
0.0576
668
0.0504
0.0288
0.0504
879
670
701
0.0504
0.0720 878
0.0360
0.4392 875
696
0.0360
0.0504
874
17 NAHROLI
1185
0.0216
876
0.2376
1047
0.1872
0.0144
1046
897
896
0.0360
1114
0.0648
1091
0.0288 899
0.0288
0.0432 900
0.0216
1092
903
1093
0.0144
0.0288
0.0720
894
1094
0.0576
0.0040
1087
0.0144 893
0.0504 892
0.0040
1098
906
0.0288
1099
0.0832 907
0.0504
1100
0.0072 909
0.0108
1109
0.0144 908
0.0432
1103
0.0480 841
0.0360
1104
0.0288 839
0.0504
1106
0.0144 840
0.0040
3
0.0072
18 KOTHI KHEDA
838
0.0216
6
0.0885 837
0.0792
9
0.0020 834
0.0288
0.0286
10
833
0.0108
11
0.0866 832
0.0072
19
0.0432 831
0.0108
22
0.0517 821
0.0216
25
0.0828 822
0.0144
27
0.0843 823
0.0288
28
0.0343 819
0.0020
0.1478
29
818
0.0072
31
0.0401 815
0.1080
786
0.0869
0.2016
785
488
0.0895
0.0072
486
784
0.0603 487
0.0288
779
0.0793 476
0.0040
778
0.0026 489
0.0080
495
0.1050
0.0576
475
496
0.0106 528
0.1440
494
0.0657 519
0.0040
493
0.0698 521
0.0040
522
0.0886 522
0.0040
0.0562
523
523
0.0360
525
0.0072 526
0.0432
524
0.0624 538
0.0720
0.0719
553
590
0.0216
555
0.0223 8552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
4 2
3
0.0286
561
566
0.0504 18 KOTHI KHEDA (Contd ....)
576
0.0809
577
0.0269
579
0.0648
618
0.0486
617
0.0118
619
0.1807
632
0.0250
631
0.0542
0.0892
630
629
0.0777
934
0.0799
0.0576
932
933
0.1128
900
0.0794
901
0.1264
0.0247
646
0.1284
902
0.0432
904
930
0.0020
12
0.0288
0.0216
15
16
0.0144
17
0.0144
20
0.0020
30
0.0020
0.0360
772
773
0.0144
552
0.0432
564
0.0504
578
0.0072
624
0.0020
896
0.0040
1552
19 SHERGARH
0.0144
1550
0.0792
1549
0.0144
1547
0.0144
1545
0.1088
1559
0.0720
1560
0.0053
0.0779
1543
1376
0.0473
1397
0.0291
1398
0.0657
1399
0.0072
1400
0.0215
1383
0.0010
1401
0.0669
0.0498
1402
1403
0.1270
1409
0.0083
1225
0.0534
1216
0.0167
1415
0.0596
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
4 2
3
0.0609 19 SHERGARH ( Contd ....) 1414
1208
0.0833
1203
0.0900
1202
0.0216
0.0020
1205
0.0655
1201
0.1080
1483
1069
0.0250
0.0216
1478
0.0517
1476
0.0288
1067
1494
0.0496
1060
0.1092
0.0216
1188
0.0040
902
1050
0.0450
0.0144
1018
1019
0.0440
1058
0.0225
0.0504
977
972
0.0869
658
0.0314
0.0288
1027
930
0.0216
936
0.0040
0.0144
942
937
0.0040
908
0.0072
907
0.0040
606
0.0360
0.0221
1049
0.0486
888
0.0286
889
0.0468
730
0.0072
891
0.0040
910
0.0040
909
0.0144
659
0.0216
702
0.0216
703
705
0.0216
0.0388
707
616
0.0504
609
0.0072
615
0.0398
0.0643
611
612
0.0072
903
0.0040
0.0341
577/2402
577
0.0720
579
0.1153
535
0.0016
534
0.0504
532
0.0260
533
0.0504
0.0027
531
[ F.N. R - 31015 / 79/ 2004 - OR - II ] AUDICHVUMADnder Secretarv 8553
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
शहरी विकास मंत्रालय
(निर्माण प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2675.- लोक परिसर (अनाधिकृत दखलकारों की बेदखली) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा दिनांक 14 मई , 1994 के भारत के राजपत्र, भाग-II , खंड 3. उपखंड ( ii) में प्रकाशित दिनांक 31 मार्च , 1994 के का.आ. 1124 द्वारा जारी अधिसूचना का अधिकमण करते हुए , ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पहले अथवा छोड़ दिए गए अधिकमण के सिवाय , केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित तालिका के कॉलम (2) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को सरकारी राजपत्रित अधिकारी होने के नाते उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ एतद्वारा संपदा अधिकारियों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है तथा यह निदेश भी देती है कि उक्त अधिकारी प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा अथवा उसके तहत संपदा अधिकारियों के लिए निर्धारित दायित्वों का, उक्त तालिका के कालम (3) में निर्दिष्ट लोक परिसरों बावत अपने-अपने क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर निष्पादन करेंगे: -
तालिका
कमसं.
अधिकारी का पदनाम
लोक परिसर की श्रेणी और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं
(2)
(3)
(1)
1
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय भंडार मंडल सं.-1 , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
2
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय भंडार मंडल - सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
3
कार्यपालक अभियंता , 'ए ' मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
4
कार्यपालक अभियंता, ' बी ' मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
5
कार्यपालक अभियंता , ' सी ' मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
6
कार्यपालक अभियंता, ' एफ' मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
7
कार्यपालक अभियंता , ' के ' मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर 8554
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(3)
(1)
(2)
8
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, नई दिल्ली केन्द्रीय सचिवालय मंडल, उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
9
कार्यपालक अभियंता , राष्ट्रपति संपदा मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
10
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
कार्यपालक अभियंता, श्रीमती सुचेता कृपलानी अस्पताल मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
11
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली कच्चा पानी आपूर्ति मंडल, उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
12
कार्यपालक अभियंता, पटना केन्द्रीय मंडल सं. - 1 , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , पटना
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
13
कार्यपालक अभियंता , रांची केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , रांची
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
14
कार्यपालक अभियंता, भुवनेश्वर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- 1 , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , भुवनेश्वर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
15
कार्यपालक अभियंता, धनबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, धनबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
16
कार्यपालक अभियंता , कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.-। केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
17
कार्यपालक सं.- IV केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता अभियंता,कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
18
कार्यपालक अभियंता , सं.- VI , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
19
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- III , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
20
कार्यपालक अभियंता, गंगतोक केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , गंगतोक
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर 8555 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
(1)
(3)
(2)
21
कार्यपालक अभियंता, चंडीगढ़ केन्द्रीय मंडल सं. - 1 , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चंडीगढ़
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
22
कार्यपालक अभियंता, चंडीगढ़ केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चंडीगढ़
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
23
कार्यपालक अभियंता, करनाल केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , करनाल
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
24
कार्यपालक अभियंता , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, जम्मू जम्मू केन्द्रीय मंडल , उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
25
कार्यपालक अभियंता, श्रीनगर केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , श्रीनगर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
26
कार्यपालक अभियंता, माधोपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, माधोपुर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
27
कार्यपालक अभियंता, जालंधर केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , जालंधर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
28
कार्यपालक अभियंता, जोधपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, जोधपुर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
29
कार्यपालक अभियंता , चेन्नै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- 1. केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चेन्नै
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
30
कार्यपालक अभियंता, चेन्नै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चेन्नै
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
31
कार्यपालक अभियंता, चेन्नै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- III, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चेन्नै
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
32
कार्यपालक अभियंता , चेन्नै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- IV , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चेन्नै
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
33
कार्यपालक अभियंता , कोयम्बतूर केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोयम्बतूर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
34
कार्यपालक अभियंता , पांडिचेरी केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , पांडिचेरी
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
2149 GI/05-34 8556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(1)
(2)
35
कार्यपालक अभियंता, त्रिवेन्द्रम केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , त्रिवेन्द्रम
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में। स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
36
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कोचीन केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोचिन
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
37
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कालीकट केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कालीकट
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
38
कार्यपालक अभियंता, मुम्बई केन्द्रीय मंडल सं . VI , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मुम्बई
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण्णाधीन परिसर
39
कार्यपालक अभियंता , मुम्बई केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- VIII , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मुम्बई
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रप्पाधीन परिसर
40
कार्यपालक अभियंता, गोवा केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , गोवा
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
41
कार्यपालक अभियंता, नागपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.-I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नागपुर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
42
कार्यपालक अभियंता, नागपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.-- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नागपुर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
43
कार्यपालक अभियंता, देहरादून केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , देहरादून
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
44
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कानपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कानपुर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक निंयंत्रणाधीन परिसर
45
कार्यपालक अभियंता, इलाहाबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , इलाहाबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
46
कार्यपालक अभियंता, भोपाल केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , भोपाल
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
47
कार्यपालक अभियंता , इन्दौर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं - Ⅰ , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , इन्दौर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
48
कार्यपालक अभियंता , बेंगलूर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं - Ⅰ , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , बेंगलूर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर 8557 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
(3)
(1)
(2)
49
कार्यपालक अभियंता , बेंगलूर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं- II केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , बेंगलूर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
50
कार्यपालक अभियंता, बेंगलूर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं- III , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, बेंगलूर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
51
कार्यपालक अभियंता, हैदराबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल सं । , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , हैदराबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
52
कार्यपालक अभियंता, हैदराबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल सं- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , हैदराबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
53
कार्यपालक अभियंता, हैदराबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल सं- III , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , हैदराबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
54
कार्यपालक अभियंता , मैसूर केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मैसूर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
55
कार्यपालक अभियंता, मुम्बई केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.-I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मुम्बई
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीनं परिसर
56
कार्यपालक अभियंता , मुम्बई केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मुम्बई
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
57
कार्यपालक अभियंता , मुम्बई केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- V , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, मुम्बई
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
58
कार्यपालक अभियंता, नवी मुम्बई केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नवी मुम्बई
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
59
कार्यपालक अभियंता, राजकोट केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, राजकोट
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
60
कार्यपालक अभियंता, वड़ोदरा केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , वड़ोदरा
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
61
कार्यपालक अभियंता, गांधीनगर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.-I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , गांधीनगर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
62
कार्यपालक अभियंता, गांधीनगर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , गांधीनगर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर 8558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
(2) 63
कार्यपालक अभियंता, जयपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, जयपुर 64
कार्यपालक अभियंता , जयपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , जयपुर 65
उप निदेशक उद्यान , मंडल सं -I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली 66
उप निदेशक उद्यान, मंडल सं-II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली 67
उप निदेशक उद्यान, मंडल सं - III , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली 68
उप निदेशक उद्यान, मंडल सं - IV , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, नई दिल्ली 69
उप निदेशक उद्यान , मंडल सं V , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली 70
उप निदेशव उद्यान, मंडल सं-VI , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली 71
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कोट्टायम केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लर्माण विभाग , कोट्टायम 72
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय लोक नैर्माण विभाग , पेरींगॉम कन्नूर केन्द्रीय मंडल,
73
कार्यपालक अभियंता , विजयवाड़ा केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , विजयवाड़ा 74
कार्यपालक अभियंता, विजाग केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , विशाखापत्तनम 75
कार्यपालक अभियंता, चेन्नै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं V, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , चेन्नै 76
कार्यपालक अभियंता , अंडमान केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, अंडमान
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
(3)
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर 8559 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
(3)
(1)
(2)
77
कार्यपालक अभियंता, मदुरै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- 1 , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मदुरै
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
78
कार्यपालक अभियंता, मदुरै केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मदुरै
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
79
कार्यपालक अभियंता, भोपाल केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , भोपाल
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
80
कार्यपालक अभियंता , नासिक केन्द्रीय मंडल केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नासिक
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
81
कार्यपालक अभियंता, पुणे केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- I , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, पुणे
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
82
कार्यपालक अभियंता, पुणे केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , पुणे
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में , स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
83
कार्यपालक अभियंता, पुणे केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- III , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग, पुणे
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
84
कार्यपालक अभियंता , सिलचर केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , सिलचर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
85
कार्यपालक अभियंता , आइजॉल केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , आइजॉल
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
86
कार्यपालक अभियंता , खटखटी केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , खटखटी
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
87
कार्यपालक अभियंता, पटना केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.- II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , पटना
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
88
कार्यपालक अभियंता, मुजफ्फरपुर केन्द्रीय मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , मुजफ्फरपुर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
89
कार्यपालक अभियंता, सं. - II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , भुवनेश्वर भुवनेश्वर केन्द्रीय मंडल उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
90
कार्यपालक अभियंता , कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल सं. - VII , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर 8560
[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
(2)
(3)
91
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल सं.-II , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीना में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
92
कार्यपालक अभियंता, कोलकाता केन्द्रीय मंडल सं. -V, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , कोलकाता
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
93
कार्यपालक अभियंता, अल्मोड़ा केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , अल्मोड़ा
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
94
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , गढ़वाल गढ़वाल केन्द्रीय मंडल , उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
95
कार्यपालक अभियंता, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , वाराणसी वाराणसी केन्द्रीय मंडल , उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
96
कार्यपालक अभियंता , लुधियाना केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , लुधियाना
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
97
कार्यपालक अभियंता , दिल्ली विमानन मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
98
कार्यपालक अभियंता, फरीदाबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , फरीदाबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
99
कार्यपालक अभियंता , गाजियाबाद केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , गाजियाबाद
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
100
कार्यपालक अभियंता, नोएडा केन्द्रीय मंडल , केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर -8561
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
(2)
(1)
101
कार्यपालक अभियंता, बाहरी दिल्ली मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली 102
कार्यपालक अभियंता, 'एच' मंडल, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
103
कार्यपालक अभियंता, संसदीय निर्माण मंडल सं- IV, केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली
104
कार्यपालक अभियंता , विज्ञान भवन केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग , नई दिल्ली मंडल ,
(3)
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
उनके अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा में स्थित केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिसर
[मिसिल सं. 1/61/86- डब्ल्यू- I ( डी.जी. ) भाग ] आर. के. चतुर्वेदी, निर्माण निदेशक
Ministry of Urban Development
(Works Division)
New Delhi , the 28th July, 2005
S. O. 2675. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , and in supersession of the notification, vide No.S.O.1124, dated the 31st March, 1994 , published in the Gazette of India , part - II , section 3 , sub- section( ii ) , dated the 14th May, 1994 , except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column(2) of the Table below, being gazetted officers of Government, to be estate officers for the purposes of the said Act and further directs that the said officers shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in column (3 ) of the said Table
Designation of the Officer S. No.
(2) .
(1).
1. Executive Engineer ,
Central Stores Division No.1 , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
2. Executive Engineer ,
Central Stores Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
Table
Categories of Public Premises and local limits ofjurisdiction
(3).
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
8562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
3. Executive Engineer , `A` Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
4. Executive Engineer , `B` Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
5. Executive Engineer , `C` Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
6. Executive Engineer , 'F' Division , Central Public Works Department, New Delhi .
7 . Executive Engineer , 'K' Division , Central Public Works Department, New Delhi .
8. Executive Engineer , Central Secretariat Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of jurisdiction. his
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within limits of local jurisdiction. his
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
(2) ( 1)
9. Executive Engineer , President Estate Division, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi .
10. Executive Engineer , Smt . Sucheta Kriplani Hospital Division, Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
11. Executive Engineer , Unfiltered Water Supply Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
12. Executive Engineer , Patna Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department, Patna.
13. Executive Engineer , Ranchi Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Ranchi .
14. Executive Engineer , Bhubaneshwar Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Bhubaneshwar .
2149 GI /05-35
8563 (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
8564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
15.. Executive Engineer , Dhanbad Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Dhanbad .
16. Executive Engineer , Kolkata Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department, Kolkata.
17. Executive Engineer , Kokat a Central Division No.IV , Central Public Works Department , Kolkata.
18. Executive Engineer , Kolkata Central Division No. VI , Central Public Works Department , Kolkata .
19. Executive Engineer , Kolkata Central Division No.III , Central Public Works Department, Kolkata .
20. Executive Engineer , Gangtok Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Gangtok.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(2) 21 . Executive Engineer , Chandigarh Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Chandigarh .
22. Executive Engineer , Chandigarh Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Chandigarh.
23. Executive Engineer , Karnal Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Karnal .
24. Executive Engineer , Jammu Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Jammu .
25. Executive Engineer , Srinagar Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Srinagar.
26. Executive Engineer , Madhopur Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Madhopur.
8565 (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
8566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
(2)
27 . Executive Engineer , Jalandhar Central Division, Central Public Works Department , Jalandhar.
28. Executive Engineer , Jodhpur Central Division, Central Public Works Department , Jodhpur.
29. Executive Engineer , Chennai Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Chennai .
30. Executive Engineer, Chennai Central Division No.II , Central Pubic Works Department , Chen
31. Executive Engineer . Chennai Central Division No.III , Central Public Works Department , Chennai .
32. Executive Engineer , Chennai Central Division No.IV , Central Public Works Department , Chennai .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
8567
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
(1)
(2) 33. Executive Engineer , Coimbatore Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Coimbatore .
34. Executive Engineer , Pondicherry Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Pondicherry .
35. Executive Engineer , Trivandrum Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Trivandrum.
36. Executive Engineer , Cochin Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Cochin.
37. Executive Engineer , Calicut Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Calicut
38. Executive Engineer , Mumbai Central Division No. VI , Central Public Works Department , Mumbai .
(3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
(2)
39. Executive Engineer , Mumbai Central Division No. VIII , Central Public Works Department , Mumbai .
40 . Executive Engineer , Goa Central Division , Central Public Works Department, Goa.
41. Executive Engineer , Nagpur Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department, Nagpur.
42. Executive Engineer , Nagpur Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Nagpur.
43. Executive Engineer , Dehradun Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Dehradun .
44. Executive Engineer , Kanpur Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Kanpur.
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] (3 )
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated witnin local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8569
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
( 1)
(2)
45 . Executive Engineer , Allahabad Central Division, Central Public Works Department, Allahabad.
46. Executive Engineer , Bhopal Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Bhopal .
47. Executive Engineer , Indore Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Indore.
48. Executive Engineer , Bangalore Central Division No.I, Central Public Works Department , Bangalore.
49. Executive Engineer , Bangalore Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Bangalore.
50. Executive Engineer , Bangalore Central Division NoIII , Central Public Works Department , Bangalore.
(3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of jurisdiction his
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1)
(2)
51 . Executive Engineer , Hyderabad Central Division Nol , Central Public Works Department , Hyderabad.
52. Executive Engineer , Hyderabad Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Hyderabad.
53. Executive Engineer , Hyderabad Central Division No.III , Central Public Works Department , Hyderabad.
54. Executive Engineer , Mysore Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Mysore.
55 . Executive Engineer , Mumbai Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Mumbai .
56 . Executive Engineer , Mumbai Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Mumbai .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local. limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8571
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
(1)
(2)
57. Executive Engineer , Mumbai Central Division No.V , Central Public Works Department , Mumbai .
58. Executive Engineer , Navi Mumbai Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Navi Mumbai .
59. Executive Engineer , Rajkot Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Rajkot.
60. Executive Engineer , Vadodara Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Vadodara .
61. Executive Engineer , Gandhinagar Central Division No.I. , Central Public Works Department , Gandhinagar .
62. Executive Engineer, Gandhinagar Central Division No.II. , Central Public Works Department , Gandhinagar.
2149 G1/05-36
(3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
( 1)
(2)
63. Executive Engineer , Jaipur Central Division No.I. , Central Public Works Department , Jaipur.
64. Executive Engineer , Jaipur Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Jaipur.
65. Deputy Director of Horticulture , Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
66. Deputy Director of Horticulture , Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
67. Deputy Director of Horticulture , Division No.III , Central Public Works Department, New Delhi .
68. Deputy Director of Horticulture, Division No.IV , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within limits of his local jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within limits of local jurisdiction his
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8573
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
( 1)
(2)
69 . Deputy Director of Horticulture , Division No.V , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
70. Deputy Director of Horticulture , Division No. VI , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
71. Executive Engineer , Kottayam Central Division, Central Public Works Department , Kottayam.
72. Executive Engineer , Kannur Central Division , Central Public Works Department, Peringom.
73. Executive Engineer , Vijayawada Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Vijayawada.
74. Executive Engineer , Vizag Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Visakhapatnam .
(3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
(3)
(2)
(1)
75 .. Executive Engineer , Chennai Central Division -V , Central Public Works Department , Chennai .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
76. Executive Engineer , Andaman Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Andaman .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
77. Executive Engineer , Madurai Central Division No.I, Central Public Works Department , Madurai .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
78. Executive Engineer, Madurai Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Madura
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
79. Executive Engineer, Bhopal Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Bhopal.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
80. Executive Engineer , Nasik Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Nasik .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8575 [ भाग JI- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
(1)
(2)
81. Executive Engineer , Pune Central Division No.I , Central Public Works Department , Pune .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
82. Executive Engineer , Pune Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department, Pune .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
83. Executive Engineer , Pune Central Division No.III , Central Public Works Department , Pune,
Premises`. under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
84. Executive Engineer , Silchar Central Division, Central Public Works Department , Silchar ,
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
85. Executive Engineer , Aizawal Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Aizawal .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
86. Executive Engineer , Khatkhati Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Khatkhati .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(1 )
(2)
87 . Executive Engineer , Patna Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Patna.
88. Executive Engineer , Muzaffarpur Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Muzaffarpur .
89. Executive Engineer , Bhubaneswar Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department, Bhubaneswar .
90. Executive Engineer , Kolkata Central Division No. VII , Central Public Works Department , Kolkata.
91. Executive Engineer , Kolkata Central Division No.II , Central Public Works Department , Kolkata .
92. Executive Engineer , Kolkata Central Division No.V , Central Public Works Department, Kolkata.
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
( 1 )
(2) 93. Executive Engineer , Almora Central Division, Central Public Works Department, Almora.
94. Executive Engineer , Garhwal Central Division, Central Public Works Department , Garhwal .
95. Executive Engineer , Varanasi Central Division , Central Public Works Department, Varanasi .
96. Executive Engineer , Ludhiana Central Division, Central Public Works Department , Ludhiana .
97. Executive Engineer , Delhi Aviation Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
98. Executive Engineer , Faridabad Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Faridabad .
8577 (3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction 8578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
(2) (1)
99 Executive Engineer, Ghaziabad Central Division , Central Public Works Department , Ghaziabad .
100 Executive Engineer , Noida Central Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
101 Executive Engineer , Outer Delhi Division , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
102 Executive Engineer , 'H' Division . Central Public Works Department, New Delhi .
103 Executive Engineer , Parliament Works Division - IV , Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
104 Executive Engineer , Vigyan Bhawan Division, Central Public Works Department , New Delhi .
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]
(3)
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction.
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
Premises under the administrative control of Central Public Works Department situated within local limits of his jurisdiction .
[ F.No. 1 / 61/86 - WI ( DG ) Part ] R. K. CHATURVEDI , Director (Works) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
श्रम मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2676.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण गोदावरीखानी ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22013/ 1 /2005- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005
S.O. 2676.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2004) ofIndustrial Tribunal - cum Labour Court , Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L-22013/ 1/2005 - IR (C- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM : LABOUR COURT : GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT :
Smt. Survarchala, M.A.B.L. , Chairman-cum- Presiding Officer
Monday , the 16th day of May , 2005 Industrial Dispute No. 63 of2004
Between:-
1. Manuka Rajesham , S/ o O. Delu , Age 34 yrs. , Occ: unemployee , R/ o .
Peddakaluvala (M),Peddapalli , Dist . Karimnagar.
2. Godugu Swarupa , W/o Chandraiah , Age 33 yrs . , Occ : House Hold, R/o Kataram , Mdl . Mutharam , Dist . Karimnagar. ...Petitioners
AND
1. CollieryManager, GDKNo. VI -B Incline , Godavarikhani .
2. General Manager, RG- I,GM, Godavarikhani .
3. Managing Director , Singareni Collieries , Kothagudem, Dist . Khammam .........Respondents 2149 GI/05-37
8579
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
This petition coming before me for final hearing in thepresence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao , Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy , advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date , the court passed the following :-
AWARD
1. The petitioner filed the petition U/ s 2 - A(2) of I.D Act, 1947 to appoint the 1st Petitioner into service and to give other attendant benefits, setting-aside the dismissal .
2. The averments of the petition are as follows :-
The father of the petitioners by name Manuka C'delu is an employee of the respondents ' company . He was appointed on 25-11-1982 in Godavarikhani . The 2nd respondents terminated the services of the father of the petitioner on 31-8-1999 . The father of the petitioner could not attend to duties propperly due to ill-health . The charge against the father of the petitioner is :-
"Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause "
There is no enquiry about the charge. The termination ofthe services of the father of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The father ofthe petitioner died on 13-3-2000 and the mother of the petitioner died on 26-2-2000 . The father of the petitioner has 17 years service in the company. The petitioner is an unemployee and is on roads for livelihood . He performed the marriage of his sister incurring Rs . 3 lakhs by taking debt. Hence, he filed the petition to direct the respondents company to appoint him as an employee , in the company.
3. To this , the respondent No. 2 filed counter. The respondent No. 1 & No. 3 filed memo adopting the counter filedby the respondent No. 2. The contents of the counter are as follows :
Late M. Pedda Odelu worked as Coal Filler at GDK No. 6 Incline and was dismissed from service on 31-8-99 , after conducting domestic enquiry for his mis - conduct of absenteeism under the approved standing orders of the respondent's company . Late Pedda Odelu had : ut- in only 1 actual attendance during the year, 1998 , without applying any leave . He was issued with charge-sheetdt . 15-3-99 . After receipt of the charge sheet , he did not submit any explanation . Enquiry notice was issued on 2-6-99 , duly fixing the date of enquiry on 9-6-99. Pedda Odelu after receipt of the enquiry notice , had attended the enquiry on 9-6-99 . He has given no objection to record the enquiry proceedings in English language . He participated in the enquiry proceedings and put his thumb impression over the enquiry proceedings in token of his participation, in the enquiry. He admitted his guilty stating that he was absent due to ill - health and personal problems . He also stated that he remained absent for his duties without leave or sick, due to health problem or personal problems . He did 8580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
not filedocument or did not produce any evidence to prove his case. Show-cause notice was issued on 7-7-99 advising him to make any representation, duly enclosing the enquiry report and enquiry proceedings . But he failed to submit his representation . The attendance particulars of Late M. Pedda Odelu for the past five years , till his termination or as follows
Sl.No
Year
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Actual attendance
1995
078
01.
1996
127
02.
096
03 .
1997
001
1998
04.
05
1999
NIL
Even after receiving the chargesheet and during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings , Pedda Odelu has failed to improve his attendance . The charges levelled against him were proved and as he did not improve his attendance , his services were terminated vide office order dt . 29-8-99 w.e.f. , 31-8-99 .
That as the father of the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the company , the petitioner is not entitled for dependant employment . Further, all the retirement benefits such as , C.M.P.F. F.B.I.S. , and Gratuityetc. , were already paid to the father of the petitioner Hence , the petition may be dismissed with costs ..
4. On behalf of the petitioner , Ex . W- i to Ex..W- 6 aremarked.
Onbehalf of the respondent Ex. M - 1 to Ex . М- 8 aremarked.
5. Heard both sides .
6. The petitioner No. I is the son of late M. Pedda Odelu. Late Pedda Odelu worked in the respondent company as Coal Filler at GDK . No. 6 -B . Incline , and he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 31-8-99 , on the ground of absenteeism .
The petitioner No. 1 filed the death certificate of Late M. Pedda Odelu i.e. marked as Ex . W - 1 . His mother was also died and the the death certificate is marked as Ex . W - 2 . He also filed the legal heir certifcate i.e. marked as Ex . W- 3 . The dismissal Order or Pedda Odelu is marked as Ex . W - 4 = Ex . M - 8 . The enquiry report is marked as Ex W- 5 - Ex . M - 6 . The office order dt. 7-1-88 posting later M. Pedda Odelu to GDK . No. 5 Incline is marked as Ex. W-6.
Now the petitioner filed the petition to direct the respondent company to appoint him as an employee in the respondent company, as an L.R. , of late Pedda Odelu.
The contention of the respondent is that as Pedda Odelu was dismissed from service , dependent employment scheme is not applicable to the petitioner. Pedda Odelu was dismissed from service w.e.f. 31-8-99 . He was died on 13-3-2000 . Thus , Pedda Odelu was alive for about one year, after he was dismissed from service. During that period , he did not file any petition before any court . Further all the retirement benefits such as CMPF, FBIS and gratuity etc. , were already paid . But now , the petitioner is challenging that late Pedda Odelu was dismissed from service, without conducting any domestic enquiry .
7. In the counter, it is clearly stated by the * respondent that during the year , 1995 to 1999 , Pedda Odelu never worked the required musters . In the year , 1998 , he worked only one day and in the year 1999 he did not work even a single day . Even- after issuing the chargesheet and during the pendency of domestic enquiry , late Pedda Odelu never improved his attendance . Domestic enquiry was conducted duly following the principles of natural justice . The enquiry notice is marked as Ex. M -3 . Pedda Odelu had given no objection letter to record the enquiry proceedings i.e. , marked as Ex . M -5 . The enquiry proceeding are as marked as Ex . M - 5 . The enquiry report is marked as Ext. M-6. Show cause notice was issued to Pedda Odelu i . e . , marked as Ex . M - 7 . The absenteeism was clearly recorded and it is on record that no one can deny the fact. The dismissal order is marked as Ex . M - 8 .
8. The Advocate for the respondent cited 2002 (1) ALD - 314 (DB) , in which their Lordships held: ---
"that termination from service on the ground of continuity absence from duty under the standing orders does not amount to retrenchment . When such order of termination was made after giving notice to the employee , it is not liable to be challenged "
In the light of the above decision , the petitioner has no right to challenge the termination of services of late Pedda Odelu .
9. The Avocate for the petitioner cited 1995 (2 ) - dv683. In which , their Lordships held that if the workman were to alive , he would have instituted the Industrial Dispute in the Labour Court and there was absolutely no legal impediment for him to do so and if the Industrial Court were to up hold the claim of the workman , it would have granted the relief of reinstatement or lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back - wages and other reliefs . If that is so , what the deceassed workman himself would have been awarded by the Labour Court except the relief of reinstatement had he survived . should be considered to be a part of his estate. With the death of the workman the cause of action to seek reliefs contemplatedunder the Act from the Labour Court does not die with him in totality and the causes of action to recover, lumsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
and back -wages do survive for the benefit of his estate. Recognising this position and in order to resolve the conflict of opinions existed earlier among several High Courts , the Legislature inserted Sub- section ( 8 ) in Section 10 by Amending Act 46 of 1982 and after the amendment proceedings before any adjudicatory authority in relation to an industrial dispute shall not lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman and the adjudicator is enjoined to complete such proceedings and submit his award to the appropriate Government . There cannot be any dispute that the petitioners - legal heirs of the deceassed workman are entitled to the estate left behind the workman . This is so having regard to the provisions ofSection 306 of the Indian Succession Act .
In the present case , the charges levelled against late Pedda Odelu were proved against him beyond all reasonable doubts . He was dismissed from service w.e.f. , 31-8-99 . He was died on 13-3-2000 . Thus , he was alive 'for about one year . Moreover , it is clear from the counter filed by the respondents that all the retirement benefits such as CMPF, FBIS and Gratuity etc. , were already paid. It is also stated that since Pedda Odelu was dismissed from service , the petitioner is not entitled for dependant employment under the rules of the respondent company.
Under these circumstances , the petition No. 1 is not entitled for any dependant employment or for any other fresh appointment in the respondent company. There appears to be no reason to interfare with the decision of the respondent company and the dismissal order dt . 31-8-99 is justified.
Hence , the petition is dismissed .
In the result, the petition is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs .
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this , the 16th day of May , 2005.
Smt . K. SUVARCHALA , Chairman- cum- Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
-Nil-
ForWorkman :-
-Nil-
ForManagement :-
Exhibits
ForWorkman: -
Ex. W- 1 Dt. 10-4-2000 Death certificate
Ex. W- 2 Dt . 25-7-2000 Form No. 6 of Death certificate Ex. W-3 Dt. 16-9-2000 Dependant certificate, X- copy .
8581 Ex. W-4 Dt. 29-8-1999 Dismissal Ir . of Marika Pedu Odelu
Ex. W -5 Dt. 9-6-1999 Enquiry Report
Office Order
Ex. W-6 Dt. 7-1-88
ForManagement :-
Ex. M- 1 Dt . 15-3-99 Charge sheet
Office Order
Ex. M-2 Dt . 30-5-99
Ex. M-3 Dt. 2-6-99 Enquiry notice
Ex . M -4 Dt. 9-6-99 No objection Ir. given by. M.P. Odelu
Ex . M -5 Dt . -do- Enquiry proceedings Ex .M-6 Dt . -do- EnquiryReport
Ex. M-7 Dt. 7-7-99 Show cause notice
Dismissal order
Dt. 29-8-99
Ex. M-8
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2677.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण गोदावरीखानी (संदर्भ संख्या 64/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22013/1 /2005- आई आर ( सी -11 ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2677.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 64/2004) ofthe Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005
[No. L-22013 /1 /2005 - IR ( C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT : GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT:
Smt . K. Suvarchala, M.A.B.L. , Chairman - cum-Presiding Officer
Monday , the 16th day of May , 2005. Industrial Dispute No. 64 of 2004.
8582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
Between :-
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Minor
children
1. Gummula Narsamma, W/ o Late Lingaiah, Aged about 38 yrs. , Occ: Widow.
2. Gummula Thirupathi , S/o Late Lingaiah , Aged about 18 yrs . ,
of petitio- ner No. 1 , i.e. , 2 to 5 .
3. G. Swaroopa, D/ o Late Lingaiah, Aged about 15 yrs . , (Unmarried Daughter)
4. G. Vijayalaxmi, D/o Late Lingaiah , Aged about 13 yrs . , (Unmarried Daughter)
5. G. Manasa, D/o Late Lingaiah, Aged about 11 yrs . , (Unmarried daughter)
6. G. Pochaiah, F/o Late Lingaiah, Aged about 72 yrs . , (Father of deceased employee) .
7. Armulla Bhagya Laxmi , W/ o Komuraiah , Aged about 21 yrs . , (Married Daughter)
All are residents ofvillage Nangaom, Mandal:Ramagundam. Dist . Karimnagar . -Petitioners LegalHeirs.
AND
1. The Colliery Manager, VII -B , Godavarikhani
2. The Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area- . Godavarikhani .
3. The Managing Director Singareni Collieries, (Adann. ) Kothagudem,Dist. Khammam Respondents/ Employer.
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao , Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date , the Court passed the following :-
AWARD
1. The petitioners filed the petition U/s 2 -A(2) of I.D. Act, to direct the respondents company to appoint the petitioner No. 1 into service , duly giving continuity ofher husband's service with attendant benefits and back -wages , setting- aside the termination order dt . 12-3-99 .
2. The averments of the petition are as follows :-
The husband of the petitioner by name Gummula Lingaiah was appointed in the respondent company in the year, 1984. On 1-1-95, he was promoted as Coal filler. Later he was transferred to Mandamarri and again he was transferred to Godavarikhani . A single charge of absenteeism under 25.25 of standing orders , was faisted against the husband of the petitioner No. 1. He was sick from 8-2-99 to 2-5-99. He suffered with T.B. , and his health was not good from June, 1998. The services of the husband of the petitioner was terminated on 12-3-99 and he was died on 26-9-99 . Enquiry was conducted behind the back ofthe deceased . The deceased had drawn pay of Rs. 8,000 . He was having 16 years qualified service in the company . No compensation was paid to the petitioners . The petitioners and the husband of the petitioners are illiterates . The question of publication of enquiry notice in Vaartha newspaper was not with in the knowledge of the petitioner. Hence, the enquiry is null and void. Hence , the petitioners filed the petition for the above said relief.
3. To this, the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition . The respondents 1& 3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the respondent No. 2. The contents of the counter are as follows : -
Late Gummula Lingaiah was appointed as Badli Filler on 2-3-84 . He was regularised as Coal Filler w.e.f. , 1-1-95. He worked at GDK . No. 7 LEP mine of the respondent company. The attendance of late G. Lingaiah was poor, from the year , 1995. He has not improved his attendance in spite of repeated counselling. As such , he was issued with charge sheet on 11-7-1998 , for putting 66 days of attendance in the year, 1997 under clause No. 25.25 of the approved standing orders of the respondents company , for his habitual absenteeism without sufficient cause . After receipt ofthe charge sheet , he submitted explanation stating that due to illhealth (Jaundice ) and other family roubles, he did not attend for his duties . Domestic enquiry was conducted. Enquiry notice was issued on 26-8-98 and 28-9-98 , 15-10-98 and 22-11-98 . But he failed to attend the enquiry . The respondent company published the enquiry notice in Andhra Jyothi telugu daily on 13-12-98 . In response to the said notice published in the news paper , late G. Lingaiah had attended the enquiry on 17-12-98 . During the enquiry, he admitted the charges levelled against him and he did not cross - examine the management witnesses . He did not produce any documents or sick certificate in his defence. A fair opportunity was given to him to defend his case and he fully participated in the enquiry. Show - cause notice was issued on 27-1-99 and . he submitted mercy petition on 3-2-99 requesting the company to condone his absence , as he absconded for his duties due to illhealth .
As the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service, the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for dependant employment and for any compensation as per the rules of the company . Moreover, the petitioner No. 1 received all the terminal benefits payable in respect of Late G. Lingaiah. She filed this I.D. , as an after- thought. Hence, the petition may be dismissed .
4.Onbehalfof the petitioner , Ex . W - 1 and Ex. W- 2 aremarked.
respondent, Ex . M- 1 to Ex . M -7 are Onbehalf of marked.
5. Heard both sides .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
6. Late G. Lingaiah worked in the respondent company. Hewas appointed on2-3-84 as Badli Filler. He was regularised asCoalFiller w.e.f. 1-1-95 . The charge levelled against him is habitual absence without sufficient cause , under clauseNo. 25.25 of the approved standing orders of the respondent's company.
7. The 1st petitioner is the wife of late G. Lingaiah . Petitioners 2 to 5 are the minor children of G.Ongaiah and the 1stpetitioner. 6th petitioner is the father of late Lingaiah and the 7th petitioner is the marrieddaughter.
8. Now the petitioners filed the petition stating that the dismissal of the Lingaiah is illegal and arbitrary and he didnot participate in the enquiry.
While contradicting the above statement the respondents filed counter stating that he attended 78 days during the year, 1995, 94 days in 1996, 66 days in 1997 and 23 days in 1998. Charge sheet was issued on 11-7-98 . Enquiry letters were issued on 26-8-98 , 28-9-98, 15-10-98 and 22-11-98 . But he failed to attend the enquiry
8583
Under those circumstances , the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for dependant employment or for any fresh appointment in the respondents company . There appears to be no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents ' company and the dismissal order dt . 9-3-99 isjustified.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Inthe result, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
!
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this , the 16th day of May , 2005.
Smt. K. SUVARCHALA, Chairman -cum -Presiding Officer
Appendix ofEvidence
Witnesses Examined
For Workman :-
-Nil-
-Nil-
ForManagement :--
Exhibits
ForWorkman :-
Ex. W- 1 Dt . 10-03-99
Thecharge sheet is marked as Ex. M- 1 . The reply given by late G. Lingaiah is marked as Ex. M- 2 . The enquirynotices are marked as Ex. M -3 to Ex . M-6 . Paper publication was given in Andhra Jyothi telugu news -paperi.e. , marked as Ex. M-7.
Memo
Ex. W-2 Dt . 8-6-04 Family members certificate
ForManagement :-
Ex. M-1 Dt. 11-7-98
Charge sheet
Ex. M -2 Dt. 24-8-98 Reply to charge sheet
Ex. M-3 Dt. 26-8-98
Enquiry notice
Ex. M-4 Dt. 28-9-98
Enquiry notice
Ex. M-5 Dt. 15-10-98
Then the petitioner had attended the enquiry on 17-12-98. He fully participated in the enquiry and did not cross-examinethe management witnesses . He also gave his statement during enquiry . He admitted the charges . The enquiry proceedings are marked as Ex . M-8 . It is clear from the enquiry proceedings that late G. Lingaiah admitted the charges . He stated that he had suffered ill- health due to jaundice and he had taken local treatment. He failed to attend to his duties due to family throubles and requested the company to forgive him for his absenteeism . He specifically stated that he is admitting the charges and he did not have any sick certificate.
Butwhereas, it is stated in the petition that the husband ofthe petitioner suffered from T.B. , and his services were abruptly terminated as the disease will effect other workers . This is an utter false . The charges levelled against the husband of 1st petitioner are proved beyond all reasonable doubts . The enquiry was conducted duly following the principles of natural justice and as per the rules of the respondent company . Hence , it is as per the rules and valid.
Enquiry notice with acknowledgement.
Ex. M-6 Dt . 20/22-11-98 Enquiry notice
Ex. M- 7 Dt . 13-12-98 Enquiry notice published in Telugu news paper . Andhra Jyothi .
Ex. M-8 Dt. 17-12-98 Domestic enquiry proceed- ings.
Ex. M-9 Dt. 5-1-99 Enquiry Report
Ex. M -10 Dt. 27-1-99 Show - cause notice and receipt of ack .
Ex. M- 11 Dt. 3-2-99
Mercy petition.
Dismissal order .
Ex. M- 12 Dt. 9-3-99
9. Late G. Lingaiah was dismissed from service w.e.f. , 12-3-99 . He was died on 26-9-99 . It is clearly stated in the counter filed by the respondents that the petitioners No. 1 is not entitled for dependant employment and for any compensation, as per the rules of respondents company. Moreover, she received all the terminal benefits in respect of her husband late G. Lingaiah .
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का. आ. 2678.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध 8584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 75/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013/1 /2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2678.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. L.C.I.D. 75/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
[No. L-22013/ 1 /2005- IR (C- II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Shri E. ISMAIL , B. Sc . , LL.B. , Presiding Officer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . L.C.LD. 75/2002 BETWEEN :
Sri K. Subramanyam, S/ o Venkata Krishnaiah ,
R/ o34-263 ,
Bapujinagar , Miryalaguda ,
....Petitioner Nalgonda District .
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India , Miryalaguda,
Nalgonda District
2. Thebrief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh. during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement ofpaddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweeper, attendars , assistants etc. The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees. The Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1976. The said contract came in the month of September , 1976. The Petitioner in the above cases was engagedby the Respondent directly to the establishment ofMill/Depot. Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect ofthe corporation as required under Sec . 7 (A) of the Contract Labour & Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/s . G. Ravi Mohan, G. Srinivasa Reddy & G. Naresh Kumar , Advocates
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy , S. Prabjakarudu , P. Srinivasulu & B.V. Chandrasekhar , Advocates
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec. 2 A (2 ) of the I. D. Act . 19:47 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No 8395 of 1989 3. Subsequent to September, 1976 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously till December , 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service. Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months. The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. That there was an agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union . Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis , However, they did not stick to their word . Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings ofRegional Labour Commissioner ( C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee. relationship .There was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter was referred to the Government. However , the Government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the Union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
this present disputes. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . At the time of transferring to the field ofcontractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent. The action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and Commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 modern Rice Mills established all over the country. The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice mlling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event ofdistress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India. Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casuals workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot the at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A. P. Transpsort workers Co- op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Compnay, Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as two the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby denied.
5, It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour
8585
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Commissioner ( C ) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-96 to the Ministry ofLabour and Employment, New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent. That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the Corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time. Hence , there is no cause of action. In fact, in a similar case this Hon'ble Court observed as follows:-
"In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated inthe case , that is in LCID No. 164/2001 ( ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India. Otherwise, all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits , it can safely be concluded that theydid work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent , which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C) in 1988.Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer connot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India. But , however, in all these cases they are entitled for some. relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent 8586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex. M1 is agreement with the A. P. Transport Workers Co -operative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . Ex. M 2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issed in respect of Ex . M1 and M2. They have not filed the license of the contractors .
Corporation in the month of April , 1976. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointmeni letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engagedby Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wages registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court . Ex . W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-10-75 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specifix work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he worked from 13-10-75 to 30-1-1976 . The certificate was issued by Sri Bhavani Prasad who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Bhavani Prasad who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex. W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex. W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979, due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment. only for the category watchman, sweepers , attenders , assistant etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet, the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976. They were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator , such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so -called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employement on rotation basis. However the Respondent did not stick to their word . Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) . Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court . Even asuming that these workmen arecontractworkers that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D ) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting offoodgrains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work trurned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine .
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor . It was his responsibility . In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. , they have approached this Court. The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence, the same may be dismissed .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI , Nalgonda . He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex . W6 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1976-78. It is 8587 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award .
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
: Witnesses
Witnesses examined for the
examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
Sri K. Subramanyam :
WW1 :
MW1: Si S. RamaRao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W1 : Copy of 1r. from Dist . Convenor, AICC of FCI to ALC( C)dt. 16-8-93
Ex. W2 : Copy of reply to Ex . W2 dt . 9-5-94
Ex . W3 : Copy of Letter from ALC( C) to Dist. convenor , AICC of FCIdt. 10-9-93
Ex. W4 : Copy of failure report
Ex. W5 : Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6 : Original service certificatedt . 30-1-76
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex. M1 : Copy of tender instructions and agreement
Ex. M2 : Copy of (Original) matter of arbitration
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का.आ. 2679.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी. आई.डी. 222/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner. But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A(2) ofthe A.P. Amendment Act inIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 beween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex. W6 service certificate which is only for few months between 1975 and 1976. Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor , although they have filed some documents to show that there was contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them but they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'bleHigh Court of A.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quit . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence, the following award is passed ; the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual /temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on- temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at
[सं. एल.- 22013/1/2005- आई. आर. ( सी.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी 2149 G1/05-38 8588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2679.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 222/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of FCI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L - 22013/ 1 /2005 - IR (C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer
Dated the 31st day of August , 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. I. D. No. 222/2001 (Old I.D. No. 4/2000 transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Warangal) Between:
Shri Gandikota Rambabu,
S/o Venkataiah ,
C/ o Sri D..Janardhan,
Advocate,
H. No. 1-7-1246,
Advocate Colony .
Hanamkonda
...Petitioner AND
1. The District Manager , The Food Corporation of India , Millers Association Building , HunterRoad , Warangal.
2. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, III Floor, HACA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3. The President ,
The Food Corporation of India ,
Hamalies Labour Contract Co - op . Society Ltd., C/ o F.C I. Godowns , Kazipet.
.... Respondents Appearances :
For the Petitioner : M/ s . D. Janardhan , M. V. Raja Readdy , Ch . Lingamurthy , J. Damodhar & J. Yeshwanth Raj , Advocates .
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy P. Srinavasulu & B. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocates
AWARD
This case I.D. No. 4/2000 is transferred from Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Warangal in view of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour's order No. H- 11026/2001 - IR(C - II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 222/2001 . This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A( 2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. Inspite of severai adjournments given from 9-1-2003 for cross - examination of the Petitioner, for several adjournments including 31-8-2004 the petitioner has not turned - out . Inspite of number of adjournments the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . There is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the Petitioner. Hence , a Nil ' Award is passed, Transmit.
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 31st day of August, 2004.
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Respondent
: Nii
WW1 : Sri G. Rambabu
Documents marked for the Petitionėr Ex. W1 : Copy of identity card
Ex. W2 : Office copy of legal notice .
Documents marked for the Respondent
: Nil [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
8589 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
APPEARANCES :
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
Forthe Petitioner
: M/ s . G. Ravi Mohan ,
G. Srinivasa Reddy &
G.Naresh Kumar,
Advocates
Forthe Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy,
S.Prabjakarudu, का.आ. 2680.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 76/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
P. Srinivasulu &
B.V. Chandrasekhar,
Advocates
[सं. एल -22013/1/ 2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
AWARD
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
S.O. 2680. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 76/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofFCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2005.
[No. L- 22013/ 1/2005 - IR (C- II) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Shri E. Ismail, B.Sc. , LLB. , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.L.D. No. 76/2002
BETWEEN :
Shri Ch . Amruth Reddy,
S/o Veera Reddy,
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen , sweeper , attendars , assistants etc. The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis. In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the mill /depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1976. The said contract came in the month ofApril, 1976. The Petitioner in the above case was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment of Mill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker, the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the corporation as required under Sec . 7 (A) of the Contract Labour & Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers.
C/o . 16-9-749/41 , Race Course Road ,
..... Petitioner
OldMalakpet, Hyderabad.
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
TheDistrictManager ,
2. Food Corporation of India,
Miryalaguda,
3. Subsequent to April , 1976 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously from May , 1976 to December, 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal terminationthere was an agitation by the terminated worker atMiryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. That there was an Nalgonda District.
.....Respondents 8590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A. P. Transport workers co.op. society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Company, Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-77. to 11-11-1979. Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby denied.
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-96 to the Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97 / 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent. That the allegation thatcertain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also, never worked in the corporation. The Petitioner has not filed any writpetition for any relief at any point of time. Hence, there is no cause of action. In fact, in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :
agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union. Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However, they did not stick to their word. Therefore, the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter was referred to the Government. However, the Government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . At the time oftransferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action of the spondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal . arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the crai termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attenviat benefus .
4.A counter was filed siating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food corporation of India at any point of time . That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country . The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offeredby the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matter. The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by
"In conclusion , Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case , that is in LCID No. 164 (2001 ) (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India. Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractor and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for theFood Corporation of India although through contractor. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent, which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC (C) in 1988 . Hence, the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But , however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief ." Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporation in the month of April , 1976. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department. At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter. He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same. Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex . W4 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court , Ex. W5 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-4-1976 to 30-12-1978 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he workedwith R 2. He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he worked from 20-5-1976 to 24-11-77 . The certificate was issued by Sri Padmanabhan who was working as Engineer . he denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Padmanabhan who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex . W1 to W4 his name is not mentioned . Except Ex . W5 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D ) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport
8591
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done . Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioners was never engaged by the FCI. The certificate is not genuine . Ex . M1 is the copy of the contract dated 29-3-1974 . Ex . M2 is the copy of the contract for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979 .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI , Nalgonda. He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W5 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex. M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5- 77. Ex. M2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79. They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex. M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors .
10. It is argued by the Learned Cousel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979. Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistants etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . yet, the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976 , They were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator, such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working, their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed thatthese casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However , the Respondent did not stick to their word . Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C). Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . TheManagement witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has 8592
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8, 1927
not filed any documents. Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility . It fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence, the same may be dismissed .
Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence, the following award is passed : the Respondent No , 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary iavour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given prefererice over others in the matter of empioyment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages, taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award ofany casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . iransmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
MW1: Sri S. Rama Rao
WW1 : Sri Ch . Amruth Reddy
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W1 : Copy of Ir . from Dist . Convenor, AICC of FCI to ALC (C) dt . 16-8-93
Ex. W2: Copy of reply to Ex. W2 dt . 9-5-94 Ex. W3: Copy of failure report Ex. W4: Copy of order in WP 9008/1992 Ex. W5: Original service certificate.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex. M1 : Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex. W2: Copy of (Original ) matter of arbitration
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
12. It may be that this case has got a chequered history. The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1976-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication whatsoever with this Petitioner . But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A(2) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act . 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Goverr.ment fr: dustrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A (2) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. NO . 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex . W5 service certificate which is only for few months between 1976 and 1977. Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor , although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that hehas not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise. But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them . But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed. But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged. In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved, that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food
का. आ. 2681.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट 8593 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
For the Respondent
M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy ,
S.Prabjakarudu,
P. Srinivasulu & औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 78/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
B.V. Chandrasekhar , Advocates
[सं. एल-22013/1/ 2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
AWARD
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
S.O. 2681.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 78/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 29-06-2005 . on
[No. L-22013 /1/2005 - IR (C- II) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : Shri E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LLB . , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.L.D. NO . 78/2002
Between:
Sri V. Muralidhar Rao ,
S/ o . V. Dasharatha Ramaiah,
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category ofwatchmen, sweeper , attendars , assistants etc. The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the Mill /Depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1974. The said contract came in the month of September , 1974. The Petitioner in the above case was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment ofMill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect ofthe corporation as required under Sec. 7(A) of the Contract Labour & Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
C/o 16-9-749/41 ,
Race Course Road ,
OldMalakpet,
Petitioner
Hyderabad.
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager , FoodCorporation of India, HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager ,
Food Corporation of India, Miryalaguda,
Nalgonda District .
.....Respondents
Appearances:
Forthe Petitioner
: M/ s . G. Ravi Mohan ,
G. Srinivasa Reddy & R. Devender Reddy,
Advocates
3. Subsequent to September, 1974 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performance his performing his perennial nature ofjob , each as sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously from October , 1974to December, 1978 without break in service. The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service. Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period oftwo months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the RDO . That there was an agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union. Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However, they did not stick to their word. Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour 8594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
Commissioner (C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings ofRegional Labour Commissioner (C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them, then the matter was referred to the Government . However, the Government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97. In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the Contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4.Acounter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point oftime. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and Commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills establsihed all over the country . The object of establsihment of Modern Rice mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India. Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters. The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A.P. Transport Workers Co - op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Company , Miryalaguda was the Contractor for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-1979. Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations thatthe Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby denied .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-96 to the Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97 / 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case. Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation. The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at anypoint oftime. Hence there is no cause of action . In fact, in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows:
"In conclusion, petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in the case that is in LCID No. 164/2001 ( ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the food Corporation of India . Otherwise , all these petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and moreover the say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors and they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent , which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but 8595 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
not of ten years . Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C ) in 1988. Hence, the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt , their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India. But , however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief" . Hence , the petitionmay be dismissed.
handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done . Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors. The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI. The certificate is not genuine , Ex . M1 isthe copy ofthe contract dated 29-3-1974 . Ex . M2 is the copy of the contract for the period from 12-11-1977 to .11-11-1979 .
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the respondent corporation inthe month of October , 1974. He worked in sweeping, cleaning and pesticiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter. He worked continuously for two years without any break. He was engagedby Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same. Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex. W4 is the Judgement copy ofthe Hon'ble High Court , Ex. W5 is service certificate. As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-1-1975 to 1-12-1979 . He was not paid any bonus .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District ivianager, rei , Nalgonda . He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked . Ex. MI is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and univading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . Ex. M2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex . M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he worked from October , 1974 to 29-5-1976 . The certificate was issued by Sri Bhavani Prasad who was working as Engineer. He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Bhavani Prasad who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management. It is true that in Ex. W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned . Except Ex. W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and itwas commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting offood grains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement ofpaddy during the years 1973-1979 . Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistants etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet , the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1975. He was engaged in the mill. They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator , such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act. In absence of this license the so -called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working, their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the termed workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However , the Respondent did not stick to their word. Hence, it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner( C) . Hence , they approached as per the direction to this Court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging 2149 GI/05-39 8596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent. The Management has not filed any documents . Hence, it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility . In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter, but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of23 years . Hence , the same may be dismissed .
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] proved, that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence , the following award is passed : the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history. The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner . But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec. 2A(2) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex. W6 service certificate which only contains that he worked from October , 1974. Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor , although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor , MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise. But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them . But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should t engaged. In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have
Witnesses examined for theRespondent WW1 : Sri V. Muralidhar Rao MW1 : Sri S. Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1: Copy of Ir. from Dist ..Convenor, AICC of FCIto ALC (C) dt . 16-8-93 .
Ex. W2: Copy of reply to Ex . W2dt . 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of ALC( C) ' s letter to Dist . Convenor , AICC Ex. W4: Copy of failure report
Ex. W5: Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6: Original service certificate
Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. M1 : Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex.M2: Copy of ( Original ) matter of arbitration 7
8597 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3.(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
APPEARANCES :
नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2005
Forthe Petitioner
: M/s. G. Ravi Mohan ,
G. Srinivasa Reddy &
G.Naresh Kumar ,
Advocates.
Forthe Respondent
: M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy, S.Prabjakarudu,
का. आ.2682.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 77/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
P. Srinivasulu &
B.V. Chandrasekhar ,
Advocates.
[सं. एल-22013/1/2005 - आई आर( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
AWARD
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of AndhraPradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
S.O. 2682. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 77/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 29-6-2005. on
[No. L-22013 /1 /2005 - IR (C- II)] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: Shri E. Ismail, B.Sc. , LLB . , Presiding Officer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.LD. NO . 77/2002
Between:
Shri V. Subba Rao ,
S/o . Dasharatha Ramaiah ,
C/o . 16-9-749/41 ,
2. The brief averınents as averred in the petition are : that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy inAndhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweeper , attendars , assistants , etc. The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact , the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1975. The said contract came in the month of January , 1975. The Petitioner in the above case was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment ofMill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect ofthe corporation as required under Sec . 7( A) ofthe Contract Labour & Abolishment Act. In absence of the said license so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
... Petitioner
Race Course Road , OldMalakpet, Hyderabad.
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan ,
Hyderabad.
The District Manager,
2. Food Corporation of India , Miryalaguda,
3. Subsequent to January , 1975 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping , cleaning and pesticiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner, However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously from January , 1975 to December, 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal terminationthere was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the RDO. That there was an Nalgonda District.
..Respondents 8598
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A.P. Transport Workers Co - op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Company , Miryalaguda was the Contractor for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the Contractor . He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. The allegations thatthe Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby by denied .
agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union. Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However , they did not stick to their word . Therefore, the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner (C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them, then the matter was referred to the government. However, the government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9 -A of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitionerservices were terminated by the Contractor on the advice of the Respondent. The action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal arbitrary and unjust. Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated wa fullt back wages and all other attendant benefits .
5. Itis submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-96 to the Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation. The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time. Hence there is no cause of action . In fact , in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows:
4.Acounter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one ofthe 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country .The object of establishment ofModern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offeredby the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of the casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors forhandling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters .
" In conclusion , Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case that is inLCID No. 164/2001 ( ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India . Otherwise , all these petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise. Theydid work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits , it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent , which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt , there is delay but not of ten years . Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC( C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Courts cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But, however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief" . Hence , the petition may be dismissed .
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent Corporation in the month of January , 1975. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pesticiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the respondents did not issue any appointment letter. He worked continuously for two years without any break . He v'as engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex. W4 is the Judgement copy ofthe Hon'ble High Court , Ex. W5 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-1-1975 to 1-12-1979 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross - examination he deposed that he worked with R 2. He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he worked from 20-5-1975 to 24-11-1977 . The certificate was issued by Sri Bhavani Prasad who was working as Engineer. He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Bhavani Prasad who has issued the certificate. It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submittedby him to the Management . It is true that in Ex. W1 to W4 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex. W5 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour. That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D ) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains at MRM , Miryalaguda on tender basis . The
8599
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract , depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid. The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FC ! The certificate is not genuine . Ex . Ml isthe copy of the contract dated 29-3-1974 Ex . M2 is the copy of the contract for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979.
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager, FCI , Nalgonda . He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex . W5 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate. He denied that the Petitioner ever worked . Ex . M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 . Ex . M2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex . M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors.
10. It is argued by the Learned Cousel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 . Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistants etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet , the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1975. He was engaged in the mill. They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator, such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the terminated workers atMiryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed thatthese casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However , the Respondent did not stick to their word. Hence, it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . Hence, they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers, that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed 8600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act .
TheManagement witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility. In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter, but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence , the same may be dismissed.
worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court Hence , the following award is passed the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for theRespondent
WW1 : Sri V. Subba Rao
MW1 : Sri S. Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W1 : Copy of lr . from Dist. Convenor , AICC of FCI to ALC (C) dt . 16-8-93
Ex. W2: Copy of reply to Ex . W2dt . 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of failure report
Ex.W4: Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W5 : Original service certificate..
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex. M1: Copy of tender instructions and agreement
Ex. M2: Copy of (Original) matter of arbitration.
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner . But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A (2 ) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A ( 2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa andM/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .He has filed Ex . W5 service certificate which only contains that he worked from 20-2-1975 . Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India cither through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them. But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002, i.e .. five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed. But they cannot keep quite for years together and then - approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have 8601 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत को राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Appearances:
नईदिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
For the Petitioner
M/ s . G. Ravi Mohan , G. Srinivasa Reddy and R. Devender Reddy , Advocates
का. आ. 2683.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 80/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
For the Respondent : M/ s. B. G. Ravindra Reddy , S.Prabjakarudu, P. Srinivasulu and B.V. Chandrasekhar , Advocates
AWARD
[सं. एल -22013 /1 /2005 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005
1. This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . CottonCorporation of India and two others .
S.O. 2683.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.L.C.I.D. 80/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of F. C. I. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L -42013/1/2005- IR(C- II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , AT HYDERABAD
Present : Shri E. Ismail, B. Sc. , LLB. , Presiding Officer Dated the 4th day of March, 2005 Industrial Dispute L. C. I. D. No. 80/2002
Between :
Shri G. Venkat Reddy ,
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of Paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement ofpaddy in Andhra Pradesh. Due to the said heavy procurement ofpaddy the respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweeper, attenders , assistants etc. , The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wagebasis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the servicess of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the Mill/ Depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1976. The said contract came in the month of September , 1976. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment of Mill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the corporation as required under Sec . 7 (A) of the Contract Labour and Abolishment Act. In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
Petitioner
S/ o Shri Ananta Reddy , C/o 16-9-749/ 41 , Race Course Road, OldMalakpet , Hyderabad.
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager ,
.Respondents
Food Corporation of India, Miryalaguda , Nalgonda District
3. Subsequent to September, 1976 the respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However, has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continously from January , 1975 till December , 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was . terminated without any notice from service. Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit 8602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract bbourers . A P. Transpsort Workers Co - op. Society Ltd. , Hyderbad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to.14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satya- narayana Reddy and Company , Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-79 to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor . He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby by denied.
Manager to the R.D. O. That there was an agitation. All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the Union. Initially the Mangement agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rofation basis . However, they did not stick to their word . Therefore , the union moved the matter into the concilia- tion beofore the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter was referred to the government . However, the government did refer the dispute to the Tribunal. The President ofthe union who was one the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97. In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. Atthe time oftransferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since it related to change of service coriditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent . The action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendent benefits .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Pettioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference ofdispute etc. is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation. The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time hence , there is no cause of action. In fact , in a similar case this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :-
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country . The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice mlling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India. Initially , raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for
"In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in the case, that is in LCID No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days. Butit cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India. Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded thatthese persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory 8603 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting offood grains at MRM , Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done. The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him. It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid. The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine .
evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits , it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent, which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt , their prayer connot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But , however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief . " Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past36 years he has been working in FCI. That he has worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI , Nalgonda. He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex . W6 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked . Ex.MI is agreement with the A.P. Transport、 Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of. loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77. Ex . M 2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79. They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex . M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license ofthe contractors .
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporationin the month of September, 1976. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break. He was engagedby Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary . The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same. Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex. W5 is the Judgment copy of the Hon'ble High Court, Ex . W6 is service certificate .As no reference was made a writ was filed. He has worked continuously from 1-9- 76 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid anybonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he worked from October , 1976 to 25-5-1979 . The certificate was issued by Sri Bhavani Prasad who was working as Engineer. He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Bhavani Prasad who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex. W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex. W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour. That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
10. It is argued by the Learned. Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 . Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistant etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet, the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976. They were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator , such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition . Act . In absence of this license the so- called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working, their services were terminated . There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis. However the Respondent did not stick to their word. Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) . Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging 8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D ) , Miryalaguda Depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970
2149 GI/05-40 8604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
1.1 . It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor . It was his responsibility . In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter, but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached- this Court. The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence , the same may be dismissed .
hold that the Petitioners have proved, that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence , the following award is passed : the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual /temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh. casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March, 2005 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witness examined for the Petitioner .
:Witness examined for the Respondent
: MW1 : Sri S. Rama Rao
WW1 : Sri G. Venkat
Reddy
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. WI : Copy of Ir. from Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI to ALC( C) dtd. 16-8-93
Ex . W2 : Copy of reply to Ex . W2 dtd . 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of Letter from ALC ( C ) to Dist . Convenor, AICC of FCI dt . 10-9-93
Ex. W4 : Copy of failure report
Ex . W5 Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6 Copy of service certificatedt . 29-5-1979 Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex . M1 Copy of tender instructions and agreement
Ex.M2 Copy of ( Original ) matter of arbitration 12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history. The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1976-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication whatsoever with this Petitioner. But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A (2 ) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex. W6 service certificate which is only for few months between 1976 and 1979. Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor , although they have fileld some documents to show that there was contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contractor Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them but they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgment was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002, i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court, seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion , I 8605 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाइ 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
APPEARANCES :
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
Forthe Petitioner : M/ sG. Ravi Mohan ,
R. Devender Reddy ,
G. Srinivasa Reddy , and
G. Naresh Kumar,
Advocates
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy , का. आ. 2684.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एफ सी आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट 'औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी. आई.डी. 81/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
S.Prabjakarudhu ,
P. Srinivasulu and
B.V. Chandrasekhar,
Advocates
[सं. एल- 22013/1/2005 - आई. आर. ( सी.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
AWARD
New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005
1. This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
S.O. 2684. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 81/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in the relation to the management of F. C. I. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005.
[No. L - 22013/ 1/2005 - IR (C. - II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
Present : SHRI E. Ismail , B. Sc. , LLB . , Presiding Officer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. I. D. NO . 81/2002
Between :
Shri K. Murthunjayudu,
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of Paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy inAndhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement ofpaddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the. category ofwatchmen, sweeper, attenders , assistants etc. , The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1975. The said contract came in the month of December , 1975. The Petitioner in the above case was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment of Mill/Deport . Though the workman was termed as contract worker, the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during the 1975. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the corporation as required under Sec . 7 (A) of the Contract Labour and Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so- called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers.
Petitioner
S/ o Satyanaryana , C/o 16-9-749/41, Race Course Road, OldMalakpet, Hyderabad.
AND
The Senior Regional Manager ,
1. Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, Miryalaguda,
Nalgonda District
.Respondents
3. Subsequent to December, 1975 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature of job , such as sweeping , cleaning and pesticiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continously from January , 1975 to December, 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the 8606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A. P. Transpsort Workers Co-op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satya-Narayana Reddy and Compnay, Miryalaguda was the Contractor for theperiod from 12-11-77 to 11-11-1979. Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put inby the Petitioner under the contractor . He was never engagedby the Food Corporation of India at any point oftime . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby denied .
original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D. O. that there was an agitation. All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the Union. Initially the mangement agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotationbasis . They did not stick to their word. Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner (C) also filed as material paper. It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter wasreferred to the government . However, the government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present dispute. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . Atthe time oftransferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminating by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action of the Respondent in terrmination the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Hence, the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with fuli wages and all other attendent benefits .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-96 to the Ministry of Labour andEmployment, New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision thatthe dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. is not at all relevant for the purpose of the -tase . Eventhose three workers also never worked in the Corporation. The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time, hence , there is no cause of action . In fact , in a similar case this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :-
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country. The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice mlling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially , raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility
" In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in the case , that is in LCID No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India . Otherwise, all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'bleHigh court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and moreover they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded thatthese persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Pettioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent, which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C ) in 1988. Hence, the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases. No. doubt , their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India. But, however, in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporationin the month of December , 1975. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break. He was engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary . The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court, Ex . W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-12-75 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . The service certificate was issued by Sri Padmanabhan who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Padmanabhan who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submittedby him to the Management . It is true that in Ex. W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex. W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D ) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970
8607
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting offood grains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine . Ex. M1 is the copy ofthe contract dated 29-3-1974 . Ex. M2 is the copy of the contract for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979 .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI . Nalgonda.He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex.M1 is agreement with the A. P. Transport Workers Co - operative Society giving them contract of loading andunloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . E.M2 is a copyofarbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement ofa contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy &Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issed in respect of Ex. M1 and M2. They have not filed the license of the contractors .
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that is a case where there was heavy procurement ofpaddy during the years 1973-1979. Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistants etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was ofapermanent and perennial nature . Yet, the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1975. He was engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator , such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated . Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However the Respondent did not stick to their word . Hence, it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) . Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court . Even suming that these workmen are 8608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
contract workers that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor . It was his responsibility. In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter, but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence , the same may be dismissed.
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they no communication what so ever with this Petitioner. But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A(2) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 beween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex . W6 service certificate dated 20-12-1977 which only contains that he has been working for the past two years . Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor , although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor , MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them but they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they apprached this Court in 2002, i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed offthey kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of Indiaunder contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence, the following award is passed : the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual / temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005.
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witness examined for : the Petitioner
Witness examined for Respondent WW1 : Sri K.Murthunjayudu : MW1 : Sri S. RamaRao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1 : Copy of 1r . from Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI to ALC(C) dt . 16-8-93 .
Ex. W2 : Copy of reply to Ex . W2 dt . 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of Letter from ALC( C) to Dist . convenor , AICC
Ex. W4 : Copy of failure report
Ex. W5 : Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6 : Original Service Certificate
Documents marked for the Respondent Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex. M1
Ex. M2 : Copy of (Original ) matter of arbitration [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8609
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2685.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी. आई.डी. 82/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल.- 22013/1/2005- आई . आर. ( सी.- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2685. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 82/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of F. C. I. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L -22013 / 1 /2005 - IR ( C.II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , AT HYDERABAD
Present: Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. , LLB . , Presiding Officer Dated . the 4th day of March , 2005 Industrial Dispute L. C. I. D. No. 82/2002 Between:
Shri N. Adinarayana ,
S/o Pattabi Ramaiah,
R/ o 18-39-106/2 .
Santhosh Nagar.
..Petitioner Nalgonda District .
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager ,
Food Corporation of India .
HACCA Bhavan .
Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager . Food Corporation of India , Miryalaguda,
Respondents Nalgonda District
Appearances : For the Petitioner : M/ s G. Ravi Mohan,
R. Devender Reddy ,
G. Srinivasa Reddy &
G. Naresh Kumar,
Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy,
S.Prabjakarudu,
P. Srinivasulu and
B. V. Chandrasekhar,
Advocates
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W. P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of Paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement ofpaddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement ofpaddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweeper, attenders , assistants etc., The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis. In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1976. The said contract came in the month of September , 1976. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment of Mill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the corporation as required under sec. 7 (A) of the Contract Labour & Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers.
3. Subsequentto September , 1976 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continously from January, 1976 to December , 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service. Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitationby the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the UnitManager to the R.D. O. That there was an agitation.
8610
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A. P. Transport Workers Co -op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Company , Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-79 to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby denied.
All the workers including the Petioner are members of the Union. Initially the mangement agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However, they did not stick to their word. Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them, then the matter was referred to the government . However , the government did refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present dispute . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Resopndent . The action of the Respondent terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust. Hence, the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendent benefits .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Pettioner was one among them. The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference ofdispute etc. is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the Corporation. The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time. Hence , there is no cause of action . In fact, in a similar case this Hon'sble Court observed as follows : -
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country . The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India. Initially , raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casuals workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the Foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The
" In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in the case, that is in LCID No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India . Otherwise, all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded thatthese persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food 8611 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract , depending upon the work done by him. It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work trurned out by him he was paid. The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine.
Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent , which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt , their prayer connot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But, however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI , Nalgonda. He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda . That the Petitioner never worked . Ex . W6 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex.M1 is agreement with the A. P. Transport Workers Co -operative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . E.M2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement ofa contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy &Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not field tender notifications issued in respect of Ex . M1 andM2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporation in the month of September , 1976: He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers. The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court , Ex. W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuouslyfrom 1-9-76 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2. He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers. That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him. The service certificate was issued by Sri Padbanabhan who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Padbanabhan who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex. W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex . W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour. That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 . Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistant etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet , the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in ' the year 1976. They were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator , such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working, their services were terminated . There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguada for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated . Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employement on rotation basis. However the Respondent did not stick to their word. Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C ) . Hence, they approached as per the direction to this court ,.Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management. witness has admitted that these 8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract
2149Gl/05-41 8612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVAΝΑ 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated .
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor . It was his responsibility. In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. , they have approached this Court. The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence, the same may be dismissed.
or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it maybe safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence, the following award is passed: the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual /temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March, 2005.
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for : the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
: MW1 : Sri S.
WW1 : Sri N. Admarayana
Rama Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W 1 : Copy of 1r. from Dist. Convenor , AICC of FCI to ALC( C)dt . 16-8-93
Ex. W2 Copy of reply to Ex . W2 dt . 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of Letter from ALC ( C) to Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCIdt . 10-3-93
Ex. W4 Copy of failure report
Ex. W5 : Copy of order in WP08/ 1992
Ex. W6 Copy of service certificate .
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex. M1 Copy of tender instructions and agreement
Ex. M2 : Copy of ( Original ) matter of arbitration 12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history. The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1976-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner. But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A( 2 ) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 beween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex. W6 service certificate which is only for few months between 1975 and 1976. Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contractor Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them but they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2686.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 104/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013/1/2005 - आई आर( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005
S.O. 2686.-In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 104/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005,
[No. L-22013/ 1/2005 - IR (C-II) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desi: Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present:
Shri E. Ismail, B.Sc. , LLB . , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.LD. No. 104/2002 Between:
Sri B. Seetharam Singh,
..Petitioner S/ o B. Balagi Singh, C/ o . 16-9-741/41A, Race Course Road , OldMalakpet, Hyderabad.
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager, FoodCorporation of India, Miryalaguda , Nalgonda District .
Respondents Appearances : For the Petitioner
: M/s . G. Ravi Mohan ,
R. Devender Reddy,
G. Srinivasa Reddy &
G. Naresh Kumar,
Advocates
8613
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Forthe Respondent : M/ s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy,
S.Prabjakarudu,
P. Srinivasulu &
B.V. Chandrasekhar ,
Advocates
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen , sweeper , attenders , assistants etc. The appointinent in the Corporation was made on daily wage basis . fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . he Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent Corporation as contract workman in the year 1976. The said contract came in the month of September , 1976. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment ofMill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the Corporation quired under Sec. 7(A) of the Conpact Labour & Abolist nent Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers.
3. Subsequent to Sep aber, 1976 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping, cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags. At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner. However, has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously from January , 1976 to December , 1978 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker atMiryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. That there was an agitation. All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union . Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on arotation basis. However , they did not stick to their word. Therefore, the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner( C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner( C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship. There 8614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter was referred to the Government . However, the Government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed Writ Petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97. In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time oftransferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills establisbed all over the country . The object of establishment ofModern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters. The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one ofthose contract labourers. A. P. Transport Workers Co. Op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Company, Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-79 to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor . He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby by denied.
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97 / 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent. That the allegation that certain workers filed Writ Petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three wórkers also never worked in the Corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any WritPetition for any relief at any point of time. Hence , there is no cause of action . In fact , in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :
" In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case , that is in LCID No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India. Otherwise, all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'bleHigh Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded thatthese persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India. Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits , it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent , which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt , their prayer connot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But . however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent Corporation in the month of April , 1976. He worked in sweeping, cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engagedby Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part . Ex W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court , Ex . W6 is service certificate.As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-9-76 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specifix work entrusted to him. The service certificate was issued by Sri Bhavani Prasad who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Bhavani Prasad who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex. W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex . W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager ( D) , Miryalaguda Depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of foodgrains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done . Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager, FCI , Nalgonda . He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked. Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Engineer Incharge is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex . M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . E. M 2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77
8615
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
to 11-11-79 . They have not field tender notifications issued in respect of Ex. M1 and M2 . They have not filed the licence of the contractors .
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders, assistants etc. The appointments were made on dailywages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet , the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976. They were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator, such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannotbe called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working, their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguada for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated . Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis. However the Respondent did not stick to their word. Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C). Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has. not filed any documents . Hence, it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country. The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility . In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistance LabourCommissioner( C ) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing awrit in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court. The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence, the same may be dismissed .
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history. The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1976-78 . It is very easy for the Food- Corporation of India to say that they have no Communication what so ever with this Petitioner . But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec. 2A(2) of the A. P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum -Labour court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2 ) is of the State Government but taken in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton 8616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVÁNA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. WI : Copy of Ir. from Dist . Convenor, AICC of FCI to ALC( C) dt . 16-8-93 .
Ex. W2: Copy of reply to Ex . W2 dt. 9-5-94.
Ex. W3 : Copy of Letter from ALC( C) to Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI dt. 10-9-93 .
Ex. W4: Copy of failure report .
Ex. W5: Copy ofOrder in WP 9008/1992 .
Ex. W6: Copy of service certificate.
Document marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1: Copy of tender instructions and agreement
Ex. M2: Copy of(Original ) matter of arbitration
नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2687.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 105/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22013/1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2687.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 105/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court . Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2005 .
[No. L- 22013 / 1 / 2005 - IR ( C -II ) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Corporation of India and two others. He has filed Ex. W6 service certificate which is for the period from 15-10-74 to 30-3-1976 . Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that contractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor, MWI has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them. But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002, i . e . five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed. But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence, the following award is passed the Respondent No. 2directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary Jabour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary laobur even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labour from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointment prior to passing of this award .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
PRESENT : Shri E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. , LLB.. PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.LD. NO . 105/2002 Dictatedto Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March, 2005.
Between:
E. ISMAIL . Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
S/ o A. Erukalaiah. C/o . 16-9-749/41.
Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Respondent
MW1 : Shri S. Rama Rao
Petitioner
Sri A. Narasimha Rao , Race Course Road , OldMalakpet. Hyderabad.
WW1 : Sri B. Seetharma Singh [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager ,
Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, Miryalaguda,
8617
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
has worked continuously from a period of two years w.e.f..
..Respondents
Nalgonda District.
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner :
M/s. G. Ravi Mohan , G. Srinivasa Reddy & G. Naresh Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy, S.
Prabakarudu,
P. Srinivasulu &
B.V. Chandrasekhar,
Advocates
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 in view of thejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in. procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79. There was heavy procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweeper, attenders , assistants etc. The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the Mill/Depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workmen in the year 1975. The said contract came in the month of October , 1975. The Petitioner in the above case was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment ofMill/Depot. Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect ofthe corporation as required under Sec . 7 (A) of the Contract Labour & Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
3. Subsequent to October, 1975 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping, cleaning and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner. However, has issued service certificate that the workman 1-7-1977 to April, 1979 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitationby the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filedbefore this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. That there was an agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union . Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However, they did not stick to their word . Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C ) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings ofRegional Labour Commissioner( C ) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship. There was no amicable settlement between them, then the matter was referred to the government. However, the government did not refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice asrequired under Sec. 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action ofthe Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-6-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India atany point oftime. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 ." It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills establisbed all over the country . The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially . raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling 8618
JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent , which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC (C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer connot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But , however, in all these cases they are entitled for some relief." Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one ofthose contract labourers . A. P. Transport Workers Co.op. Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Company , Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-77. to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor . He was never engagedby the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4- 12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India in not correct and hereby by denied .
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporation in the month of October, 1975. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter. He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary . The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wages registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part. Ex W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court , Ex . W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-10-75 to 1-6-79 . He was not paid any bonus.
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour & Employment , New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97 / 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time. Hence , there is no cause of action . In fact, in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows;
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2. He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he has beenworking from 10-1-77 . The certificate was issued by SriG. Venkateswara Rao who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri G. Venkateswara Rao who has issued the certificate. It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . he is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management. It is true that in Ex . W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex . W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao . Assistant Manager (D ) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He "In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case , that is in LCID No. 164/2001 ( ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is orily for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India . Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various 8619 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent. The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and theyused to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done. The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract , depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done . Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid. The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country. The work was given tothe contractor. It was his responsibility . In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistance Labour Commissioner (C), he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years. Hence , the same may be dismissed.
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager, FCI , Nalgonda . He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Unit Manager is not competent to issue such certificate. He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex.M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5- 77. E.M 2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagedment of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not field tender notifications issued in respect of Ex. M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors .
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy forthe Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication whatsoever with this Petitioner . But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec. 2A(2) ofthe A. P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A (2 ) is of the State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex . W6 service certificate . Even if this is taken as correct the respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor , although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor , MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as eitlier they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them. But they have approached the Conciliation Officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996. Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA. P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgment was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite. No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged. In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved, that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So it may 10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders , assistants etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet , the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1975. They were engaged in the mill. They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator, such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition. Act. In absence of this license the so -called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated . There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months. That the Petitioner is uneducated . Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However the Respondent did not stick to their word. Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C ) . Hence. they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging
2149 GI /0542 8620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence , the following award is passed : the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary laobur even though on temporary daily wages, taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointment prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witness examined for the Petitioner
Witness examined for the Respondent
MW1 : Shri S. Rama Rao WW1 : Sri A. Narasimha Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. WI : Copy of letter. from Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI to ALC ( C ) dt . 16-8-93
Ex. W2 : Copy of reply to Ex. W2 dt . 9-5-94
Ex . W3 : CopyofLetter from ALC( C) to Dist . Convenor, AICC of FCIdt. 10-9-93
Ex. W4 : Copy of failure reoprt
Ex. W5: Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6: Original service certificate
Document marked for the Respondent Ex.MI : Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex.M2: Copy of (Original ) matter of arbitration नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का. आ. 2688.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 106/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013/1 / 2005 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2688. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 106/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 29-06-2005.
[No. L-22013 /1/2005 - IR (C -II )]
N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present: Shri E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LLB . , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March, 2005
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.LD. NO . 106/2002 Between:
Sri K. Jagan Mohan,
S/o Sambasiva Rao ,
C/o 16-9-749/41,
Race Course Road ,
....... Petitioner OldMalakpet, Hyderabad.
AND
The Senior Regional Manager ,
Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad. 1.
The District Manager ;
2. Food Corporation of India , Miryalaguda,
.....Respondents Nalgonda District.
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner
: M/ s . G. Ravi Mohan ,
G. Srinivasa Reddy & G. Naresh Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri . B.G. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.F. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy 8621 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ji ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action ofthe Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence, the oral termination order dated 1-6-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweeper, attenders , assistants etc. The appointment in the Corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent Corporation as contract workman in the year 1975. The said contract came in the month of October , 1975. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment ofmill/depot. Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the Corporation as required under Sec . 7 (A) of the Contract Labour & Abolishment Act . In absence ofthe said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner neverworked as employee in the Food Corporation of India atany point of time. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills establisbed all over the country. The object of establishment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially , raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It issubmitted that the Food Corporation of India used to awardH & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those ers . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supe vised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one ofthose contract Jabourers . A. P. Transpor. Workers Co. Op. Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the conttor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and SA Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Company , Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-77 . to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor . He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time. The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India in not correct and hereby by denied .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour & Employment . New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97 / 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the. ground the their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent. That the allegation thatcertain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case. Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any writ petition for any relief at any point of time . Hence, there 3. Subsequent to January , 1976 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature of job , such as sweeping , clearing and pestisiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner. However, has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously for a period of two years w.e.f. 4-1-1976 to April , 1979 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. That there was an agitation. All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union. Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However , they did not stick to their word . Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C). A copy of the minutes ofproceedings of Regional Labour Commissioner (C) also filed as material papers . It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter was referred to the Government . However , the Government did refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed Writ Petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec : 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions .
8622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
is no cause of action . In fact, in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows:
"In conclusion , Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed . For example , as stated in the case , that is in LCID No. 164/2001 ( ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India. Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India. Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits , it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent, which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC ( C ) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt , their prayer connot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India. But , however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed .
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent Corporation in the month of January 1976. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break. He was engagedby Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part. Ex W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court, Ex. W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-1-76 to 1-4-79 . He was not paid any bonus.
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he worked with R2. He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers
[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii) ] Co-operative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he has been working for the past year. The certificate was issued by Sri Padamanabham who has working as Engineer. He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Padmanabham who has issued the ceretificate . It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Co- operative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him . He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex . W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex . W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager(D) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting offoodgrains at MRM , Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done. The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract , depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done : Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI. The certificate is not genuine .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager . FCI , Nalgonda. He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda . That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Unit Manager is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked . Ex.M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Co- operative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77. E.M 2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co. , for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex . M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors .
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 . Due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders . assistant etc. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet . the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976. They were engaged in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator , such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec. 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated . There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis. However the Respondent did not stick to their word . Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court ,. Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Management witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility. In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistance Labour Commissioner (C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence , the same may be dismissed.
8623
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
1975 to 1982 according to them . But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA. P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet the approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed. But they cannot keep quite for years together andthen approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged. In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence , the following award is passed : the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary laobur even though on temporary daily wages, taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labour from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award ofany casual or temporary labour appointment prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March, 2005.
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
MW1 : Shri S. Rama Rao WW1: Sri K. Jaganmohan
Rao
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1: Copy ofIr. from Dist . Convenor, AICC of FCI to ALC(C) dt . 16-8-93
Ex. W2: Copy of reply to Ex. W2 dt . 9-5-94
Ex. W3: CopyofLetter from ALC( C) to Dist. Convenor, AICC of FCI dt. 10-9-93
Copy of failure reoprt Ex. W4:
Ex. W5: Copy oforder in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6:
Original service certificate
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner . But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec. 2A (2) of the A. P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A( 2) is of the State Government but taken in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .He has filed Ex. W6 service certificate Even if this istaken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof thatcontractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor , MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise. But any way their termination took place between Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. M1: Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex. M2: Copy of (Original ) matter of arbitration 8624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का० आ ० 2689.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 107/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -22013 / 1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
एन ०पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchment , sweeper, attenders , assistants etc .. The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the mill/depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1975. The said contract came in the month of October , 1975. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment ofMill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker , the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the corporation as required under sec . 7(A) of the Contract Labour and Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
S.O. 2689. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 107/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L -22013 / 1/ 2005 - IR (C- II ) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present : SHRI E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. , LL.B ..
PresidingOfficer Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 107/2002
Between :
Sri Tirupathi Ram Murthy ,
Petitioner
S/ o Rama Narasaiah , C/o 18-38-126, Santhosh Nagar, Miryalaguda , Nalgonda District AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager. Food Corporation of India , HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad .
2. The District Manager ,
Food Corporation of India
Miryalaguda , Nalgonda District Respondents
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/sG. Ravi Mohan , R. Devender
Reddy , G. Srinivasa Reddy and
G. Naresh Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy , Advocate AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief averments as averrd in the petition are that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period
3. Subsequent to December , 1977 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for performing his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping , cleaning and pesticiding the paddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However, has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously for a period of two years from December , 1977 to April , 1979 without break in service. The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service . Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. that there was an agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union . Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis. However, they did not stick to their word . Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings ofRegional Labour Commissioner( C) also filed as material papers. It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them, then the matter was referred to the Government . However, the Government did refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioner have raised thispresent disputes . It is pertient to note that the Petitioner was engaged as casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-4-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India atany point of time. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country . The object of establish- ment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than that of the sales fixed by the Government of India . Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H and T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H and T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A.P. Transport Workers Co- op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Company, Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1979 to 11-11-1979. Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby by denied .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any writpetition for any relief at any point. Hence , there is no cause of action. In fact , in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :
In conclusion , Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service
8625
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case, that is in LCID No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III ) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the Food Corporation of India . Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engaged them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India. Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent, which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt , there is delay but not often years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC (C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India. But , however, in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporation in the month of December, 1977. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pesticiding of paddy bags . Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary . TheResponRespondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part. Ex. W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court , Ex. W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-12-1977 to 1-4-79 . He was not paid any bonus .
7. In the cross examination he deposed that he workedwith R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he has beenworking for the past year . The certificate was issued by Sri Padmanabhan who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Padmanabhan who has issued the certificate . It is not true to suggest thatA.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling 8626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
and transport works and used to engage him. He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex .W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned . Except Ex. W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour . That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manager (D) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains at MRM , Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract , depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done . Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine .
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI , Nalgonda . He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Assistant Manager is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked . Ex. M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77. Ex . M2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co.. for the period from 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex. M1 and M2 . They have not filed the license of the contractors .
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 , due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchmen , sweepers , attenders , assistantsetc .. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet , the amount was paid on monthly basis. That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976, they were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator, such as , contractor and there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated . There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis. However, the Repondent did not stick to their word.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner( C) . Hence , they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Managment witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated .
11. It is arguedby the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given tothe contractor . It was his responsibility . In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant LabourCommissioner ( C) , he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter, but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Herice , the same may be dismissed.
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication whatsoever with this Petitioner. But their Lordship have directed them to approach directly under Sec. 2A(2) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A (2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex . W6 service certificate . Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So indirectly they have. worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . Butany way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them . But they have approached the ConciliationOfficer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996. Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed of they kept quite. No doubt no limitation is prescribed. But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved, that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court. Hence , the following award is passed: the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages, taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However , a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day ofMarch, 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for thePetitioner
Respondent
WW1 : Sri . T. Rama Murthy MW1 : Sri . S. Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1 : Copy of Lr. from Dist . Convenor, AICC ofFCIto ALC(C) dt. 16-8-93
Ex. W2 : Copy of reply to Ex. W2 dt. 9-5-94
Ex: W3 : Copy of letter from ALC ( C) to Dist. Convenor , AICC of FCI dt. 10-9-93
Ex. W4 : Copy of failure report
Ex. W5 : Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
Ex. W6 : Copy of service certificate.
Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.M1 : Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex. M2 : Copy of (Original ) matter of arbitration.
नईदिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का० आ० 2690.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी. आई.डी. 108/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल -22013/1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन ०पी० केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2690.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 2149 G1/05-43
8627
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
108/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L-22013/ 1 /2005 - IR (C - II ) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD
Present: Shri E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Dated the 4th day of March, 2005 Industrial Dispute L.C.L.D. No. 108/2002 Between:
Sri G. Krishna,
...
Petitioner S/o G. Satyanarayana, C/o 16-9-749/41, Race Course Road, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2. The District Manager, FoodCorporation of India,
Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....Respondents APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/sG. Ravi Mohan, R. Devender Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy and G.Naresh Kumar , Advocates For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate AWARD
Thisis a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. Thebrief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement ofpaddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79. There was heavy procurement ofpaddy in Andhra Pradesh. Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen, sweepers , attenders , assistants etc. The appointment in the Corporation was made on daily wage basis. In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees. The Petitioner was appointed in the mill /depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1975. The said contract came in the month of October, 1975. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment of Mill/Depot. Though the workman was termed as contract worker, the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1975. There was no mediator such as 8628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effect of the corporation as required under Sec . 7(A) of the Contract Labour and Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than thatofthe sales fixed by the Government of India. Initially, rawmilling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . Itis submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to awardH and T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill , Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H and T contract. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work doneby the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A.P. Transport Workers Co-op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Company, Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1979 to 11-11-1979 . Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby by denied .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any writpetition for any relief at any point . Hence , there is no cause of action. In fact, in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :
3. Subsequent to October, 1975 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for peforming his perennial nature of job , such as sweeping, cleaning and pesticiding thepaddy bags. At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman hasworked continuously for a period of two years from 1-7-1977 to December , 1979 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from service. Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. that there was an agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union . Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However , theydid not stick to their word. Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings ofRegional Labour Commissioner (C) also filed as material papers. It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioner filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship . There was no amicable settlement between them, then the matter was referred to the Government . However, the Government did refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed writ petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised thispresent disputes . It is pertient to note that the Petitioner was engaged as casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions . Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action ofthe Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust. Hence , the oral termination order dated 1-12-1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India atany point of time. That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country . The object of establish- ment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern
" In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India en cases where service certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case, that is in LCID No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing to do with the FoodCorporation of India . Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise. They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over 8629 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
ascasual labour. That it is not correct to suggestthat he is notentitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manger (D) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and it was commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and theyused to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting offood grains at MRM, Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid. The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors. The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine .
they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engaged them . So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors butthe Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India. Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent, which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not often years . Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC (C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But , however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
9. In the cross examination he deposed that for the past 36 years he has been working in FCI . That he has worked under the control of the District Manager , FCI , Nalgonda .He never worked during 1975-78 at Miryalaguda. That the Petitioner never worked. Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Assistant Manager is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked . Ex. Ml is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading andunloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . E. M2 is a copyofarbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement ofa contractor namely Sri Vaturi Satyanarayana Reddy &Co. , for the period from 12-11-17 to 11-11-79. They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex. Ml and M2. They have not filed the icense of the contractors.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent corporation in the month of December , 1977. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter . He worked continuously for two years without any break . He was engagedby Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary. The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers , wage registers where he used to sign on the registers. The union was objecting the same . Since termination there is no delay on their part. Ex. W5 is the Judgement copy ofthe Hon'ble High Court , Ex . W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-10-1977 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid any bonus .
10. It is argued by the earned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973--1979 , due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watclıman , sweepers , attenders , assistants etc.. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature . Yet, the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1977 , they were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1977. There was no mediator , such as , contractor andthere was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act. In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannotbe called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working, their services were terminated . There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated. Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However, the Repondent did not stick to their word . Hence, it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner( C ) . Hence . they approached as per the 7. In the cross - examination he deposed that he workedwith R2. He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him. According to the certificate he has been working for the past year. The certificate was issued by Sri Padmanabhan who was working as Engineer . He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri Padmanabhan who has issued the certificate. It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him. He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex . W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned. Except Ex. W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked 8630
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contractworkers , that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . The Managment witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility. In fact when the union raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), he gave a failure report and the Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of 18 years . Hence, the same may be dismissed.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So it may be safely conclued that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence , the following award is passed : the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over other taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages, taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award .
Award passed accordingly. Transmit .
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005.
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1 : Sri . G. Krishna
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1975-78 . It is very easy forthe Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner. But their Lordships have directed them to approach directly under Sec . 2A(2 ) of the A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A(2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex . W6 service certificate . Even if this is taken as correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license. So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise. But any way their termination took place between 1975 to 1982 according to them. But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002 , i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved, that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the
MW1 : Sri . S. Rama Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1: Copy of Ir. from Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI to ALC ( C) dt. 16-8-93
Ex. W2: Copy of reply to Ex . W2dt . 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of letter from ALC ( C) to Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI dt. 10-9-93
Ex. W4 : Copy of failure report
Ex.W5 Copy of order in W.P. 9008/1992
Ex.W6 Copy of service certificate
Ex.MI Documents marked for the Respondent Copy of tender instructions and agreement.
Ex.M2 Copy of (Original) matter of arbitration . नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का० आ ० 2691.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी.आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 83/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-22013/1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन ० पी ० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी 8631 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2691. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D.83/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Govemment on 29-6-2005.
[No. L- 22013 / 1/2005 - IR (C- II) ]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The appointment in the corporation was made on daily wage basis . In fact the Food Corporation of India issued instructions to regularize the services of daily wage employees . The Petitioner was appointed in the Mill/Depot by the Respondent corporation as contract workman in the year 1976. The said contract came in the month of September , 1976. The Petitioner in the above cases was engaged by the Respondent directly to the establishment of Mill/Depot . Though the workman was termed as contract worker, the salary was being paid directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator such as contractor and apart from that there was no license to that effectofthe corporation as required under Sec. 7(A) of the Contract Labour and Abolishment Act . In absence of the said license so called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Shri E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LL.B.
PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
Industrial Dispute L.C. I.D. No. 83/2003
BETWEEN:
Sri K. Viswanatham,,
S/ o G. Satyanarayana ,
C/o 16-9-749/41 , Race Course Road,
Petitioner
OldMalakpet, Hyderabad
AND
1. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , HACCA Bhavan , Hyderabad .
2. The District Manager ,
Respondents
Food Corporation of India, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/s . G. Ravi Mohan , R. Devender Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy and
G. Naresh Kumar , Advocates .
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy , S. Prabakarudu, P. Srinivasulu & B. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocates .
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief averments as averred in the petition are: that the Food Corporation of India is engaged in procurement ofpaddy in Andhra Pradesh during the period 1973-79 . There was heavy procurement of paddy in Andhra Pradesh . Due to the said heavy procurement of paddy the Respondent made recruitment only for the category of watchmen , sweeper, attenders , assistants etc.
3. Subsequent to September , 1976 the Respondent directly engaged the Petitioner for peforming his perennial nature ofjob , such as sweeping, cleaning and pestisiding thepaddy bags . At the time of appointment the Respondent did not give any appointment order to the Petitioner . However , has issued service certificate that the workman has worked continuously for a period more than one year w.e.f. April , 1976 to October , 1977 without break in service . The Petitioner was terminated without any notice from. service. Upon the said illegal termination there was an agitation by the terminated worker at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . The same is reflected in the original documents filed before this Court from the Unit Manager to the R.D.O. that there was an agitation . All the workers including the Petitioner are members of the union . Initially the management agreed that these casual labours would be offered employment on a rotation basis . However, they did not stick to their word. Therefore , the union moved the matter into the conciliation before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . A copy of the minutes of proceedings ofRegional Labour Commissioner ( C) also filed as material papers. It is submitted that during the course of conciliation all the workers including the Petitioners filed original documents to show their employer and employee relationship. There was no amicable settlement between them , then the matter was referred to the government . However, the Government did refer the dispute to the Tribunal . The President of the union who was one of the retrenched employees filed Writ Petition No. 9008/92 before the Hon'ble High Court in which order was passed on 16-9-97 . In view of that order the Petitioners have raised this present disputes . It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was engaged as casual labour and then placed him at the disposal of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work . At the time of transferring to the field of contractors the Petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec . 9 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the Petitioner services were terminated by the contractor on the advice of the Respondent . The action 8632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
of the Respondent in terminating the Petitioner without any notice is wholly illegal , arbitrary and unjust . Hence, the oral termination order dated December . 1979 be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages and all other attendant benefits .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner never worked as employee in the Food Corporation of India atany point of time . That Modern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established during the year 1970 and commissioner from 28-5-1971 . It was one of the 25 Modern Rice Mills established all over the country . The object of establish- ment of Modern Rice Mill is to demonstrate the Modern technology of rice milling and incidentally to mill the paddy offered by the farmers in the event of distress sale is when the millers discourage farmers by offering lower rates than thatof the sales fixed by the Government of India. Initially, raw milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently parboiled unit was commissioned with increased strength of casual workers . It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India used to award H and T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modern Rice Mill . Miryalaguda and at Food Storage Depot at Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own workers under H & T contract . It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work . The Food Corporation of India has nothing to do with those matters . The Food Corporation of India never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labourers . The Petitioner might be one of those contract labourers . A.P. Transport Workers Co - op . Society Ltd. , Hyderabad was the contractor for the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Company , Miryalaguda was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1979 to 11-11-1979. Food Corporation of India has no knowledge as to the service put in by the Petitioner under the contractor. He was never engaged by the Food Corporation of India at any point of time . The allegations that the Petitioner was engaged from 1/77 to 4-12-1978 directly by the Food Corporation of India is not correct and hereby by denied .
5. It is submitted that the union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them . The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) after conciliation proceedings , submitted his report on 13-5-76 to the Ministry of Labour and Employment , New Delhi , the Government of India by a letter dated 12-6-97/ 15-7-97 conveyed its decision that the dispute is not fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication , on the ground that their relationship of employer and employee between the Petitioner and Respondent . That the allegation that certain workers filed writ petition No. 9008 of 1992 for reference of dispute etc. , is not at all relevant for the purpose of the case . Even those three workers also never worked in the corporation . The Petitioner has not filed any
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] writpetition for any relief at any point . Hence , there is no cause of action. Infact , in a similar case , this Hon'ble Court observed as follows :
In conclusion, Petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary evidence that they worked under the Food Corporation of India even in cases where service certificate is filed . For example as stated in the case, that is in LCID No. 164/2001 ( ID 98/98 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days . But it cannot be simply brushed aside that Petitioner has nothing todo with the Food Corporation of India . Otherwise , all these Petitioners filing Writ in the Hon'ble High Court would be a futile exercise . They did work for Food Corporation of India no doubt perhaps under different contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a representation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of Food Corporation of India asking them not to engaged them. So it can safely be concluded that these persons did work for Food Corporation of India although under various contractors but the Petitioner have failed to prove by any satisfactory evidence that they worked directly at the Food Corporation of India . Seeking the evidence on record the exhibits , it can safely be concluded that they did work for the Food Corporation of India although through contractors . More so in view of the exhibits filed by the Respondent , which shows that , they were contractors during the relevant period . No doubt, there is delay but not often years . Because , they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC (C) in 1988. Hence , the above cited Supreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of these cases . No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the Food Corporation of India . But , however , in all these cases they are entitled for some relief. " Hence , the petition may be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed that he was appointed in the Respondent Corporation in the month of April , 1976. He worked in sweeping , cleaning and pestisiding of paddy bags Department . At the time of appointment the Respondents did not issue any appointment letter. He worked continuously for two years without any break. He was engaged by Respondent No. 2. He was paid monthly salary . The Respondent used to maintain attendance registers, wage registers where he used to sign on the registers . The union was objecting the same. Since termination there is no delay ontheir part . Ex . W5 is the Judgement copy of the Hon'ble High Court . Ex. W6 is service certificate . As no reference was made a writ was filed . He has worked continuously from 1-10-1976 to 1-12-79 . He was not paid any bonus.
7. In the cross - examination he deposed that he worked with R2 . He did not work in A.P. Transport Workers [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Cooperative Society who was the contractor for the handling and transport workers . That he used to do work in all kinds of miscellaneous work and there is no specific work entrusted to him . According to the certificate he has beenworking form April. 1976. The certificate was issued by Sri G. Venkateswars Rao who was working as Engineer. He denied that it is a fabricated document and he cannot produce Sri G. Venkateswara Rao who has issued the certificate. It is not true to suggest that A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society was given the contract of handling and transport works and used to engage him. He is not having any proof of the representations and letters submitted by him to the Management . It is true that in Ex . W1 to W5 his name is not mentioned . Except Ex . W6 he is not having any other certificate to show that he worked as casual labour. That it is not correct to suggest that he is not entitled for any relief.
8. The Management examined Sri S. Rama Rao , Assistant Manger ( D ) , Miryalaguda depot as MW1 . He deposed that the MRM was established in the year 1970 and itwas commissioned from 28-5-71 at Miryalaguda and they used to award handling and transport work on contract basis to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains at MRM . Miryalaguda on tender basis . The contractor used to bring his own people and get the handling and transport work done . The contractor was paid as per the schedule rates fixed in handling and transport contract, depending upon the work done by him . It was his responsibility to bring the people and to get the work done. Depending on the work turned out by him he was paid . The FCI has nothing to do with the persons engaged by the contractors . The Petitioner was never engaged by the FCI . The certificate is not genuine .
9. In the cross - examination he deposed that for the past36 years he has been working in FCI . That he worked under the control of the District Manager, FCI , Nalgonda. He never worked during 1976-78 at Miryalaguda . That the Petitioner never worked . Ex. W6 is not a correct certificate and the Assistant Manager is not competent to issue such certificate . He denied that the Petitioner ever worked. Ex. M1 is agreement with the A.P. Transport Workers Cooperative Society giving them contract of loading and unloading from 12-4-1974 to 14-5-77 . E. M 2 is a copy of arbitration proceedings evidencing the engagement of a contractor namely Sri Vutukuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Co., for the period ffrom 12-11-77 to 11-11-79 . They have not filed tender notifications issued in respect of Ex . M1 and M 2. They have not filed the license of the contractors.
10. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this is a case where there was heavy procurement of paddy during the years 1973-1979 , due to the said heavy procurement Respondent made recruitment only for the category watchman , sweepers , attenders, assistants etc .. The appointments were made on daily wages . Although the work was extracted on daily wage basis the work was of a permanent and perennial nature .
8633
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Yet, the amount was paid on monthly basis . That the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1976 , they were engaged in the mill . They were being paid salary directly by the Respondent during 1976. There was no mediator, such as , contractorand there was no license to that effect as required under Sec . 7A of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act . In absence of this license the so - called contract workers cannot be called as contract workers . 500 casual labourers who were working , their services were terminated. There was an agitation by the terminated workers at Miryalaguda for a period of two months . That the Petitioner is uneducated . Initially the Management agreed that these casual labourers would be offered employment on rotation basis . However, the Repondent did not stick to their word . Hence , it was moved before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C ) . Hence . they approached as per the direction to this court . Even assuming that these workmen are contract workers , that the primary concept of engaging contract workers by following the rules framed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. The Managment witness has admitted that these workmen have worked with the Respondent . The Management has not filed any documents . Hence , it may be held that the termination is illegal and the Petitioner may be reinstated.
11. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Rice Mill is one of the 25 modern rice mills established all over the country . The work was given to the contractor. It was his responsibility . Infact when the uinon raised the industrial dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , he gave a failure report andthe Ministry of Labour refused to refer the matter , but after filing a writ in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , they have approached this Court . The Petitioner has filed after a lapse of18 years . Hence , the same may be dismissed .
12. It may be seen that this case has got a chequered history . The allegation that the Petitioner and about 500 others worked during the years 1976-78 . It is very easy for the Food Corporation of India to say that they have no communication what so ever with this Petitioner . But their Lordship have directed them to approach directly under Sec. 2A(2) ofthe A.P. Amendment Act in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is a Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec . 2A( 2 ) is of State Government but taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others . He has filed Ex . W6 service certificate . Even if this is taken is correct the Respondent also has filed the proof that the contractor, although they have filed some documents to show that there was a contractor, MW1 has specifically stated that he has not filed any license . So it can be safely taken as either they have worked under a contractor who had no license or was correctly appointed under Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act . So indirectly they have 8634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
worked for Food Corporation of India either through an alleged contractor who was not appointed following the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act or otherwise . Butany way their termination took place between 1976 to 1982 according to them . But they have approached the conciliation officer in 1993 and the failure report is dated 13-5-1996 . Then they approached the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in all of them but a few of them approached later and Judgement was given in 1997 and yet they approached this Court in 2002, i.e. , five years even after the writ was disposed off they kept quite . No doubt no limitation is prescribed . But they cannot keep quite for years together and then approach Court , seeking direction that they should be engaged . In conclusion I hold that the Petitioners have proved , that they have worked either under Food Corporation of India or under the contractor for Food Corporation of India who was not appointed under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act. So it may be safely concluded that they worked for the Food Corporation of India under contractors and they were removed perhaps when they agitated for regularization and now they have approached this Court after a long gap of five years after the disposal of the writ also to approach this court . Hence , the following award is passed: the Respondent No. 2 is directed that if, in future they are going to engage any casual/temporary labour the Petitioner shall be considered and given preference over others taking his seniority as of his joining date and he should be given preference over others in the matter of employment of casual labour or temporary labour even though on temporary daily wages , taking his seniority as either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District . However , a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment, in view of this award of any casual or temporary labour appointed prior to passing of this award .
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 4th day of March , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
:Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Respondent
: MW1 : Sri . S. Rama Rao WWI : Sri . K. Viswanathan
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. WI : Copy of Lr . from Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCIto ALC (C) dt . 16-8-93
Ex. W2 Copy of reply to Ex. W2 dt. 9-5-94
Ex. W3 : Copy of letter from ALC ( C ) to Dist . Convenor , AICC of FCI dt . 10-9-93
Ex. W4 Copy of failure report
Ex . W5 Copy of order in WP 9008/1992
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Ex. W6 : Copy of service certificate
Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. M1 : Copy of tender instructions and agreement Ex. M2 : Copy of ( Original ) matter of arbitration नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005
का० आ० 2692.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 64/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल-22013/1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन ०पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2692.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 64/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of F.C.I. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L -22013/1 /2005 - IR (C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SHRI E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. , LL.B. PresidingOfficer
Dated the 4th day of March, 2005 Industrial Dispute L.C.L.D. No. 64/2003 Between:
Sri Shaik Mohd. Yusuf,
S/ o Shaik Mahaboob Ali , R/ oHuzurnagar,
.... Petitioner NalgondaDistrict.
AND
1. The District Manager ,
Food Corporation of India . Nalgonda .
2. The Senior Regional Manager ,
Food Corporation of India , HACA Buildung, Nampally , Hyderabad.
..Respondents APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner :M/s . K. K. Chakravarthy & Y. Rama Krishna , Advocates .
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy , B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates .
8635 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 in view of thejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief facts of the petition are : That the Petitioner worked at Huzurnagar F.C.I. godowns , Nalgonda during the year 1977 and 1978. The then Assistant Manager, F.C.I. also gave a certificate to him. Subsequently, his services were terminated orally . He made several representations to the Management. He filed WP No. 21564/ 2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. That the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by an order dated 2-3-2001 directed the Management to consider his case. Accordingly , he made a representation immediately along with his bio -data to consider his case . It was not considered . On 15-4-2002 by a memo No. IR . 32 (2 )/2000, R1 stated that the age differs , and rejected the claim with a direction that he has to take an appropriate remedy in the forum. Hence , this industrial dipute. That the contention of the Management is illegal that there is no worker by his name and if so , it does not bind him. That the contention of the Management that his age in writ petition was shown as 36 years and the date of birth is 24-2-58. Actually his date of birth is 24-2-58 and his age is 43 years . That he has proof. The Management illegally gave the post to some other leaving him . Hence , the record may be called for and he may be reinstated .
4. The petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he worked in the F.C.I. godown at Huzumagar during the years 1977 and 1978. The then officer gave a çertificate to him also . He was terminated orally. Aggieved by that he had filed Writ Petition 21564/2000 for a direction to the Management to take him into service which was disposed off on 2-3-2001 granting the relief of reinstatment. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. gave a direction to consider his case but it was not considered. On 15-4-2002 by his memo R1 rejected the claim with a direction to approach appropriate forum and that the age differs . There is no other workman by his name. That his date of birth is 24-2-59 and his age is 43 years . The Management illegally gave the post to some other leaving the original worker . That his name is Shaik Mohammad Yousuf S/ o Shaik Mahaboob Ali and he is also called Mohabub Ali . In the WritPetition his Advocate showed his name by mistake . He marked Ex. W1 a copy of the letter given by Assistant Manager ( IR) , F.C.I. , Nalgonda to him dated 16-8-2001 calling to furnish the particulars in the prescribed proforma . Ex . W2 is the copy of service certificate issued by one Additional officer of F.C.I. dated 25-1-1977 . Ex . W3 is the notice given by F.C.I. calling for the details from the applicants for appointment . Ex. W4 is the copy of certificate issued by B.I. Nabeel to him about his service . Ex. W5 is the copy of application to the District Manager furnishing original certificates for considering appointment . Ex. W6 is the letter ofDistrict Manager , F.C.I. Nalgonda rejecting his claim dated 12-6-2001 . Ex . W7 is the copy of the order in WP No. 21654/2000 of the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. Ex. W8 is the letter dated 15-4-2002 given by District Manager , F.C.I. Nalgonda rejecting his claim . In his cross examination he deposed that he worked as watchman during the years 1977, 1978. That he filed Writ Petition in theHon'ble Court of A.P. for considering his case . It is true that he questioned the termination after 22 years in the WritPetition . He does not know anything about ID 33/ 1982 and award passed in it. Though he is called Mohd. Yousuf, his name in the certificate is shown as Shaik Mohd. Yousuf in the School . He does not know one Mohd . Yousuf Ali was one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982 . He does not . know whether he had worked as casual labour and that he was given appointment as watchman as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 17766/1997 . That he filed Writ Petition No. 21564/2000 showing his name as Mohd. Yousuf as per Ex . W7 . As per Ex. W5 his name is shown as Shaik Mohd . Yousuf. In his attestation form he has mentioned his name as Shaik Mohd . Yousuf . It is ture that Ex. W2 does not bear the official stamp of the F.C.I. It does not bear the designation stamp of the person issued the said certificate .He do not have any papers or documents to show that Shaik Mohd . Yousuf has worked in F.C.I. at any point of time in any capacity . He denied that he is deposing falsely .
3.A counter was filed stating that the petitioner never worked as an employee in F.C.I. at any point of time and there is no relationship of employer and employee and therefore Sec . 2A(2 ) is not attracted . Accordinly, the petition is liable to be rejected . Further, there is abnormal delay of 23 years . He has not chosen to make the affected party as the respondent to this case . In fact his case was duly considered as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P.. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief. That the allegation that he worked from 1976 to 1980 in the F.C.I. godown and he was terminated from service in 1980 is not correct . The allegation that he filed writ petition and yet he was not considered is wrong . In fact , his name was not included in the industrial dispute , inspite of that he falsely submitted before the Hon'ble Court that he was one of the workers in the industrial dispute and his case to be considerd for the award in ID No. 33/82 that he never worked at any point of time. He has not given specific dates of appointment and termination. The petitioner's case is false . He filed WP No. 21564/2000 showing his name as " Md . Yousuf S / o Md. Mahaboob " . In his representation as per orders in WP No. 21564/2000 , shown his name as " Sk . Mohd. Yousuf S/o Mahaboob Ali " . So , he is trying to build up a false case to get appointment in the corporation. Hence , the petition is liable to be dismissed .
5. He also examined one Mr. Badrul Islam Nabeel , RetiredQuality Inspector at F.C.I. Huzurnagar , Nalgonda 2149 G1/0544 8636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
who deposed that he worked at Huzurnagar during 1974- 79. In the year 1976 , heavy procurement of paddy started , which resulted in safeguard from theft and animals . That he knows the petitioner , Mohd. Yousuf. He himself appointed him as casual labour to work as daily rated watchman during 1977 to 1978. The Petitioner came to him forservice certificate which is issued him in the year 1997. That there is no other person with the name Mohd. Yousuf except the petitioner . In the cross examination he deposed that he does not have any document to show that he worked as Quality Inspector , Paddy purchase Centre, Huzurnagar during the period 1974 to 1979. He is not having the copies where under the then District Manager had asked him to engage causal labourers to work as watchmen . He is not having instructions showing that the Quality Inspector who is Incharge of the Paddy Purchase Centre is competent to engage casual workers. The post of quality inspector is a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. The certificate issued by him does not bear any date. That he is a pensioner and he is in receipt ofpension every month . He denied that he is deposing falsely .
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] He further submits that WW2 Retired Quality Inspector has deposed that the Petitioner has worked during the years 1977-78 . Ex. W2 corroborates that he was appointed from 25-1-1977 . Hence be submits that he may be given appointment.
8.The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner never worked and he has approached this Court after a lapse of two decades . The case of the Petitioner is false and deserves no consideration. Further WW2 is not competent to issue any service certificate and not competent to given any evidence on behalf of the Petitioner . Hence , his case may be dismissed.
9. It may safely be concluded that the Petitioner even if assuming has worked from 1977 to 78 for 10 months he has approached this court after a lapse of more than 2 decades . In view of the evidence of WW2 and Ex . W2 , I am of the opinion that he had worked for the Respondent. Therefore , I hold that if there are casual /temporary vacancies are available in future , the Petitioner shall be given preference over others taking his seniority as of his appointment i.e. , 25-1-1977 and his age as on that date for casual /temporary vacancy provided he is medically fit . However, this award will not disturb those who are working atpresent, dueto this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit ,
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this 4th day of March, 2005.
E. ISMAIL Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
W W1 : Sri Shaik Mohd . Yousuf MW1 : Sri R. Lakshmi
Witnesses examined for the Respondent Narayana
WW2 : Sri B. I Nabeel
6. The Assistant Manager ( Contracts) , Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was examined as MWI . He deposed that the Petitioner never worked with the F.C.I. at any point of time. All the persons who had worked during the relevant time had raised an industrial dispute which was registered as ID No. 33/1982 . An Award was passed in ID 33/1982 on 19-12-1984 which is Ex.M1 , the name of the Petitioner is not there . The Petitioner filed write petition No. 21564/2000 wherein he had stated that his name was included in the reference but the same is not correct. Ensuing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. his name was considered and as he had not worked with F.C.I. at any point of time, his case was rejected . Ex . M2 is the copy of the letter dated 12-6-2001 rejecting the case of the Petitioner. Ex . M3 is the copy of the said report . Ex. M4 is a copy of appointment order given to Mohd. Yousuf Ali who is one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982. The name as given by him in Writ Petition was Mohd. Yousuf. He submitted a representation as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. showing his name as Sheik Mohd . Yousuf. Mr. B.I. Nabeel who has given evidence as WW2 who was an Assistant during the relevant time was not at all competent to appoint any person in any capacity and his evidence stating that he appointed the Petitioner and that the Petitioner worked in the F.C.I. are not correct . In the cross examination he deposed that as per the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. orders they have examined the claim of the Petitioner and as he was found to have not worked in F.C.I. his case was rejected.
7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the workman worked in F.C.I. godowns at Huzurnagar during the years 1977-78 , the then Assistant Manager . F.C.I. gave a certificate to that effect . Subsequently his services were terminated by a oral order . He submits that as per Ex . W2 he has wroked for 10 months.
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.WI: Copy of Ir . No. IR32 (2 )/2000 dt . 16-8-2001 Ex. W2: Copy of service certificate dt . 25-1-77 Ex. W3 : Copy of notice by Management calling for applicantions from applicants
Ex. W4: Copy of service certificate issued by B.I Nabeel tohim
Ex. W5 : Copy of application of WW1
Ex. W6 : Copy of Ir. No. IR . 32 (2 )/2000 dt - 12-6-2001 Ex. W7: Copy of order of High Court in WP 21564/2000 Copy of memo No. IR. 32 (2)/2000dt - 15-4-2002 Ex. W8:
Documents marked for the Rerspondent Ex. M1: Copy of award in ID No. 33/1982 of Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad
Ex. W2 : Copy of Ir . No. IR . 32(2 )/2000 dt - 12-6-2001 Ex. M3 : Copy of in -house enquiry report dt . 22-3-2002 Ex M4: Copy of appointment order to Mohd . Yousuf Ali one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का० आ० 2693.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 65/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल -22013 / 1/ 2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन ०पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2693 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D.65/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L -22013/ 1/2005 - IR (C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD
PRESENT:
SHRI E. ISMAIL . B.Sc. , LL.B. Presiding Officer Dated the 4th day of March , 2005
Industrial Dispute L. C.LD. No. 65/2003 Between:
Sri Shaik Mahaboob Ali ,. S/ o Hussain Saheb . R/oHuzurnagar,
Petitioner Nalgonda Distruct.
AND
1. The District Manager. Food Corporation of India . Nalgonda.
2. The Senior Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India ,
HACA Building, Nampally. Hyderabad .
8637 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief facts of the petition are That the Petitioner worked at Huzurnagar godowns . Nalgonda during the year 1977 and 1979 and subsequently also till 1981 as daily rated watchman at PPC . Huzurnagar as per the ccertificate issued by the Assistant Manager . Food Corporation of India . Subsequently , his services were terminated orally . He made several representations to the management . He filed W.P. No. 21564 2000 before the Hon'bleHigh Court of A.P. That the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by an order dated 22-8-2001 directed the management to consider his case . Accordingly , he made a representation immediately along with his bio - data to consider his case . It was not considered. On 29-10-2002 by a memo No. IR. 32(2)/ 2000 , R1 stated that the age differs , and rejected the claim with a direction that he has to take an appropriate remedy in the forum . Hence , this industrial dipute . That the contention of the Management is illegal that there is no worker by his name and if so , it does not bind him . That the contention of the management that his name in writ petition was shown as Shaik Mahaboob . The advocate engaged by him gave his name as Saikh Mahaboob . Actually his name is Mahaboob Ali . That another Shaik Mahaboob Ali covered by WP No. 17766/1997 is right person , is illegal and he must be considered in that place . The managament illegally gave the post to some other leaving him. Hence . the record may be called for he may be reinstated.
Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/sK. K. Chakravarty & Y. Rama Krishna , Advocates .
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy, B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates.
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3. A counter was filed stating that the petitioner never worked as an employee in Food Corporation of India at any point of time and there is no relationship of employer and employee and therefore Sec . 2A( 2) is not attracted . Accordinly, the petition is liable to the rejected . Further . there is abnormal delay of 23 years . He has not chosen to make the affected party as the respondent to this case . In fact his case was duly considered as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hence , he is not entitled for any relief. That the allegation that he worked from 1976 to 1980 in the F.C.I. godown and he was terminated from service in 1980 is not correct . The allegation that he filed writ petition and yet he was not considered is wrong. In fact , his name was not included in the industrial dispute . inspite ofthat he falsely submitted before the Hon'ble Court that he was one of the workers in the industrial dispute and his case to be considerd for the award in ID No. 33/82 that he never worked at any point of time . He has not given specific dates of appointment and termination. The petitioner's case is false. He filed WP No. 21564/2000 showing his name as " Sk . Mahaboob . S/o Ameer Ali " . In his representation as per orders in WP No. 21564/2000 . shown his name as " Sk . Mahaboob , S/o Ameer Ali " . So , he is trying to build up a false case to get appointment in the corporation . Hence , the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed that he worked in the F.C.I. godown at Huzurnagar during the year 1977 and 1979 , as watchman at PPC . Huzurnagar. The then officer gave a certificate to him also .
8638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
to 1979. He is not having the copies where under the then District Manager had asked him to engage casual labourers to work as watchmen . He is not having instructions showing that the Quality Inspector who is Incharge of the Paddy Purchase Centre is competent to engage casual workers . The post of quality inspector is a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager . The certificate issued by him does not bear any date . That he is a pensioner andhe is in receipt of pension every month. He denied that he isdeposing falsely .
6. The Assistant Manager ( Contracts ) . Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was examined as MW1 . He deposed that the Petitioner never worked with the F.C.I. at any point oftime. All the persons who had worked during the relevant time had raised an industrial dispute which was registered as ID No. 33/1982. An Award was passed in ID 33/1982 on 19-12-1984 which is Ex.M1 , the name of the Petitioner is not there . The Petitioner filed writ petition No. 21564/2000 wherein he had stated that his name was included in the reference but the same is not correct. Ensuing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. his name was considered and as he had not worked with F.C.I. at any point of time , his case was rejected . Ex . W12 is the copy of the letter dated 12-6-2001 rejecting the case of the Petitioner. In -house enquiry 22-3-2002 was conducted and Ex . M2 is the copy ofthe said report . Ex . M3 is a copy of appointment order given to Sheik Mahaboob Ali S / o Late Sk. Imam Saheb who is one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982 . The name as given by him in Writ Petition was Sk . Mahaboob S /o Ameer Ali. He submitted a representation as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. showing his name as Sheik Mahaboob Ali S / o Hussain Saheb . Mr. B.I. Nabeel who has given evidence as WW2 who was an Assistant during the relevant time was not at all competent to appoint any person in any capacity and his evidence stating that he appointed the Petitioner and that the Petitioner worked in the F.C.I. are not correct . In the cross examination he deposed that as per the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. orders they have examined the claim of the Petitioner and as he was found to have not worked in F.C.I. his case was rejected.
He was terminated orally . Aggrieved by that he had filed WritPetition for a direction to the management to take him into service which was disposed off on 22-8-2001 . The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. gave a direction to consider his casebut it was not considered . On 29-10-2002 by his memo R1 rejected the claim with a direction to approach appropriate forum and that his name differs . There is no other workman by his name . That the documents produced by him are in the name of Shaik Mahaboob Ali . He is the party in WP No. 21564/2000 and Sl . No. 9 is his name . The Petitioner's Advocate in Writ Petition gave his name as Shaik Mahaboob , whereas his name is Mahaboob Ali , as admitted by the management . He marked Ex . W1 a copy of the order in W.P. No. 21564/2000. Ex W2 is the copy ofthe memo given by Chief Manager, F.C.I. , Nalgonda rejecting his claim . Ex W3 is the copy of letter given by F.C.I. employee association member to the Managing Director. Ex . W4 is the copy of certificate issued by B.I. Nabeel to him about his service . Ex . W5 is the copy of application to the District Manager furnishing original certificates for considering appointment . Ex . W6 is the copy of WW1's representation . Ex. W7 is the copy of letter issued to him to furnish details and to attend the office immediately with original certificates . Ex . W8 is the service certificate given byG.H. Adil , dated 25-1-97. Ex . W9 is the notice ofF.C.I. calling for his details for appointment . Ex . W10 is service certificate . Ex . W11 is copy of representation by WW1 . Ex. W12 is letter of Distrcct Manager , rejecting his claim and directing him to prove his identity through a competent court of law. In his cross examination he deposed that he worked as watchman during the year 1977 to 1979. That he filed Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. for considering his case . It is true that he questioned the termination after 22 years in the Writ Petition . It is not true to suggest that as he did not work in F.C.I. his name was not included in ID 33/1982 . He do not know that one Sheik Mahaboob Ali S/ o Imam who has worked as casual worker and who was the petitioner in ID 33/1982 was given appointment as sweeper as per the orders of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 21564/2000 . It is true to suggest that Sheik Mahaboob Ali S/ o Imam Saheb is the correct person and not the Petitioner. It is not true to suggest that Ex . W4 is false certificate .
7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the workman worked in F.C.I. godowns as Huzurnagar during the year 1977-79 , the Assistant Manager, F.C.I. gave a certificate to that effect . Subsequently his services were terminated by a oral order. He submits that as per Ex. W4 he has wroked for 10 months . He further submits that WW2 Retired Quality Inspector has deposed thatthe Petitioner has worked during the year 1977-79 . Ex . W4 corroborates that the has worked during 1977 to 1979.Hence , he submits that he may be given appointment.
8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner never worked and he has approached this Court after a lapse of two decades . The case of the Petitioner is false and deserves no consideration . Further WW2 is not competent to issue any service certificate and not competent to given any evidence on behalf of the Petitioner. Hence , his case may be dismissed.
5. He also examined one Mr. Badrul Islam Nabeel , Retired Quality Inspector at F.C.I. Huzurnagar , Nalgonda who deposed that he worked at Huzurnagar during 1974- 79. In the year 1976 , heavy procurement of paddy started, which resulted in safeguarding from theft and animal. That he knows the petitioner , Sheik Mahaboob Ali . He himself appointed him as casual labour to work as daily rated watchman during 1977 to 1979. The petitioner came to him for service certificate which is issued him in the year 1997 . That there is no other person with the name Sheik Mahaboob Ali except the petitioner. In the cross examination he deposed that he does not have any document to show that he worked as Quality Inspector, Paddy Purchase Centre , Huzurnagar during the period 1974 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8639
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8, 1927
9. Itmay safely be concluded that the Petitioner even if assuming has worked from 1977 to 79 he has approached this court after a lapse of more than 2 decades . In view of the evidence of WW2 and Ex. W4, I am of the opinion that he had worked for the Respondent. Therefore , I hold that if there are casual/temporary vacancies are available in future, the Petitioner shall be given preference over others taking his seniority as of his appointment i.e. , 1977 and his age as on that date for casual/temporary vacancy provided he ismedically fit . However, this award will not disturb those who are working at present , due to this award.
Awardpassed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this4th day ofMarch , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
MW1 : Sri R. Lakshmi WW1 : Sri Saik
Mahaboob Ali
Narayana
WW2 : Sri B. I. Nabeel
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex . WI : Copy of order of High Court in WP 21564/2000.
Ex. W2 : Copy of Lr . No. IR. 32(2)/2000 dt. 15-4-2002.
Ex. W3 : Copy of notice given by Employees Assn. , to the M. D. dt- 27-2-1989 .
Ex . W4: Copy of service certificate issued by B.I. Nabeel to him dt . 18-4-99 .
Ex. W5 : Copy of Lr . Asst . Manager to WW1 to furnish details.
औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद (संदर्भ संख्या एल.सी.आई.डी. 66/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-22013/1/2005 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन० पी० केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005
S.O. 2694. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. L.C.I.D. 66/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .
[No. L -22013 / 1/2005 - IR (C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD
PRESENT : Shri E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LL.B. Presiding Officer
Dated the 4th day of March, 2005
Industrial Dispute L. C.L.D. No. 66/2003 Between:
Sri Mohammed Babu , S/o Kasim Saheb ,
R/o Huzurnagar,
..Petitioner Nalgonda District. And
Ex . W6 : Copy of application of WW1 .
Ex. W7 : Copy of Lr . No. IR. 32(2)/2000 dt- 16-8-2002.
Ex. W8 : Copy of service certificate dt. 25-1-97 .
Ex . W9 : Copy of notice of FCI .
Ex. W10 : Copy of service certificate of Mohd . Babu & Mohd. Yousuf.
Ex. W11: Copy of Ir. by WW1 dt. 30-3-2001 .
Ex. W12 : Copy of Lr . No. IR 32 (2 ) /2000 issued to WW1 rejecting his claim.
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex . M1 : Copy of award in ID No. 33/1982 of Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad .
Ex. M2 : Copy of in -house enquiry report .
Ex. M3 Copy of appointment order to Sk . Mahaboob Ali one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982.
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का० आ० 2694.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट 1. The District Manager , Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda.
2. The Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India, HCA Building, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Respondents Appearances :
Forthe Petitioner : M/sK. K. Chakravarthy & Y. Rama Krishna . Advocates .
For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy , B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates . AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act . 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
2. The brief facts of the petition are : That the Petitioner worked at Huzurnagar godowns , Nalgonda during the year 1976 and 1980 and subsequently also till 8640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1981 as daily rated watchman at PPC , Huzurnagar as per the certificate issued by the Assistant Manager , Food Corporation of India . Subsequently , his service were terminated orally . He filed WP No. 21564/2000 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. That the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by an order directed the management to consider his case.Accordingly, he made a representation immediately along with his bio -data to consider his case . It was not considered. On 15-4-2002 by a memo No. IR. 32(2) /2000 , R1 stated that the age differs , and rejected the claim with a direction that he has to an appropriate remedy in the forum. Hence, this industrial dipute . That the contention of the Management is illegal that there is no worker by his name and if so , it does not bind him. That the contention of the management that his age in writ petition was shown as 37 years and the actual date of birth is 10-5-1953 . In respect of the ID 33/1982 hiscontention is that then workers failed to include his name and as such if any appointment is given by the Management at the time , who was shown as Sheik Babu in WP No. 17766/1997 is illegal . Further , accordingto the management he expired on 10-1-2002 . Hence , may be reinstated .
3.A counter was filed stating that the petitioner never worked as an employee in F.C.I. at any point of time and there is no relationship of employer and employee and therefore Sec. 2A( 2) is not attracted . Accordingly , the petition is liable to the rejected . Further , there is abnormal delay of 23 years . He has not chosen to make the affected party as the Respondent to this case . In fact his case duly considered as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hence , he is not entitled for any relief. That the allegation that he worked from 1976 to 1980 in the F.C.I. godown and he was terminated from service in 1980 is not correct . The allegation that he filed writ petition and yet he was not considered is wrong . In fact , his name was not included in the industrial dispute. , in spite of that he falsely submitted before the Hon'ble Court that he was one of the workers in the industrial dispute and his case to be considerd for the award in ID No. 33/82 that he never worked at any point of time . He has not given specific dates of appointment and termination . The petitioner's case is false . In ID 33/1982 Sri Sk . Babu , S /o Jamal Saheb , who was one of the Petitioners and who had worked as casual labour was pair retrenchment compensation . He filed WP No. 21564/2000 showing his name as " Mohammed Babu, S/ o Kasim Saheb . So , he is trying to build up a false case to get appointment in the corporation . Hence , the petition to be dismissed .
4. The petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed that he worked in the F.C.I. godown at Huzurnagar during the years 1976 and 1980. The then officer gave a certificatetohim also . He was terminated orally. Aggrieved by that he had filed Writ Petition 21564 of 2000 for a direction to the management to take him into service which was disposed off on granting the relief of reinstatement . The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. gave a direction to consider his case but it was not considered . On 15-4-2002 by his
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] memo R1 rejected the claim with a direction to approach appropriate forum and that the age differs . That his date of brith is 10-5-1953 and his age is 49 years . The Management illegally gave the post to some other leaving the original worker.Hemarked Ex . W1 the Copy of the order in WP21564/ 2000. Ex. W2 is the letter give by District Manager dated 15-4-2002 rejecting his claim . Ex W3 is.esidential certificatedt. 18-8-90./Ex . W4 is copy oftransfer certificate. Ex. W5 is the copy of service certificate issued by Mr. B.I. Nabeel , Asstt . manager . Ex. W7 is the copy of letter by District Manager to the Petitioner . Ex W8 is copy of letter to WW1 directing him to furnish certificates alongwith enclosures . Ex . W9 is the notice given by F.C.I. calling for the details from the applicants for appointment. In his cross-examination he deposed that he filed Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. for considering his case . It is true that he questioned the termination after 20 years in the Writ Petition. It is ture that in Ex. W1 at Sl . No. 7 his name is written as Mohd . Babu alias Shiek Babu . He does not know one Shiek Babu whether he had worked as casual labour and that he was given appointment as per the orders ofthe Hon'ble High Court of A.P. That he filed Writ Petition No. 21564/2000 . It is true that in the said Writ Petition his age was written as 37 years . He is 48 years old now. That he did not state in his claim statement that he should be given employment in the place of Sheik Babu who expired on 10-1-2002. He denied that he is deposing falsely.
5.He also examined one Mr. Badrul Islam Nabeel , Retired Quality Inspector at F.C.I. Huzurnagar , Nalgonda who deposed that he worked at Huzurnagar during 1974- 79. In the year 1976 , heavy procurement of paddy started , which resulted in safeguard from theft and animals . That he knows the petitioner . He himself appointed him as casual labour to work as daily rated watchman . The Petitioner came to him for service certificate which is issued him . That there is no person with the name Mohammed Babu except the Petitioner . In the cross - examination he deposed that he does not have any document to show that he worked as Quality Inspector , Paddy Purchase Centre , Huzurnagar during the period 1974 to 1979. He is not having the copies where under the then District Manager had asked him to engage causal labourers to work as watchmen. He is not having instructions showing that the Quality Inspector who is Incharge of the Paddy Purchase Centre is competent to engage casual workers . The post of quality inspector is a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager . The certificate issued by him does not bear any date . That he is a pensioner and he is in receipt of pension every month . He denied that he is deposing falsely.
6. The Assistant Manager ( Contracts) , Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana was examined as MW1 . He deposed that the Petitioner never worked with the F.C.I. at any point oftime . All the persons who had worked during the relevant time had riased an industrial dispute which was registered as ID No. 33/1982 . An Award was passed in ID 33/1982 on 19-12-1984 which is Ex.M1 , the name of the Petitioner is not [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
there . The Petitioner filed Write Petition No. 21564/2000 wherein he had stated that his name was included in the reference but the same is not correct. Ensuing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. his name was considered and as he had not worked with F.C.I. at any point oftime, his case was rejected. Ex. M2 is the copy of the report of in- house enquiry conducted on 22-3-2002 . Ex. M3 is the copy of appointment order given to Sheik Babu who is one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982 . Mr. B.I. Nabeel who has givenevidence as WW2 who was an Assistant during the relevant time was not at all competent to appoint any person in any capacity and his evidence stating that he appointed the Petitioner and that the Petitioner worked in the F.C.I. are not correct. In the cross - examination he deposed that as per the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. orders they have examined the claim ofthe Petitioner and as he was found to have not worked in F.C.I. his case was rejected.
7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the workman worked in F.C.I. godwns at Huzurnagar during the year 1976-80 , the then Assistant ManagerF.C.I. gave a certificate to that effect . Subsequently his services were terminated by a oral order . He further submits that WW2 Retired Quality Inspector has deposed thatthe Petitioner has worked during the year 1976-80 . Hence, he submits that he may be given appointment .
8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Petitioner never worked and he has approached this Court after a lapse of two decades . The case of the Petitioner is false and deserves no consideration . Further WW2 is not competent to issue any service certificate and not competent to given any evidence on behalf of the Petitioner . Hence , his case may be dismissed.
9. Itmay safely be concluded that the Petitioner even ifassuming has worked from 1976-80 he has approached this court after a lapse of more than 2 decades . In view of the evidence of WW2 and Ex . W5 and W6 , I am of the opinion that he had worked for the Respondent . Therefore, I hold that if there are casual/ temporary vacancies are available in future , the Petitioner shall be given preference over others taking his seniority as of his date of appointment i.e. , 24-3-1976 and his age as on that date for casual/ temporary vacancy provided he is medically fit . However , this award will not disturb those who are working at present, due to this award.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this 4th day ofMarch , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent WW1 : Sri Mohammed Babu
MW1 : Sri R. Lakshmi Narayana
WW2 : Sri B. I. Nabeel
8641
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1 : Copy of order ofHigh Court in WP 21564/2000 Ex. W2: Copy of memo No. IR . 32 (2)/2000 dt . 15-4- 2002
Ex. W3: Copy of certificate of residence by M.R.O. dt . 18-8-90
Ex. W4: Copy of transfer certificate
Ex W5: Copy of service certificate issued by B.I. Nabeel to him
Ex. W6: Copy of service certificate issued by B.I Nabeel to him
Ex. W7: Copy of representation of WW1 dt . 20-6-2001 Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. M1: Copy of award in ID No. 33/1982 of Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad
Ex. M2: Copy of in - house enquiry report dt . 22-3-2002 Ex. M3: Copy of appointment order to Sk. Babu one of the Petitioners in ID 33/1982
नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का० आ० 2695.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-22012/23/91- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन ०पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005
S.O. 2695.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the. Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005.
[No. L-22012/23 /91 - IR (C -II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SHRI E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 31st day of December, 2004 Industrial Dispute No. 16/2003
Between:
1. The President , A.P. Collieries Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Bellampalli , Dist . Adilabad.
8642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
2. Shri G. Rajanarsu ,
S/ o G. Narsaiah, 65 -D ,
Qrt . No. 20, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Colony, Bellampalli , Distt . Adilabad .
Petitioner AND
The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Mandamarri , P.O. Kalyanakhani , Adilabad District .
....Respondent APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner :M/s. G. Ravimohan , R. Devender Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy & G. Naresh Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent : M/s . K. Srinivasa Murthy & C. Vijayashekar Reddy , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 22012 / 23 / 91 - IR ( C.II ) dated the 20-12-2002 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act . 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the claim of the Union . A.P. Collieries Mazdoor Sangh for correction of year of birth of the workman Sh. G. Rajanarsu as 1938 instead of 1934 is legal and justified ? If so , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 16/2003 and notices issued to the parties .
2. After a Nil Award has been passed on 27-6-2003, the affected party Sri G. Rajanarsu, filed an interim petition to reopen the case and this Court in I.A. No. 50/2003 allowed the petition vide order dated 4-1-2004. Sir G. Rajanarsu filed chief examination affidavit on 3-8-2004. Inspite of several adjournments given from 12-8-2004 for cross examination of Sr. G. Rajanarsu for eight adjournments , including today the 31st December , 2004. Petitioner called absent . WW1 is not interested . He has not appcared since 12-8-2004 . There is nothing on record to support his contention . Hence , a Nil Award is passed. Transmit .
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 31st Day of December, 2004 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
NIL
W W1 : Sri G. Rajanarsu
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. WI : Copy of identity card
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Ex. W2: Office Copy of Ir . No. P/MM/ 17 / 1 /89/ 31 dt. 1-1-90.
Ex. W3: Copy of Ir. No. 45(8) 90 -ALC- MCIdt . 13-2-89.
Copy of representation of WW1 dt.6-10-89 .
Ex. W4:
Ex. W5: Copy of representation of Union Vice. President dt . 22-11-89.
Ex. W6
: Copy of representation of Union Vice Presidentdt. 7-1-90 .
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
नईदिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005
का० आ ०2696.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-42012/59/2003 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] एन० पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2004
S.O. 2696. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 33/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005.
[No. L -42012/59 /2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
PRESENT : SHRIKANT SHUKLA . Presiding Officer I.D. No. 33/2004
Ref. No.: L -42012 /59 /2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated, 12-3-2004 BETWEEN :
The Regional Secretary CPWD Mazdoor Union North Region II , GSI , Campus Lucknow.
(In the matter of Om Prakash) AND
The Supdt . Engineer ( W) Central Public Works Department Kendriya Bluwan , 3rd Floor Lucknow.
8643 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
AWARD
examined Sh . V.K. Mittal.
Trade union has filed the photo stat copies of following documents :
1. Office memorandum regarding appointment of Munna Lal dtd. 10-3-2000, paper No.3/10.
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L - 42012/ 59/ 2003 - IR ( CM.II ) dated 12-3-2004 has referred following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication .
2. Letter addressed to Supdt . Engineer, CPWD, Lko dated 3-4-2002 , paper No. 3/11.
3. Worker's application dtd . 5-3-2002, paper No. '3/12 .
" क्याअधीक्षण इन्जीनियर ( वै. ) लखनऊ, के परि. केंद्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग लखनऊ , द्वारा कर्मकार श्री ओम प्रकाश , मोटर लारी चालक को 12 वर्षों से लगातार कार्य करते रहने के उपरान्त भीसेवा में नियमित नहीं किया जाना न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मचारी किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "
4. Letter of Executive Engineer addressed to LAC (C) , Lko , paper No. 3/13 & 3/14.
5. Office order dated 28-2-2004 regarding retirement of Sh. Ram Ballabh Sharma , paper No. 3/15 .
The trade union has also filed photo copy of attendance for the month of 12/98 and list of working days ofworker.
" क्याअधीक्षण इन्जीनियर ( वै. ) लखनऊ, के परि. केंद्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग लखनऊ, द्वारा कर्मकार श्री ओम प्रकाश, मोटर लारी चालक को 12 वर्षों से लम्बे समय से लगातार कार्य करते रहने के उपरान्त भी उसके समकक्ष नियमित पद पर कार्य करने वाले कर्मकार को दिया जाने वाले वेतन एवं अन्य देय लाभ कर्मकार को न दिये जाना, न्यायोचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मचारी किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "
Heard Sh. V.K. Mittal , Suptd . Engineer on behalf of CPWD and Sh. Madan Chand Venna, Regional Secretary, CPWD Mazdoor Union, Lko .
The worker has proved by his oral testimony that he was engaged in CPWD on 25-12-90 on the post of Beldar and subsequently he was appointed as motor lorry driver in February, 92. More than 14 years have passed but the worker continued to be casual labour and he was not been regularised. The worker has also admitted that there is one Guru Charan Singh who is working as motor lorry driver since 8-6-90 at Rampur Station.
Admitted facts of the case are that the worker , Sh. Om Prakash S/o Ram Das is working as Motor Lorry Driver on dailywages since February , 92. However, his minimum salary has been fixed to Rs. 3050. In addition to the said wages he is also being paid DA and other allowances admissible to other employees . He is not being given any increment in the pay scale of Rs . 3050-4590 . It is also admitted fact that there were 9 such employees in the CPWD who have been regularised in the service as per the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench . The trade union has tried to get the worker also regularised but he has not been regularised so far.
Therefore it is proved that Om Prakash is not only person who is casual labour but Gur Charan Singh is also casual motor lorry driver
It isnot disputed unless Om Prakash; becomes motor lorry driver, he cannot be entitled to other benefits admissible to other regular motor lorry drivers . Sh. Mittal has argued that his constraint is that two posts have been filled by promotion and only one post vacant cannot be offered to Om Prakash because he is second in seniority. Sh . Mittal also argued that there is not other vacancy available.
The trade union has filed the statement of claim alleging therein that one post of Motor Lorry Driver has fallen vacant as Raj Ballab Sharma retired on 29-2-2004 and another motor lorry driver Shri Ram Lakhan will retire on 31-7-2004 and therefore the worker, Om Prakash be regularised in the service . The worker has also alleged that prior to his appointment as motor lorry driver he was engaged in CPWD since December , 90 as therefore he is entitled to be regularised and he is entitled to the regular pay scale in CPWD.
The opposite party has disputed the claim and has alleged that the worker is placed at serial No. 2 in the seniority list and there is ban for regularisation and the workers which have regularised, have been regularised under the order of Court and after obtaining sanction from the Government. It is also alleged that the vacancy of motor lorry driver has to be filled 75 % by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment and therefore it is not possible to regularise the worker , Om Prakash on the post of motor lorrydriver.
The trade union has cited case law 1986 ATR SC 76 Surinder Singh and another v. The Engineer in Chief, CPWD and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Central Government , the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertaking are expected to function like model and enlightened employers . In the said case it was held that daily rated employers performing the same duties are entitled to same salary and allowances , paid to the regular and permanent employees . Sh . V.K. Mittal has argued that CPWD has acted as model and enlightened employer and therefore the daily rated worker has been given the minimum pay scale of Rs . 3050-4590 and all allowances admissible to other The trade union has examined Sh. Om Prakash, worker as its witness whereas the management of CPWD has
2149 G1/05-45 8644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
government employees barring increment , leave etc. He has also argued that the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 1138/PB of 97 and OA No. 1154 /PB of 97 between Gurcharan Singh and 3 others including Munna Lal and Union of India and Surinder Kumar and 5 others and Union of India and others on 21-1-99 ordered that Gurcharan Singh and others be considered for regularisation against the post of motor lorry driver in the said case of motor lorry drivers it was contended by department that the department had no vacancies for absorption of petitioners the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench observed that the petitioners were working for a fairly long period ranging between 8 to 10 years . If a casual /daily rated worker continues for a fairly long spell, the courts can draw a presumption that there is regular need of his service. Hon'ble Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench have specifically written in para 8 ofthe judgemerit " If a casual/daily rated worker continues for a fairly long spell , the courts can draw a presumption that there is regular need of his service. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others (supra) . In this regard , the following observations of the apex Court may be noticed:
So far as the work charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularised them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications , if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability ofwork. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years --a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services . In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility ofhis regularisation . While doing so , the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person."
In the circumstances the Hon'ble Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal ordered the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for regularisation against the posts of motor lorry drivers , as per the Rules .
Sh. Mittal agreed that the department of CPWD agreed to the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench and appointed one of the applicantMunna Lal in Lucknow and therefore CPWD did not challenge the order in High Court.
The learned representative of trade union has argued that its case is much better footing than that of workers who went to Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and worker , Om Prakash deserves to be regularised and other benefits which regular motor lorry driver is entitled to. No other arguments were forwarded . I therefore, come to the conclusion that judgement passed by Central
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench is attracted in the present case also and non - regularisation of Sh . Om Prakash is notjustified and legal as he has been working in CPWD department for more than 12 years . Both the issues referred to this Tribunal are accordingly answered in favour of the trade union. The opposite party is directed to consider the case of Sh. Om Prakash for regularisation: against the post of motor lorry driver as has been considers in the cases above and to provide all benefits available to be regular motor lorry driver within a period of two months from the date of communication of award.
Lucknow, 17-6-2005 . SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer. नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2697.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, हिन्दुस्तान कॉपर लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-43012/3/2003- आई आर ( विविध ) ]
बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2697. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 51/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-06-2005 .
[No. L-43012/3/2003 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT- 51 /2003
Reference No. L-43012/3 /2003- IR (M) Sh . Mahavir Prasad ,
S/o Sh. Shravanlal , Village& Post Garhakalan , via - Ponkh,
.....Applicant Distt . Jhunjhunu 8645 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Versus
seeking the review of the order supra, which was rejected vide order dated 21-2-2005 of this tribunal.
The DeputyGen. Manager ,
HindustanCopper Ltd. ,
5. I have heard both the parties on merits of the dispute and have scanned the record .
Khetri Nagar,,
Distt . Jhunjhunu
..Non-applicant
PRESENT :
Presiding Officer : Sh . R.C. Sharma
: Sh . R.C. Jain
Forthe applicant
: Sh. R.S. Rathore
For the non - applicants
Date of Award
: 31-5-2005
AWARD
The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub - sections 1 & 2 (A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act' ) has referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:
" क्या कर्मचारी श्री महावीर प्रसाद पुत्र श्री श्रवण राम की प्रबंधन हिन्दुस्तान कॉपर लि. , खेतड़ीकॉपर कॉम्पलेक्स, पो. खेतड़ी नगर जिला झुन्झुनू द्वारा आदेश दिनांक 24-4-2000 से की गई सेवा से बर्खास्तगी न्यायोचित एवं सही है , अगर नहीं तो कर्मचारी किस लाभ का हकदार है और किस तिथि से ? "
6. The Id . representative for the workman contends that no copy of the enquiry report was sent along with the show cause notice dated 18-4-2000 to the workman and without providing the enquiry report to the workman , the punishment order dated 24-4-2000 was passed by the disciplinary authority which is illegal and deserves to be quashed . He has also contended that even the enquiry report was not made available with the punishment order . The another contention of the ld . representative is that on account of the findings of the enquiry officer no charge is proved against the workman and the identity card was not submitted before the enquiry officer on the basis of which the workman was identified by the witnesses . His next submission is that a certificate was issued of the seized stolen property belonging to the Company , but it was not a part of the enquiry . The Id. representative then has contended that the charges are vague and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse . The Id. representative further submits that the disciplinay authority has passed the punishment order on consideration of the concerned paper, as noted down by him, but those papers have not been placed on the enquiry record. And lastly , the ld . representative while placing a photostat copy of the award dated 30-6-2004 of this tribunal passed in the matter of Brahmanand Vs.. M/s . Kolihan Copper Mines , Hindustan CopperLtd. has argued that the another charged employee onthe same misconduct has been exonerated by this court and, therefore, the workman also deserves to be exonerated.
2. The Claimant in his statement of claim has pleaded that he was appointed as a labourer on 16-10-1984 by the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd. , Khetri Nagar (For Short , " the Company" ) , who was thereafter made permanent on this post. He has stated that he was chargesheeted on 13-4-1996 on account of the ulterior motive of the management and the charges levelled against him are not proved. He has assailed the findings of the enquiry officer asarbitrary.
3. The non - applicant , in his written counter , admitting that the workman was a permanent labourer of the Company has averred that he was chargesheeted on 13-4-1996 on a gave misconduct that he was trying to commit theft of 80 copper strips worth Rs . 33,800 from the company's premises . The non - applicant while supporting the termination order passed by the disciplinary authority has stated that the enquiry officer has found the charges proved against him and the disciplinary authority has passedthe order of termination on 24-4-2000 and the appeal preferred by the workman was rejected by the appellate authority.
7. Arguing contra , the ld . representative for the Company contends that the workman has submitted his representation against the show cause notice wherein he has not stated that the copy of the enquiry report has not been received by him, that the witnesses , especially management witness Mohan Lal has clarified that he had identified the delinquent on the place of the incident and MW4 S.K. Jha has specifically stated that the stolen property belongs to the company . He has also exhibited the certificate thereof. the ld . representative has sought to refute the contention of the workman that the charges are not proved against the workman , by contending that all the three eye witnesses have proved the incident and on the basis of their testimony, The charges are proved against him. In response to the submission of workman that the materials which were relied upon by the disciplinary authority have not been placed on the record, the ld. representative for the Company states that the materials include the statements of the eye witnesses etc. , which are available on the record .
8. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the judicialpronouncements referred to before me.
4. After hearing both the parties on the preliminary issue of the fairness of domestic enquiry , this court vide its order dated 13-10-2004 has found the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman to be fair and proper. The workman thereafter has also moved a review application 8646
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
the delinquent of committing the theft of 28 copper strips belonging to the Company worth Rs . 33,800 which are the misconducts falling under Rule 14 (3) (अ), (ख) (ग) & ( छ) . The enquiry officer in his report has arrived at a conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman are found to beproved under Rule 14 (3) (ख) (ग) & (छ) . Rule 14 (3 ) (b ) , (c) & (h) ( corresponding to the above Sub - Rules ) are reproduced as below :-
Now I am called upon to examine the contention of the Id. representative for the workman that while issuing the show cause notice dated 18-4-2000 the disciplinary authority has not provided the enquiry report along with it to the workman and has passed the punishment order dated 24-4-2000 , which is illegal and deserves to be quashed. The Id . representative in support of his submission has relied upon 1997 (75) FLR SC 479; 1993 (86) FLR SC 164, 2000( 1 ) LLJ SC 1052 and 1996 ( 1) RLW 50 .
(b) theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property .
(c) willful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property.
(h) riotous or discorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline.
13. Onbehalf ofthe Company MW1D.P. Nagwanshi, Guard, MW2 Mohan Lal, Lance Nayak and MW3 L. Ashok, Guardhavebeen examined.
14. The Id. representative for the workman then has contended that on account of the findings of the enquiry officer no charge has been proved against the delinquent , who was identified on the basis of the identity card, which had not been produced during the course of the enquiry. The Id. representative has also assailed the findings of the enquiry officer as perverse and the charges as vague and has referred to the decisions reported in 1985 ( II) LLN SC 579 and 1984 (49 ) FLR SC 119. In response , the Id . respresentative for the Company contends that the management witness Mohan Lal has identified the delinquent and the management witnesses have proved the misconduct against the workman.
10. Firstly, the domestic enquiry against the workman was conducted under Rule 14 of the Industrial Employment ( standing orders) General Rules , 1946, which nowhere provides it maridatory to furnish the copy of the enquiry report along with the show cause notice to the workman. Secondly, it is evident that the workman had submitted his representation dated 24-04-2000 in response to the show cause notice dated 18-4-2000 before the disciplinary authority wherein he has not sought to deliver the copy of the enquiry report for enabling him to file his reply against the show cause notice, which leads to infer that he had obtained it. Moreover , a peep on the representation discloses that he has raised the objections against the findings of the enquiry officer in his representation. Thirdly, the workman had ever preferred an appeal against his alleged termination order before the appellate authority wherein he has assailed his termination. And above all , the ld . representative for the workman has avvailed an opportunity to assail the findings of the enquiry officer before this court. which would find mention herein below . As such, the ld . representative has failed to show as to how the non- supply of the enquiry officer's report to workman has prejudiced the case of the workman. In my humble but considered opinion the aforecited judicial pronouncements relied upon by the ld. representative for the workman on facts do not cover the present controversy and further my view is fortified by the authority reported in (1998) 4 SCC310.
11. Now I turn to the question whether the enquiry officer has passed a reasoned order and whether the charges have been established against the workman- delinquent ?
15. MW3 L. Ashok , Guard and MW2 Mohan Lal, Lance Nayak are the eyewitnesses who have seen the delinquent committing the theft of the movable property belonging to the Company . L. Ashok has reiterated the facts of the case in his deposition and has categorically stated that the delinquent on enquiring from his had told his name as Mahavir Prasad, who was working as a labourer in the company . His testimony has been corroborated by MW 2 Mohan Lal who has deposed that the delinquent was caught red handed on the spot and had disclosed his name as Mahavir Prasad, who had shown his gate pass also. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of these two eyewitnesses , it is evidently clear that the delinquent while he was committing the theft of the copper strips was seen onthe site and was caught red handed while he attempted to escape from the spot . On the enquiry made by these two eyewitnesses , he had disclosed his name before them and in furtherance of it had also shown his gate pass . Therefore, the absence of the gate pass bearing the name of the delinquent, is not sufficient to discard the whole testimony of these two eyewitnesses . No fact has been surfaced which goes to disbelieve their testimony. Apart it, MW1 12. The chargesheet dated 13-4-1996 reads the charges that on 11-4-1996 while you were on duty from 2 pm to 10 pm, at about 8:30 pm , you left the duty place unauthorisedly and at about 9:50 near to wer no . 7 you were found involved along with your associate in removing the copperstrips with the intention of committing the theft and you were seen by the guard Shri L. Ashok, who reached to the Lance Nayak Shri Mohan Lal near tower no . 7, and they found that you along with your associate were passing onthe copper strips outside the wall . It further states that on seeing them you ran away from the spot and hid behind the bushes and thereafter beneath the tower wherefrom you were caught red handed by the guards , Shri D.P. Nagwanshi , Guard also had reached there . It has charged [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
D. P. Nagwanshi , Guard has also corroborated the evidence ofthese two eyewitnesses on all the material points. 16, Now, I am faced with the issue ofjustification of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. In 1985 (2) LLN SC 579 , reported to on behalf of the workman, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the enquiry proceedings are quasi -judicial proceedings and the enquiry report must show the reasons for his conclusion.
17. In the instant , case , the enquiry officer in his report has narrated the relevant facts and the testimony of the management witnesses along with their cross- examination on the relevant points and has concluded that the workman was seen on the spot committing the alleged misconduct by the management witnesses, that the theft property i.e. 28 copper strips belonged to the company and that no defence was adduced on behalf of the workman to explain his conduct . He has arrived at the definite finding that misconduct levelled against the workman has been proved under R. 14(3 ) (b ) , ( c) & (h ) and had assigned the reasons thereof in his report based upon the material available on the record . Therefore , in view of these facts , the contention advanced on behalf of the workman that the findings of the enquiry officer are not reasoned or are perverse against the workman delinquent is not maintainable and the judicial pronouncements referred to on behalf of the workman on the point do not render any help to him. There is sufficient and positive evidence available on the record to conduct the delinquent with his guilt.
18. The Id. representative for the workman then has contended that it has not been proved that the seized stolen property belonged to the company . Contrary to it , the ld . representative for the company contends that MW 4 S.K. Jha has proved this fact that the copper strips belonged to the company , who had also issued the certificate in this regard.
19. MW4 S.K. Jha , the Assistant Manager who was examined on behalf of the company, has stated the he had issued the property certificate, which has been placed on the record and is available at page 8 of the enquiry record. The certificate clearly states that these copper strips are the property of the company . Thus , MW4 S.K. Jha has proved the property certificate, which goes to establish that the stolen property belonged to the company and the submission canvassed on behalf of the workman is devoid of any substance.
20. The Id . representative for the workman has further contended that while passing the punishment order dated 24-4-2000 the disciplinary authority has observed that on perusal of the concerned papers he is satisfied that the misconduct was committed by the workman, but
8647
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
those papers could not be disclosed nor they have been placed on the record. On behalf of the company , it has been argued in response that the concerned papers are the statements of the witnesses and the other materials of the enquiry record which were perused by the disciplinary authority.
21.Ona careful perusal of the punishment order dated 24-4-2000 it is revealed that the disciplinary authority has specifically mentioned that on a thorough perusal of the enquiry record as well as the report of the enquiry officer he has reached to the conclusion that the alleged misconduct is found proved against the delinquent which is of the grave nature . The material perused and relied upon by the disciplinary authority are available on the record. As such, the submission made on behalf of the workman is notwell founded and repelled.
22. And lastly , this court was confronted by its award delivered in the matter of Brahmanand v . M/s . Kolihan Copper Mines wherein , the co-delinquent Brahmanand was exonerated in this theft case. But the facts of the cited case are entirely distinguishable inasmuch as that none of the eyewitnesses had named the co -delinquent Brahmanand in the commission of theft and his presence on the spot was found doubful. As such , the contention advanced on behalf of the workman is meritless and is unsustainable .
23. That leaves me to consider on the question of the proportionate punishment looking to the gravity of the offence. Undoubtedly , the workman was involved in committing the theft of the company's property which is grave misconduct in nature and the impugned punishment order does not warrant any intereference looking to the facts of the case .
24. For the forgoing reasonss , the submissions put forth on behalf of the workman are not well founded and are not maintainable. The charges levelled against him are foundto be proved and the punishment order does not call for any interefence .
25. In the result , the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of the company and it is held that the termination order dated 24-4-2000 passed by the management of the company against the workman is justified and legal . The workman is entitled to no relief and his claim is dismissed . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.
26. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.
R. C. SHARMA . Presiding Officer 8648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2005
are that a chargesheet dt . 12-2-1987 was issued to the workman. In the said chargesheet , the following charges were alleged against the workman:
( a) That the chargesheeted workman wilfully and fraudulently altered the records and have wrong and excess payments to certain agents amounting to Rs . 2.110 40ps .
का० आ ० 2698.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 191/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-17012 / 58/96- आई आर ( विविध ) ]
बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव
(b) That he had made certain alterations unauthorisedly and wrongfully in the earning records of agents in view of preparation and settlement of bonus commission to agents of theCorporation.
New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2698.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute . Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 191 / 97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , New Delhi No. II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corpn. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005 .
[No. L - 17012/ 58 /96 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID . Under Secy.
(c) That he was working as a Telephone Operator , P& T, Delhi w.e.f. 24-11-1981 and the said fact was suppressed by him while he had been offered appointment in LIC . Thus because of the aforesaid acts, it was further alleged , he failed to maintain absolute intergrity and devotion to duty, failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, acted in the manager detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and prejudicial to good conduct and thereby committedbreach of regulations 21 and 24 read with regulation 39 ( 1 ) of the LIC ( Staff) Regulations , 1960 .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : R.N. Rai
I.D. No. 191/1997
In the matter of :-
Shri Sandeep Gupta,
Through Northern Zone Insurance Employees Association , 86 , Janpath ( Annexe ) , New Delhi - 110001 .
Versus
Thatwhile denying the charges levelled against him, the workman requested vide his letterdt . 17-2-1987 the employer hereinabove "to supply him all the relevant documents and also to permit him to inspect the records so that he could submit detailed reply to the chargesheet. " A copy of the said letter is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure W - II . That the employer hereinabove ordered enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman by his orderdt . 15-4-1987 and appointed the Manager (OS ) . Divisional Office, New Delhi as the Enquiry Officer without supplying to the workman copies of all the relevant documents or even permitting him to inspect the same, in gross violation of the requirements of holding a fair and proper enquiry. A copy of the letter dt . 15-4-1987 of the Divisional Office , New Delhi is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure W - III .
The Divisional Manager , Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office - II , Jeevan Pragati , 6, Distt . Centre , Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110092
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 17012/ 58/ 96/IR (B - II ) Central Government Dt . 24-11-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in inflicting the punishment of stepping down 5 increments to Shri Sandeep Gupta w.e.f. 30-1-1995 is legal andjustified? If not, what reliefthe said workman is entitled to?"
That the enquiry proceedings commenced in August , 1987 and after number of adjournment given at the instance ofthe Management, concluded on Feb. 1989. During the enquiry, the management produced as many as 19 documents and also led oral evidence through three witnesses , namely S / Shri J.C. Kumar, PW - 1 , P.K. Verma , PW - 2 and D.S. Khosa, then officer - in - charge of the Sales Department of the Branch Unit No. 114, Delhi . That on the conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that only part ofCharge No. 1 has been established , that Charge No. 2isnot established and charge No. 3 is established . While coming to the above conclusion , the Enquiry Officer thus inhis report:
The Union has filed statement of claim on behalf of the workman . In the statement of claim, it has been stated that the brief facts leading to the above industrial dispute
" In these premises , based on preponderance of probability, it could be presumed that the alterations in the Earning Record Sheet , so far as it relates to PW 2 could [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
have been done by the CSE only since the depositions clearly bring out that he was to be a beneficiary. " That commenting on rest of the allegations contained in Charge 1 & 2 the Enquiry Officer further stated as under :
"The P.O. had not produced the other two agents indicated in Charge No. 1. Further, cause of action in the form of complaint as was lodged by PW 2 has not been cited in the proceedings in - so - far as these two agents are concerned . For these reasons , I am of the view that the principle of preponderance of probability cannot be stretched to cover these two agents also . "
That it would be evident from the above that there was no direct and convincing evidence at all that the workman, Shri Sandeep Gupta, had altered the records and the Charge No. 1 was held proved only the basis of "Preponderance of probability" . It has however to be noted that the Charge No. 1 did not relate merely to altering the record but doing so wilfully and fraudulently. It is trite law that the burden of proof in a case of alleged commission of fraud of fraudulent act is on the person making the allegation . Since fraud involves/ implies commission of a positive act , it has to be specifically proved. Accordingly, it was essential for the corporation to establish both the fact of alteration of records and further to prove that this was done by the workman wilfully and fraudulently. " The Ist part of the charge of alteration itself having not been proved at all by any direct evidence , it ought to have been held that the Charge No. 1 was not at all proved. Finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is therefore , manifestly perverse, being based on no evidence at all .
That there is no evident on record whatsoever that the workman had either demanded or received any monetary consideration from any agent for the alleged alterations . There is also no positive evidence at all that the workman had in fact tampered the records and the conclusion drawn by the Enquity Officer is purely presumptive in nature and not at all based on facts . That in an organisation like LIC , instance of such accidental or inadvertent over payments of commission are galore and the normal practice is to recover the amount of over payment only. Very recently, Shri Pradeep Kumar Goyal , an agent having Code No. 10144-123 , was paid commission amounting to Rs . 8,249,96 twice and the only action was to recover the excess amount from the agent , that too in installments . The action taken against the workman in the present case is discriminatory and , therefore violative of the principle of equality of treatment .
That the PW -3 clearly admitted during the course of his evidence that the practice in the branch was to prepare bonus commission bills by referring to the Earning Record Sheet , which was open to access to other employees and the agents concerned. The said witness also admitted that besides the chargesheeted employees ( the workman in this case), other employees working in the branch and dealing with and writing Earning Records and preparing bonus commission bills of the agents . It was also admitted by the. said witness that bonus earning bills prepared by the
8649
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
DealingAssistant were checked by Higher Grade Assistant posted in the section and were then passed by the Officer- in-Charge . It would thus be evident that preparation of correctbonus earning bills was the combined responsibility ofthree persons , two Assistants and the Officer - in -Charge and the blame for any lapse would have to apportioned. amongst the three person equally.
That neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority applied their mind to the enquiry proceedings and evidence on record objectively and independently but functioned as ' His Master Voice' of the Vigilance Officer at Mumbai . Every thing at every stage had tobe referred to him for approval who took the final decision . The entire proceedings are therefore , vitiated andbad in law. That it is relevant to mention that the entire amount of excess payment ofbonus commission amounting to Rs . 2,110.40 has been duly recovered by the Corporation from the future bills of the agent concerned and therefore no pecuniary loss and/or damage has been suffered by the Corporation.
Thatincidentally it may be mentioned that the work and conduct of the workman has always been rated as "Very Good" . It may also be relevant to mention that the workmantopped the departmental written test for promotion to the post ofHigher Grade Assistant . In this connection , a copy each of the Notificationdt . 17-1-1989 and letter dated 16-5-1991 issued to him by the Senior Branch Manager, appreciating his good performance and dedication is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure W- IV colly. That as regards charge No. 3 , the omission on the part of theworkman was purely ofa technical nature . The workman was under the bonafide impression that his working as Trainee Telephone Operator for few months was not going to benefit him as an Assistant in the LIC . Otherwise he wouldhave happily mentioned the same to draw advantage ofhis past service . It appears that this charge of minor and technical nature has got unduly magnified because of its being clubbed with Charge No. 1 and 2 .
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that the order of reference through and by which the present matter has been referred for adjudication has not been signed by the proper person . The Desk Officer is not the proper person hence the order of reference is bad in law. That the order of reference should be in original , which is not the case in this matter, hence order of reference is bad in law. That the order of reference has been made without application of mind, hence the order of refenence is bad in law. The cause of the claimant has not been espoused by a substantial number of workers .
Without prejudice to the above objections , it is submitted that Sh . Sandeep Gupta is not a member of the North Zone Insurance Employees Association , and as such , the Association has not locus standi to take up the cause ofthe claimant. Even otherwise also the Association is not a registered body. Without prejudice to aforementioned preliminary objections the respondent's reply on merits .
8650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
The true facts are that the alleged order of reference is no reference in the eyes of law as the same has not been signed by proper person. The Desk Officer is not competent person to sign the order of reference . Even the term of referenfce do not reflect the exact nature of controversy because in the dispute raised herein the matter it has been alleged that the punishment inflicted is illegal and unjustified, therefore , the term of reference should be regarding the illegality and unjustifiability of the punishment and not for legality and justifiability of punishment inflicted upon Sh . Sandeep Gupta .
The true facts are that opportunity to see all the relevant documents was afforded to the claimant and the documents were shown to the claimant on 10-3-1987 . It is admitted that enquiry into charges levelled against the claimant was ordered .
The true facts are that during the enquiry proceedings the strict rules of evident are not applicable . The enquiry officer has afforded reasonable opportunity to both the parties and has conducted procedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice . The findings of the enquiry officer as contained in the enquiry report submitted by him are absolutely proper.
The true facts are that the claimant had altered the records fraudulently. These acts are misconduct of serious nature and cannot be termed as accidental or inadvertent . The action taken against the claimant is already liberal . In the present case Sh . Sandeep Gupta acted with an ulterior motive of making money by wrongful means i.e. making alterations in records . Here it may not be out of place to mention that the act of making money by alteration in records as has been done by claimant and that of suppression of information are sufficient to constitute loss of confidence , but the management has in fact given an opportunity to improve upon in future by retaining him in service and hence the penalty of decrement of five steps in time scale . Action against the HGA Ah . K.P. Arora has been taken and penalty of ' ensure ' imposed vide order dated 23-4-1994 . This action was taken on the basis of the enquiry report .
The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have passed order after proper consideration of the proceedings in the matter . However, the chairman of the respondent management took a lenient view by modifying the penalty of reduction in basic pay by seven steps to five steps . The proceedings are absolutely proper and in accordance with law.
The true facts are that penalty imposed upon the claimant is for the charges proved against him as his acts stand proved after the completion of enquiry. It has no relevance that the amount has been recovered from the agent . The claimant has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and failed to serve the management with honesty and faithfulness. The climant has committed breach of regulations 21 and 24 read with regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ( Staff) Regulations .
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1960 and thus penalty accordingly was imposed on the claimant.
The claimant has been punished for the charges proved against him and not for subsequent conduct . Even ifitispresumed that his work and conduct has been rated as very good , it in no way, wipes out the charges as contained in the charge sheet and proved against the claimant.
The claimant has admittedly concealed the facts relating to his earlier employment, and this charge is absolutely independent , it can not be taken as minor charge. The claimant has concealed the facts relating to his previous employment in application for appointment as well as injoining report so that wrongs done by him during his previous employment may not come to surface .
The workman has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder he has reitereated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.
Evidence of both the parties has been taken .
Issue regarding fairness of the inquiry was not pressed so the award is being given on the entire merits of the case .
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
The workman has filed written argument also . The management has also filed written argument .
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he was served a charge sheet. In Charge No. A it has been alleged that the CSE willfully and fraudulently altered the records and has made wrong and excess payment to certain agents amounting to Rs . 2100.40 . charge No. B was regarding making alteration in the earning records of agents in view of the preparation . Charge to the effect that he worked as Telephone Operator and the said fact was suppressed by the workman . So far as the Charge No. A is concerned the inquiry officer has found charge no . 1 proved on the basis of preponderance of probability. There is no direct evidence of substantive charge no . 1 in respect ofall the agents . Charge No. 2 and 3 have not been found but the punishing authority has made charge no . 2 also proved but without any materiai on the record. Charge No. 1 regarding excess payment of Rs . 2110.40. That amount has been recovered from the agent so there is no loss suffered by the Corporation at the worst. It may be a bonafide negligence of the workman applicant . He has not received amount himself thus excess payment to one agent was made and when it was noticed the agent reimbursed the amount to the LIC .
It was further submitted that the witnesses in the inquiry have admitted that the bill is prepared and put for approval of Sr. Gr . Assistant and sanctioned by an officer ofthe Corporation . As such Sr. Gr . Assistant and the officer concerned also did not notre that excess payment was being made to the agent .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Itwas further submitted that on 24-4-2000 an excess payment of Rs . 8,249.96 was made by another employee in another case and no action against him has been taken as such discrimination has been made against the workman applicant which is not just and fair in view of Article 12 of the Constitution . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1990 FLR SC 705 has held :-"the concept of rule of law would lose its vatality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fairandjust manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedure which are considered inherent in the exercise of ajudicial power are merely those which facilitate if not ensure ajust and fair decision . "
Similarly, in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( 9 ) it was held as under :-
"The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned , the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. "
It was further submitted that the workman was not permitted to inspect the records . Para 11 of his affidavit has not been denied by the management so it shall be deemed proved in view of AIR 1998 SC 3038 .
The witnesses have admitted that the records are available to the other employees and the CSE is not the sole custodian of the record. No experts have been produced to establish the fact that the alteration was made only by the workman applicant . There is no direct evidence regarding alteration of the records and the inquiry officer has held the charge proved on preponderance of probability. He has not found it proved on preponderance of evidence . The higher Grade Assistant and the Passing Officer have also perused the record but they could not detect that an excess payment of Rs . 2110.40 are made so there is fault on the part of Sr. Checking Assistant and Passing Officer as a result of cumulative negligence, the payment of Rs . 2110.40 has been made . There is no allegation that the workman has altered the records to get financial benefits himself. Copies of document are not made available to the workman applicant hence inquiry is vitiated.
The management witness has admitted that Sh . Sandip Gupta was not financial authority regarding the payment ofBonus . It is not in his knowledge whether any action was taken against the authority who has approved the bill for the payment of bonus submitted by Sh. Sandip Gupta. He has no knowledge of the fact that Sh . Sandip Gupta has put up the bill for the payment ofbonus to Sr. Gr. Assistant and it was senctioned by the Sr. Gr . Assistant Officer. He has further admitted that the excess payment of bonus has been recovered from the agent to whom it was paid and he has not been examined during the inquiry proceedings . According to the admission of the management witness the workman applicant was not the only person who has put the bill before the Passing Officer. 2149G1 /05-46
8651
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
The inquiry officer has also found the charges proved on the basis of preponderance of probability. It implies that charge No. 1 has been found proved on the basis of possibility and probability. There must be some direct evidence. It was submitted that an employee cannot be punished on the element of probability.
Itwas further submitted that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and discrimination has been made . An employee who has made excess payment of Rs . 8,000 has not been punished but only the SCE has beenpickedup.
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the inquiry has been held on the principles of natural justice. Proper opportunity to the workman applicant has been given. He has committed a serious misconduct and the punishing authority found charge no . 2 also proved on the basis of the evidence on the record in the inquiry proceedings.
My attention was drawn from the side of the workmanto AIR 1998 SC 3038 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the workman applicant should be given opportunity ofeffective hearing. He should be given copies of documents on the basis of which charges have been framed, but in case the delinquent is not informed inwriting that he may inspect the record he shall not be held that he has got sufficient time to inspect the record , access to record must be assured to him . In case effective opportunity has not been afforded to the delinquent no order should be passed.
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that full opportunity during inquiry proceedings has been given to the workman applicant. He has been permitted to inspect the records , proper procedure has been followed during the course of inquiry .
Even if worst case is taken the excess payment of 2110.40 has been made and that too after it has been checkedby the Checking Assistant and the Passing Officer. It appears from the above that the workman applicant has not done anything to benefit him directly. The excess payment has been made by oversight or by a minor negligence of the workman applicant . For argument shiake ifinquiry is supposed to be fair , such punishment cannot be inflicted on the workman applicant . His five increments have been stopped permanently. Such punishment for a minor negligence is shockingly disproportionate . The inquiry has also not perfectly fair in the circumstances . Stoppage of two increments for two years is sufficient in view ofthe minor negligence of the workman applicant.
The reference is replied thus :
The action of the management of LIC of India in inflictingthe punishment of stepping down five increments to Shri Sandeep Gupta w.e.f. 30-10-1995 is neither legal nor just . The management can withhold two increments for two years in view of the minor negligence of the workman applicant . Themanagement/respondents are directed to make payment of the entire deducted amount . deducting 8652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
two increments for two years , to the workman applicant within one month from the publication of the Award. In case the management does not pay the entire arrears ofthe wages to the workman applicant after deducting two increments for two years , the workman applicant will be entitled to an interest of 12 % on his back wages .
The Award is given accordingly.
Date: 15-6-2005
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer..
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2005
का० आ० 2699.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार स्टेट मिनरल डवलपमेंट काणें . लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध , में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद संख्या 2 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 78/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-28012/1/97- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2699.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Dhanbad No. II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bihar State Mineral Development Corpn . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005 .
[No. L- 28012/1/97 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT DHANBAD .
PRESENT
Shri B. Biswas ,
PresidingOfficer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .
Reference No. 78 of 1997
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of Kodarma Mica Mine ofB.S.M.D.C. and their Workmen .
Appearances :
Onbehalfofthe workman : Mr. B.B.Pandey,
Ld. Advocate On behalf of the employers: Mr. H. Nath , Ld. Advocate
[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] State : Jharkhand
Industry:Mine
Dated . Dhanbad, the 1st June , 2005 .
AWARD
The Govt . of India , ivimistry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 28012/ 1 / 97 - IR (Misc ) dated , the 30th June . 1997 .
Schedule
"Whether the action of the management of Kodarma Mica Unit of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd .. P.O. Kodarma in dismissing Shri Ramnath Saw w.e.f. 13-2-96 from service is justified ? If not . to what relief the workman is entitiled?"
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :
The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman being a semi - skilled worker ( Hand Driller ) was posted at Suggi Mica Mincs , a mine of Kodarma Mica Unit under Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation since 1974. They allegeed that management all of a sudden dismissed the concerned workman from his service w.e.f. 13-2-96 vide office order No. 99/96 dt . 13-2-96 under signature of Sri R.D.P. Singh , Mining Agent of Kodarma Mica Unit. Before issuing that order ofdismissal management neither issued any charge sheet nor conducted any domestic enquiry against him . They alleged that such order of dismissal was not only arbitrary and illegal but also it was against the priniciple of natural justice and for which he raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC (C) , Hazaribagh for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjuciation .
The sponsoring union accordingly, submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to rainstate the concerned workman to his service from the date of passing the order of dismissal after setting aside the said illegal order with full back wages of other consequential relieves .
3. Management on the contrary after filing the inter statement- cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.
They submitted that the concerned workman was dismissed from his service of Kodarma Mica Unit on the ground of theft of Mica by his two sons with his convinance from Persa Mica Mine where he lived . They alleged that by doing such act he indulged pilferage of Govt . property and wrongful loss to the management which came under the perview of gross misconduct .
They submitted that an enquiry was made by the management regarding theft of mica and the concerned workmanwas given full opportunity to face that oral enquiry. During the said enquiry he confessed his guilt relating to theft of mica. They further disclosed that as a result of the 8653 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
said enquiry he was dismissed from his service by office order No. 99/96 dt . 13-2-96 . They submitted that management neither took any arbitrary decision nor passed any illegal order violating the principle of natural justice in dismissing him from service and for which he is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.
4. POINT TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the management of Kodarma Mica Unit of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, P.O. Kodarma in dismissing Shri Ramnath Saw w.e.f. 13-2-96from service is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration whether domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . The said issue on preliminary point was disposed of by order No. 34 dt . 25-11-04 against the management and for which an opportunity was given to the management to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman on merit .
In course ofhearing the case on merit management examined one witness as MW1 . The sponsoring union also with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concerned workman as W. W.1 . During evidence on merit M.W.1 disclosed that concerned workman was a semi skilled worker posted Khaltkamti Mica Mines . During cross examination this witness disclosed that he was not aware if any charge sheet was issued to the concerned workman or not before he was dismissed from service . He also has failed to disclose why he was dismissed from service . The concerned workman on the contrary during his evidence disclosed that before he was dismissed from service management neither issued any charge sheet nor conducted any domestic enquiry against him . He was dismissed after rendering continuous.service since 1974 without assigning any reason .
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleading of both sides and also considering evidence of M. W.1. there is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was a semi skilled workman under the management . It is also admitted fact that on the charge of theft of mica he was dismissed from his service by office order No. 99/96 dt. 13-2-96 (Exht . M/5 ) .
enquiry he was dismissed from his service . During cross- examination this witness admitted that all disciplinary actions against the worker under the management are taken on the basis ofModel Standing Order. He further admitted that though there is no provision under Model Standing Order an oral enquiry was held against the concerned workman on the allegation of theft of mica . He further admitted that though oral enquiry was held the officer who conducted the said oral enquiry did not submit any report in writing. This witness further admitted that no stolen mica was seized from the possession of the concerned workman. Considering evidence of this witness it is clear that not only no charge sheet was issued against the concerned workman but also no opportunity was given to him to defend his case . It is admitted fact that as per Model Standing Order applicable to the workman employed under the management there is no provision to hold any oral domestic enquiry. It is seen that violating the provision as laid down in Model Standing Order that oral enquiry was held. It is funny thing to note that the officer who conducted the said oral enquiry did not submit any report in writing . Inspite of existence of gross anomaly opportunity was given to the Management to prove the charge brought against the concerned workman on merit but they have lamentably failed to establish the charge . It is the cordinal principle of law that a worker against whom the allegation ofcommittinggross misconduct has been brought as per Standing Order he should be given at least minimum opportunity to defend his case before he is found guilty. Inthe instant case it transpires that the concerned workman was employed under the management in the year 1974 . With the allegation of committing theft of nice he was dismissed from service with effect from 13-2-96 , i.c. , after rendering continuous service of more than 21 years he was dismissed by the management without getting any opportunity to defend his case just on the basis of oral enquiry. It is amazing to note that the officer who conducted that oral enquiry did not consider necessary to submit his report in writing. Accordingly, the question which has been cropped up is on the basis of which material ingredient he was found guilty which led him dismissal from service . It is seen that over pilferage of mica the management on different occasions intimated police for taking appropriate step for stopping the same. It is the allegation of the management that two sons of the concerned workman with his active convinance used to pilfer mica from the mines . Excepting that allegation the management have failed to produce a single piece of evidence to show that the concerned, workman was actually involved in committing theft of mica from their possession . No result of Police Investigation comes in. Not a single piece of mica was recovered from his possession. Actually excepting the allegation in question management have failed to produce any material which could expose his involvement . Apart from this fact , with utter violation of Model Standing Order management initiated a so - called oral enquiry which was not only
arbitrary but also illegal. It is seen that to dismiss the The specific contention of the sponsoring union that before issuing the said order of dismissal management neither issued any charge sheet nor conducted any domestic enquiry against the concerned workman . Even no opportunity was given to him to defend his case . In this connectionhis evidence of M. W.1 (on Preliminary Enquiry) may be taken into consideration . This witness during his evidence disclosed that no charge sheet was issued to the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the allegation of theft . He admitted that just relying on oral concerned workman from service management played a 8654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
foul role and that was exposed when incourse of hearing they admitted that the concerned workman was dismissed from service without issuing any chargesheet and also without holding domestic enquiry against him as per provision laid down in Model Standing Order.
According, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I find no hesitation to say that management have lamentably failed to establish the so called charge brought against the concerned workman .
It is clear that on the basis of illegal oral enquiry the concerned workman was dismissed from the service as per office order No. 99/96 dt. 13-2-96 ( Exht . M/5 ) . Now the point for consideration is whether there is any scope to review the said order of dismissal u/ s II - A of the I.D. Act Sec . II -A of the I.D. Act speaks as follow:
"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court. Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court . Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be , is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit , or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . "
Therefore , as per this section it is to be looked into whether the order ofdismissal issued against the concerned workman was justified and also if the same was proportionate to the offence committed by him .
In view of my discussion above I find no dispute to hold that management have lamentably failed to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman. Arbitrarily and illegally based on alleged oral enquiry they dismissed him from service witho.. giving him any scope to defend his case . When the management have failed to establish the charge there is no scope to take cognizance ofthe order of dismissal as it has no legal entity in the eye oflaw. Therefore , I hold that the order of dismissal issued by the management was not only injustified but also absolutely disproportionate to the alleged offence committedby him and for which the same is liable to be set aside . The concerned workman deserves his reinstatement in service .
In the result the following award is rendered:
"That the action ofthe management of Kodarma Mica Unit ofBihar State Mineral Development Gorporation Ltd. , P.O. Kodarma in dismissing Sri Ramnath Saw w.e.f. 13-2-96 from service was not justified. The order of his dismissal dt . 13-2-96 is hereby set aside . Management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman to his services with affect from the date of dismissal , i.e. , 13-2-96 and to pay him 25% back wages with other consequential relief within three months from the date ofpublication of the award in the Gazette
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] ofIndia. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2700.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अस्पताल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली संख्या- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-06-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-15012/5/94- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2700. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , New Delhi No. II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Employees State Insurance Hospital and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-06-2005.
[No. L - 15012/5/ 94 -IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI Presiding Officer: R.N. Rai LD . No. 41/95
In the metter of :-
Smt.RoseMary Phillips , D/o . Late D.L.J. Phillips , C/o Hospital Employees Union , Aggarwal Bhawan , G.T. Road, TisHazari , Delhi - 110054.
Versus
TheMedical Superintendent , E.S.1 . Hospital , Basai Darapur, Ring Road, New Delhi - 110015 .
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 15012/5/ 94/ IR (vivid) Central Government Dt.07-03-1995 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the management of E.S.I. Hospital , Basai Darapur is justified in terminating the services of 8655 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Smt . Rose Mary Phillips by way of retirement on 31-10-1993 at the age of 58 years? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to . "
the age of 58. Similarly, such employees of the Corporation retire at the age of 58. The applicant who is a Group ' C ' employee has to retire at the age of 58 as laid down in F.R. 56 (a) . That F.R., 56 (b ) is not applicable because ESI Hospital is not an Industrial or work charged Establishment nor the applicant is a ' workman' in the context of these rules.
The workman has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman Smt . Rose Mary Phillips joined into the employment of the ESI Hospital since 19-06-1959 as a A.N.M./B-Grade Staff Nurse. She was a regular and permanent employee and wasdrawing her salary in the pay scale of Rs . 975-1540 with usual allowances admissible under the rules . She has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to her credit.According to her date ofbirth, recorded in the service book, she reached the age of 58 years in the month of October, 1993 .
The applicant is not skilled artisan . She is a Nurse . A nurse does not come under the definition of an Artisan . According to the Law Lexicon and the concise Oxford Dictionary' Artisan ' means a Mechanic , specially skilled Manual worker. According to the shorter Oxford Dictionary Artisan is described as one " occupied in any Industrial Act, mechanic , Handi Craftman . " In Shroud's legal dictionary, the term Artisan is probably synonymies for Artificer and an Artificer is stated to be a skilled workman and is one who makes something as distinguished from onewho only does something e.g. a Hair Dresser is not an Artificer because he only does something . 1982 Lah . I.C. 198. As the applicant is not a skilled Artisan she is not covered under F.R. 56 (b) and is not entitled to retain her post till she reaches the age of 60 years . Her retirement under F.R. 56 (a) is absolutely legal and according to provision of law applicable to her service.
That the workman aforesaid was informed by order No. DMZ- 15 ( 14) /9/776 E- 1 (M) dated 03-04-1992 that she will be reitredfrom service of the ESI Corporation w.e.f. 31-10-1993 on reaching the age of 58 years . That the workman aforesaid made a representation on 12-04-1993 which is said to have been forwarded on 05-05-1993 . That the workman aforesaid is a skilled artisan , working on a technical job , and is covered under F.R. 56 (b ) and she is entitled to retain her post till she reaches the age of 60 years i.e. 31-10-1995. Her retirement at the age of 58 years will be void ab - initio . That the aforesaid workman is physically fit to perform duties .
The services of the applicant has not been terminated but she has retired from service according to F.R. 56 (a ) afterreaching the age of superannuation . The case of the applicant is not covered under Delhi Shops and Establishment Act nor under Industrial Disputes Act .
The Regional Director has nothing to do with the services of a nurse . Neither he is an appointing authority of the Nurses nor he has any dealing with the Staff of the Hospital . The rest of the para is a matter of record. In fact the Medical Superintendent is also not the appointing authority of the applicant .
Thatthe aforesaid workman has not applied for her premature reitrement from service . She is rather interested in continuing in service till she reaches the age of 60 years i.e. 31-10-1995 . that , even otherwise, the impugned termination of services is violative of Section 30 of the Delhi shops and Establishments Act, 1954 and the rules made there under. It is also violative of Section 25F, G and Hof the I.D. Act , 1947 read with Rules 76, 77 of the Industrial Disputes( Central) Rules , 1957. That the workman aforesaid is unemployed since 01-11-1993 .
From the perusal of the record it transpires that the workman applicant is not turning up from 27-10-2004. Notice has been sent to both the parties still the workman has not turned up . He has not filed affidavit . The management turned up after notice . Argument of the management was heard.
The workman has not filed affidavit in support ofhis claim despite sufficient opportunity given to her . Her evidence was closed on 23-02-2005 so there is no affidavit insupport of the claim statement .
The reference is replied thus:
The action of the ESI Hospital , Basai Darapur is justified in terminating the services of Smt . Rose Mary Phillipsby way of retirement on 31-10-1993 at the age of 58 years . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The Award is given accordingly.
Date: 16-06-2005 .
R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer The management has filed reply. In the reply it is stated that the applicant is not entitled for adjudication of the matter as she has misrepresented the facts of the case before the Court and other authorities . She is governed by the ESI Act and the rules madder there under. Sub - section 2 of Section 17 ofthe ESI Act provides that the method of recruitment . salary and allowances , discipline and other conditions of service of the members of the staff of the Corporation shall be such as may be provided in the Regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the Rules and orders applicable to officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay. According to the Second Schedule of the ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service ) Regulations , the age of retirement for the employees of the Corporation has to be the same as prescribed in respect of corresponding category of Central Government servants . The Central Government employees like Doctors , Nurses and Technicians employed in Government Hospitals retires at 8656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2701.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पो ० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 311/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं.एल. 30015/3/2004- आई आर ( विविध ) ] पी.एम. डेविट, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2701. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 311/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005 .
[No. L -30015/3 / 2001 IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID . Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday the 14th March , 2005
Present: K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 311/2004 (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of M/ s . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , and their workmen ) .
BETWEEN:
: I Party/Claimant 1. The Regional Secretary. Petroleum Workers Union , Hindustan Petroleum Corpora- tion Ltd. , Chennai .
Impleaded as 2. Sri G. Karmegam,
3. Sri G. Sekar Babu
Petitioners as per
I. A. Order No. 69/2004 4. Sri J. Irudayaraj
dated 14-7-2004 5. Sri A. Raj Kumar
6. Sri K. Williams
7. Sri S. Egambaram
AND
1. The Chairman &
: II Party/Management Managing Director Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. Mumbai
[PART II- SEC 3 ( ii) ] 2. The General Manager. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd .. Chennai
Appearances :
For the Petitioner
: M/ s . K.V. Ananthakrushnan
V. Chandrasekarn
K.P. Muralidharan ,
Advocates
For the Management M's . King & Partridge . Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government . Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 30015/ 3 /2004 - IR( M) dated 19-2-2004 has referred this Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned dispute in that order is-
"Whether the industrial dispute raised by Petroleum Workers Union against the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for regularisation of services of eight workmen as mentioned in the Annexure and also for other relief claimed in Writ Petition No. 12297 of 1998 is justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"
2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 311/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.
3. After the issue of notice , the Petitioners 2 to 9 have filed I.A. to implead themselves in the industrial dispute and they have been ordered to be impleaded as per order in I.A. No. 69/04 dated 14-7-2004. The I Petitioner remained exparte.
4. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows : -
The Petitioners 2 to 9 are employed by II Party/ Management . The II Party /Management engaged these workers for cleaning toilets , house keeping and sweeping of the Regional Office building . The jobs entrusted to the Petitioners are perennial and permanent in nature . Though they were working under the control of the II Party/ Management , they were treated as contract labourers in order to avoid permanency and absorption with the II Party /Management . After the decision of Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation's case the I Petitioner Union filed a Writ Petition No. 12297/98 before the High Court claiming permanent status to the eight employees in which, interim injunction was granted. During the pendency of the proceedings , the General Secretary, who initiated the proceedings on behalf of the union did not continue as General Secretary of the union and therefore , the eight employees filed WPMP No. 63298/02 to implead themselves as Petitioners in the Writ Petition and to 8657 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
prosecute the same and the High Court by an order dated toil and sweeping the building etc. on contract basis. The II Party /Management alone supplied all the cleaning and sweeping materials for carrying out the work done by the eight Petitioners . The so called contractors are not registered contractors for any other establishments or taken any other labour contract with any other establishments . The Petitioners 2 to 9 worked solely for the II Party/Management and the II Party/Management alone have economic control over the employees 2 to 9. In the standing orders of the Respondent/Management . there is a classification of cadre for the post of cleaner and sweeper as M O1 . Therefore , engaging the contract labourers to carry out the work of the said permanent cadre ofworkmen is deliberate to deprive the regularisation of services of the employees . The Petitioners are not under direct control and supervision of alleged contractors . Cleaning and sweeping the premises are perennial and permanent in nature and therefore , the employees are regularly required to carry out the said work . Since there are permanent vacancies available for sweepers and cleaners and cadre strength having been provided in the standing orders and Memorandum of Understanding between the union , the Petitioners 2 to 9 should be absorbed in the post available in the standing orders . The Petitioners 2 to 9 are not engaged on part time basis and engaged throughout the day by the II Party/ Management . In other branches of the Respondent/ Management namely Bombay, Bangalore and Mangalore the employees engaged for sweeping and cleaning were made permanent employees . Therefore , for all these reasons , the Petitioners pray for an award to confirm their services with effect from the date of completion of 480 days with all arrears and attendant benefits .
3-3-2003 impleaded the Petitioners 2 to 9 as Petitioners in writproceedings. In that Writ Petition , the High Court directed the Central Government to refer the dispute of eight employees for adjudication . The II Party/ Management filed Writ Appeal No. 627/2004 and the DivisionBench of the High Court on 25-3-2004 confirmed the order made in W.P. No. 12297/98 and also given further orders . The Petitioners 2 to 9 joined the II Party/ Management even from the year 1985-87 and all the workers have completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of 24 months from the date ofjoining the services of II Party /Management till 1998 and except Mr. S. Ekambaram all other workers have put in more than 12 years of continuous service and engaged for the work of cleaning the toilets , sweeping and housekeeping . They were engaged permanently by the II Party/Management with the supervisory control over them . The Petitioners 2 to 9 also worked in the canteen . While Mr. Sekarbabu , Karmegam , Irudayaraj , Ekambaram and Rajkumar serve food to non -management staff and clean the lunch room , Mr. Williams serves the management staff. All the Petitioners reported for duty at 8.30 a.m. and they have to remain in the premises from 8.30a.m. to 8.30 p.m. and they are paid wages for extra work directly by the II Party/ Management . The Petitioners are also authorised and deputed by II Party /Management to do outside work and are paid conveyance charges and the alleged contractors do not pay any amount towards conveyance . The Petitioners salary are being paid on monthly basis with deductions of contribution of ESI and EPF etc. S/ Sri Vadivelu and Irudayaraj are under contract employment of the II Party /Management. The Petitioners whenever availed loan facilities from the provident fund, II Party/ Management alone signs the relevant papers for disbursement of loan against the available amount . There is no tender issued by II Party /Management to select the contractors . Before filing the Writ Petition , the Petitioners 2to 9 were engaged on the basis of office note and after the Writ Petition , these employees were engaged on the basis of purchase order. The II Party/Management alone stipulates the number of workers to be engaged by the alleged contractors . It clearly indicates that the contractors are mere name lenders . Further, the contractors are not licensed contractors and the so called contract system is a camouflage , smoke screen and it is not valid in law. further, the II Party/Management did not register with the labour authorities under the said act to engage the contract labourers . In awarding the so called contract , to Mr. T.M. Guruswamy and A. Kasper, the II Party/Management has not followed the procedure laid down under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act . Mr. K. Vedivelu was never under the contractor till 1994 but he was designated as contractor in 1994 and he is only an employee on contract. The II Party /Management introduced contract labour system in the place where permanent work was going on . Sri P.S. Irudayaraj working as ASF at Meenambakkam was directly employed for cleaning the
5. As against this the Respondent/Management in its Counter Statement contended that Mr. G. Karmegam , G. Sekhar Babu , J. Irudayaraj , A. Rajkumar and S. Ekambaram are the employees of Mr. Gurusamy, who was an independent contractor with the II Party /Management . Mr. Williams was a contract labour working under contractor Mr. A. Kasper. Mr. K. Vedivelu and P.S. Irudayaran were independent contractors . It is false to alleged that Petitioners 2 to 9 are employed by the II Party/ Management. The scope of work rendered by contractors through their contract employees is specifically mentioned in the contract . The work given to the contractor which includes cleaning the toilets one hour in the morning before opening the office , one hour in evening after closing the office , opening office premises , up keeping the moval properties namely crockery, cutlery, serving lunch for both management and non - management staff as well as shifting and readjusting the furniture and cabin etc. The II Party/ Management had neither advised the contractors as to how many persons should be engaged by them nor the manner in which the work is to be carried out . The Respondent was only concerned about the performance ofthe work by the contractor and not the manner in which it is to be performed and therefore , there is no employer- employee relationship between the Petitioners 2 to 9 and 8658
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
Respondent/Management . Since the cleaning of toilet work contract workmen performing similar and same work as that of direct employees does not arise at all . The Petitioners 2 to 9 has no independent right as alleged by them . There is no prohibition to engage contract labourers under Contract Labour Act . Merely because there is no requirement to get registration and obtain licence under Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act that will not make contract labourers as direct employees of the establishment . Since Air India Statutory Corporation case is no more a good law and the Petitioners 2 to 9 cannot seek absorption on the ground that some employees were absorbed as per Air India Statutory Corporation's case prior to SAIL case. Hence, for all these reasons , the Respondent prays to dismiss the above dispute with costs .
6.Again, the Petitioners 2 to 9 in their rejoinder have alleged that it is false to allege that the 1st Petitioner Union is not appearing at the instance and to help the Respondent/Management and not to Petitioners 2 to 9 . Even in the Air India Statutory Corporation's case , it is clearly held if the contract employment is a camouflage , smoke screen , a mere name lender to avoid all welfare legislations and practice unfair labour practice , the parties are entitled to let in evidence to prove their case before the authorities concerned that their employment has to be regularised in accordance with principles of law. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent/Management have been shown as employer in the PF loan applications for the release of loans availed by the Petitioners 2 to 9. The Respondent after terminating the Petitioners 2 to 9 now they have engaged contractors on higher payment . Mr. Guruswamy and Kasper could not and did not take contract with any other establishments . It is also clear from the Memorandum of Understanding that the post of cleaner and sweeper has been categorised as M O1 , therefore, the question of recruiting them as per rules and regulations does not arise and it is not back door entry violating articles of 14 and 16 of Constitution of India . The Respondent/ Management have adopted unfair labour practice to deny the employment to Petitioners 2 to 9. Hence, for all these reasons , the Petitioners pray to allow the claim petition with costs .
7. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-
(i) "Whether the industrial dispute raised by Petitioners 2 to 9 for regularisation of their service and also for other relief is justified ? ""
"To what relief, the Petitioners are entitled ? " (ii)
Point No. 1 :-
will not take more than one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening for which the II Party/Management need not employ any regular workmen for the whole day. In the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 12297/98 , the specific contention of the union was that the Petitioners 2 to 9 were contract employees and they were engaged as contract labourers in violation of Notification dated 9-12- 1976 issued under section 10 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour Act. Since during the pendency of the Writ Petition , the Supreme Court overruled the judgement in Air India Statutory Corporation case in SAIL W's . NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS UNION and in order to take a diametrically opposite contention , the Petitioners 2 to 9 had filed an affidavit through a new advocate and they were impleaded herein only for the purpose of taking a different plea than the original plea raised in the Writ petition. Before this Tribunal , the Union is not appearing deliberately in order to enable the Petitioners 2 to 9 herein to take an untenable plea . Having pleaded so through the union, it is not open to individual workers to contend otherwise . The contradictory plea would result in abuse of legal and judicial process . The Petitioners 2 to 9 never worked as employees of the II Party/Management and therefore, the question of year of joining service does not arise at all . None of them have completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of 24 calendar months . The II Party /Management engaged contractors namely Mr. Guruswamy , Kasper, Vadivel and P.S. Irudayaraj till 1998. In view of the interim injunction passed by High Court on 18-8-1998 in WMP No. 18696/98, the II Party/ Management had no other alternative but to maintain status quo till passing the order of High Court in Writ Appeal . The II Party /Management has no supervisory control over the contract labourers namely Petitioners 2 to 9. The canteen which was functioning in the premises of II Party/ Management HPCL at Egmore was closed during October, 2002 and therefore, there is not need to serve food to the regular employees of the II Party /Management . It is false to allege that the Petitioners were remained in premises from 8-30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. On very rare occasions , the contractors were asked to courier work which they performed through the contract labourers and this is not perennial work and it was paid then and there . The conveyance charges was paid only through contractor. The liability to extend the benefits of Employees Provident Fund and ESI is mandatory irrespective of the nature of employment . Since none of the contractors engaged for more than 20 workmen , it is not necessary to obtain any licence from the authorities . It is false to allege that the contract entered into between the 11 Party /Management and contractors are sham , camouflage , smoke screen etc. As on to -day there is no necessity to engage the Petitioners 2 to 9 and therefore , the question of regularisation does not arise at all . The work performed by the contractor is not perennial in nature. The II Party /Management did not engage any of its direct employees in the activities of
cleaning and sweeping and therefore . the question of
8. The case of the Petitioners 2 to 9 is that they are employed by the II Party/ Management and the Respondent/Management engaged these Petitioners for cleaning the toilets , house keeping and sweeping the office building and these Petitioners were engaged regularly for jobs which are perennial and permanent in nature . Though these employees were treated as contract labourers this is only in order to avoid permanency and absorption with theRespondent/Management . It is their further contention 8659 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
absolutely there is no relationship of employer - employee between the Petitioners 2 to 9 and the Respondent/ Management . Further, in the affidavit filed in W.P. No. 12297/98, the specific contention of the I Petitioner Union was that Petitioners 2 to 9 were contract employees and they were engaged as contract labourers in violation of notificationdated 9-12-1976 issued under section 10( 1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act and during the pendency of the Writ Petition , the Supreme Court has overruled the judgement rendered in Air India Statutory Corporation case in- STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD . Vs. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS UNION as reported in 2001 7 SCC 1 and since the Supreme Court has overruled the decision of Air India Statutoary Corporation case, in order to take a diametrically opposite contention , the Petitioners 2 to 9 herein filed an affidavit and the petition through a new advocate in the Writ Petition and before this Tribunal the union namely the 1st Petitioner has not appeared deliberately in order to enable the Petitioners 2 to 9 to take untenable plea . Therefore, having pleaded so through the union , it is not opento the individual workers 2 to 9 to contend otherwise. Further, even in the reference , the Govt . has referred this case only to find whether the industrial dispute raised by the Union against the Respondent/ Management for regularisation, of the services of eight workmen as mentioned in the annexure and also for other relied claimed in W.P. No. 12297/98 and therefore , the Petitioners cannot take the plea which is diametrically opposite to their contention in the Writ Petition and sought relief in this dispute.
that Petitioners 2 to 9 have completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of 24 calendar months from the date of joining their service with the II Party/ Management and except the Petitioner Mr. S. Ekambaram, all the other Petitioners have put in more than twelve years ofcontinuous service and engaged in the work of cleaning oftoilets , sweeping and house keeping of Regional Office building of the Respondent/Management and they are contract labourers but engaged permanently by the II Party/Management with the supervisory control over them. After the Air India Statutory Corporation's case under the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act several Writ Petitions were filed to regularise the services ofcontract labourers engaged in house keeping and toilet cleaning work etc. , the I Petitioner /Union also therefore , file a Writ Petition No. 12297/98 before the High Court , Chennai on behalf of the Petitioners 2 to 9 claiming permanent status to them . During the pendency of the proceedings , the General Secretary initiated the proceedings on behalf of the union did not continue as General Secretary of the union and the subsequent incumbent was not interested in pursuing and prosecuting the said writ petition. Therefore , the Petitioners 2 to 9 filed a petition to implead themselves as Petitioners and it was allowed and while disposing of the Writ Petition , the High Court had directed the Central Govt. which was one of the parties in the Writ Petition to refer the dispute of Petitioners 2 to 9 to the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the matter has been referred to this Tribunal . Since the alleged contract is a sham and nominal one and since the alleged contractors S/ Shri T.M. Guruswamy and Kasper were not registered contractors and since the employees were under the direct control and supervision of the Respondent/ Management, the Petitioners 2 to 9 pray that an award may be passed in their favour to regularise their services .
10. But, as against this , the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even in 2002 I LLJ 1145 INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZER CO - OPERATIVE LTD . Vs INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL I, ALLAHABAD , wherein the Supreme Court while considering a similar case has held that before us, the contentions urged before the High Court are reiterated. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal had travelled for beyond' the scope of the reference inasmuch as the question referred to it was only limited as to whether the appellant has wrongly terminated the services of 88 workmen. The question whether 88 workmen were employees of the appellant was completely outside the scope of reference . Even otherwise, the findings recorded by the Tribunal had been recorded ignoring completely the material evidence on record and in this context , learned counsel relied upon the decision in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. V.S. YADAV 1987 (55) FLR 268, the claim of the workman has been that they have been employed by the appellant. When the stand of the appellant is that the workmen were not employees of the appellant but they were working under a contractor, necessarily the issue arose as to the nature of their employment inasmuch as the relief that would be granted to them would depend upon the same . In the circumstances , the nature of their employment whether 9. As against this, on behalf of the Respondent it is contended that Petitioners 2, 5 and 7 are employees of one Mr. T. Guruswamy, who was an independent contractor with the II Party/Management and the 6th Petitioner was a contract labour working under the contractor one Mr. A. Kasper. The 8th and 9th Petitioners independent contractors under the II Party /Management. The work rendered by the contractors through contract labourers is specifically mentioned in the contract produced by the Respondent/Management and further, it is only for one hour in the morning before opening the office and one hour in the evening after the closing the office and opening the office premises , upkeeping the movable properties namely crockery, cutlery, serving lunch for both management and non - management staff as well as shifting and readjusting the furniture and cabin etc. The II Party/ Management has neither advised the contractors as to how many persons should be engaged by them nor the manner in which the work is to be carried out by them and the Respondent/Management was only concerned about the performance of work by the contractor and not the manner in which it is to be performed and therefore ,
2149 Gl/05-47 8660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] directly under the appellant or through the contractor was necessarily to be decided. Even otherwise , a full reading of reference would show that there was no indication that they had been employed by a contractor but their services had been terminatedfrom the respective date shown against them and whether the same was justified or not ? " Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the reference made by the Govt . whether the Petitioners are entitled to other relief claimed in W.P.No. 12297/98 , this Tribunal has to go into the question whether the Petitioners contention is true or not . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that Petitioners had taken a contradictory plea. Further , the Petitioners are entitled to question the contract entered into between the Respondent/Management and the so called contractors and can say that the contract is sham and nominal one for the reasons alleged by them .
11. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In view of the Petitioners stand thatthe alleged contract entered into between the so called contractors Mr. Gurusamy and Kasper and Respondent/ Management are sham and nominal and they are directly under the control of Respondent /Management, this question is to be necessarily looked into .
adopted unfair labour practice . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on Ex. W5 , W6 , W8 , W10 , W14 and W16 etc. and argued that these documents will show statement of contribution of P.F. scheme of the Petitioners , tax payment receipt by the Petitioners authorisation letter by the Respondent /Management to theGovt. publication department , payment order issued to Mr. Vadivelu and other Petitioners and authorisation given to some of the Petitioners and letter to the P.F. Commissioner with regard to loan of some of the Petitioners and so no. It clearly indicates that the so called contract with the contractors is only a sham and nominal documents . Further, the entire thing will be done only by the Respondent/Management and the contract never enters in the field of payment of salary or deduction towards P.F. & ESI . The learned counsel further contended that even though the Petitioners have given notice to produce documents from the Respondent/ Management and even though the so called contractors were examined in this case as MW2 and MW3 , they have not produced any documents to show that the contractors have played the role in this case . It is clear that they have acted as a broker for supplying these Petitioners to the Respondent/Management. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that though the Respondent has contended that the contract work for cleaning and sweeping the office premises will taken only one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening , the so called contract under Ex . Ml has not spoken anything about the time of contract . Further, the so called contract itself restricts the workers and also salary for the workers . Under such circumstances , it is clear that the Petitioners were directly under the control of the Respondent/Management and not under the control of alleged contractors , Further, the Petitioners have produced more than hundred documents to show that they were deputed for extra work and they were paid conveyance charges directly by the . Respondent / Management and not through the contractor. Even though the Respondent contended that on certain occasions that too very rarely on one or two occasions , the contractors were asked to do the courier work which they performed through contract labourers , from the documents produced by the Petitioners namely Ex . W104 to 144 , it is not one or two occasions they were deputed for outside work and it was a regular work given to the Petitioners by the Respondent/Management and they were paid directly by the Respondent/Management . Futher, in the counter statement though it is alleged that the conveyance allowances were paid only through the contractors , from the documents produced by the Petitioners and even from the evidences of MW2 and MW3 , it is clear that the conveyance allowance was paid by the Respondent / Management directly to the Petitioners 2 to -9 and therefore , from all these things , it is clear that II Party /Management alone has economic control over the Petitioners 2 to 9 and the so called contract is a sham and nominal document .
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the service rendered by the employees namely cleaning the toilets and sweeping the office building is perennial in nature and instead of engaging the regular workmen , the Respondent/Management resorted to contract employees and they have to remain in the premises of Respondent from 8-30 AM to 8-30 PM . Even after 8-30 PM they were retained in certain days and they were paid wages for extra work directly by the II Party/Management . Further, the Petitioners 2 to 9 are also authorised and deputed by the II Party/Management to do outside work and are paid conveyance charges for the same. Further, the job done by the Petitioners are now carried on by a new contractor. It is also to be looked into that Petitioners salaries are being paid on monthly basis with deduction towards contribution of ESI , EPF, etc. and the Respondent/Management directly made these deductions from the salary payable to the Petitioners 2 to 9 and remitted the same to the authorities concerned in their name and in no place , the name of the contractor is mentioned in the deduction . Further, whenever the Petitioners availed loan facilities from P.F. , the II Party/ Management alone had signed the relevant papers for disbursement of loan against the available amount in the P.F. account . Even in the alleged contract , the number of workers being engaged and wages to be paid to them were determined by the employer and no minimum wages paid to the contractor . Furthermore , the same contractors and same workers continued from 1989 till 2004. In these circumstances , it is clear that the Petitioners 2 to 9 were engaged regularly for the jobs perennial and permanent in nature and in order to avoid the permanency and absorption with II Party /Management , the Respondent 8661 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
entered with them . There is no point in the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent/Management has given all the materials for performing the contract work because there is no requirement that the contract must include the cost of the materials used for performing the contract work . It is his further contention that there is no point in the contention that Petitioners were engaged by the same contractor for number of years and since there was no relationship of employer -employee between the Petitioners 2 to 9 and Respondent and the Respondent has not in any way affected by engagement of the Petitioners by the contractors for numbers of years . Merelybecause , there is no requirement to get registration and obtain licence under Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act, that will not make the contract labourers as direct employees of the Respondent/ Management . Under such circumstances , at no stretch of imagination, it canbe contended that the Petitioners 2 to 9 are under the direct control of the Respondent/Management .
13. But, as against this , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that when the Petitioners 2 to 9 never worked as employees of II Party/Management , the question of year ofjoining of service does not arise at all and it is also clear that none of them had completed 480 days of continuous service within a period of 24 calendar months as alleged by them and the Respondent/ Management engaged contractors Mr. Gurusamy, Mr. Kasper and Mr. Vadivelu and Mr. Irudayaraj , namely Petitioners 8 and 9 till 1998 and in view of the interim injunction obtained by the union in the High Court on 18-8-98, the II Party/Management had no other alternative but to maintain the status quo till passing the order by High Court in Writ Appeal No. 627/2004 dated 25-3-2004 . It is false to allege that II Party/Management has supervisory control over the Petitioners 2 to 9. As on today there is no need to serve food to regular employees of the II Party /Management . Furhter , Meenambakkam establishment where the contractor Mr. P.S. Irudayaraj , 9thPetitioner doing contract work with his employees was resisted. Further, it is false to allege that Petitioners 2 to 9 were to remain in the premises of II Party/ Managementfrom 8.30 am to 8.30 pm . The cleaning of toiler will not take more than two hours in a day. It is further false to allege that the work done by Petitioners 2 to 9 are perennial in nature . The salary was paid to the contractor and in turn the contractor has disbursed the same to the Petitioners . Liability to extend the benefits of EPF and ESI is mandatory irrespective of nature of employment . Section 2F of EPF Act and Section 2(9 ) of ESI Act defines the term ' employee ' which includes any employee, employed in the establishment either directly or through a contractor in connection with the work of the establishment . Therefore, the liability to extend EPF & ESI facilities would , arise even in respect of employees engaged through contractor and therefore , it is not relevant for deciding the dispute . The 8th & 9th Petitioners were independent contractors and every year a tender for contract was issued and a contract was executed subsequent to the approval of the tender . Since the contractors have not employed or engaged twenty employees on any day preceding 12 calendar months , they have not obtained licence under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act . Therefore , it cannot be said that the contract system in the Respondent/ Management was a camouflage , smoke screen etc. , on the other hand , it is a genuine contract entered into between the II Party /Management and contractors namely S / Sri Gurusamy , Gasper , Vadivelu and P.S.Irudayaraj . As on today in the management there is no necessity to engage the Petitioners 2 to 9 and therefore , the question of regularisation does not arise at all . The work performed by the contractor either independently or through their contract labourers is not perennial in nature . Under Ex . M1 legal requirement to award contract was followed and S /Sri Gurusamy , A. Kasper, Vadivelu and P.S. Irudayaraj were contractors , who performed their work in accordance with the contract
14. Again , the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that categorisation of cadre for the job is provided in settlement as Ex. M1 and vacancies are available with the Respondent/Management and further , inother branches of the Respondent/Management namely Bombay , Vishakhapatnam the contract employees doing the same and similar type of work were regularized in the post. Even though , the Respondent contended that merely because the same contrators were given this work for number of years , it cannot be contended that the work done by the Petitioners are not perennial in nature. It is to be noted that the same contractors and the same workers continued from the year 1989 till 1998 though not 2004. Further, neither the alleged contractors nor the Respondent/Management has produced any register to show that they have been controlled by the alleged contractors and they are maintaining independent registers with regard to contract labourers . Further , in the so called document of contract, no caution deposit was collected from the contractor and none of the terms ofthe alleged contract has been followed . It is also from the evidence of MW2 and MW3 all the documents namely , wages registers are only in the name of II Party/ Management and all are prepared only by the II Party/ Management . It is also clear from the evidence ofMW2 and MW3 that the contractors did not have any other workers in their panel nor other workers were engaged to carry out the jobs and they have worked only for the Respondent institution and it is clear from the evidence ofPetitioners that Petitioners have carried out job as per the instructions and directions of the officers of the Respondent/Management and they have carried out all the work of Respondent/Management and remained integrated with the concern under the direct control and supervision of the Respondent/Management and all the Petitioners have spent most of their life in working with the Respondent/Management and the materials were provided by the Respondent/Management for cleaning and sweeping the permises of the Respondent / 8662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily prescribed . It discloses a relationship ofcommand and obedience" and ultimately the Supreme Court has held once the workmen have become workmen of Corporation, it is not open to treat its workmen are workmen of the contractor . The next judgement relied on by the counsel is 1999 I LLJ 1086 Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh and others wherein the Supreme Court has held that " here was a genuine contract labour system prevailing with the board . The so- called contractor was a mere name lender and had procured labour for the board from open market and he was almost a broker or an agent ofthe board for that purpose . Once the board was not a principal employer and the so -called contractor was not a licensed contractor under the Act , the inevitable conclusion was that the so- called contract system was a camouflage , smoke and a screen and disguised in almost transparent veil which could easily be pierced and the real relationship between the board and the Respondent employees could be easily visualised. " The next judgement relied on by the counsel is reported in 2002 I LLJ 355 federation of hindustan lever ltd . and another Vs. secretary, state contract labour advisory board and another, wherein the workers contended that various jobs which are performed through the so - called contract workers are of perennial nature which can be seen from the fact that most of the workers have been working with Respondent for more than a decade, in which the Bombay High Court has held that "dispute raised on behalfofthe contract labour would have to be adjudicated by Labour/ Industrial Court under section 10( 1) of I.D. Act and further directed the State Govt. to refer an application of the Petitioners for abolition of contract labour to the Advisory Board . " Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the decision reported in 2003 III LLJ 215 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others . In that case , against the concurrent findings of Labour Court and High Court , the Respondent/Management contended that they were gardeners engaged through contractor to sweep, clean and maintain the lawns inside the factory and residential colony of the Respondent/ Management. The Supreme Court upheld the said findings and dismissed the appeals and it observed that " where a workman was engaged to produce goods or services for the business of another, the other was his employer and the work of the Respondent/workmen was not totally disassociated as to justify the claim that they were not employees of the appellant . " Another judgement relied onby the cousel for the Petitioner is 2004 2 SCC 126 Ram Singh and others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others in which the Supreme Court has held that " in determining the relationship of employer - employee no doubt, ' control ' is one of the important tests but is not to be taken as the sole test . All other relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of contract . It is necessary to také a multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the factors Management. Thus, it is clear that the ultimate economic control was within the Respondent/Management and from the date of their termination, the workers are starving without employment and further livelihood. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings of Supreme Court and High Courts . We will look into one by one. The first decision is reported in 1960 II LLJ 233 Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd. Vs. Their Workman and Another wherein the Supreme Court has held that " workman employed by oil refinery demanded that contract system of work adopted by the company for cleaning maintenance of the refinery belonging to the company should be abolished . The said demand was referred for adjudication. It is found that the workman employeed by contractor for the purpose of executing his contract had no security of service and they were receiving much less wages than the ordinary unskilled workmen employed by the company. It was also found that the work for which the contract was given was incidental to the manufacturing process and is necessary for it and of perennial nature which must be done every day. " Relying on this decision, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even in this case, the Petitioners were doing the cleaning the toilet and sweeping the building and other works for the Respondent/Management , which is perennial in nature and which must be done every day and without that the Respondent cannot run the office in the premises and under such circumstances , it must be decided in their favour. The next decision relied on by the learned counsel is reported in 1978 II LLJ 397 Hussain Bhai , Calicut Vs. Alath Factory Thozhilai Union, Calicut and Others wherein the Supreme Court has held that " the true test may, with brevity be indicated once again , where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control over the worker's subsistence , skill , and continued employment . If he for any reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment , we discern the naked truth , though draped in different perfect paper arrangement that the real employer is the management and not the immediate contractor. " The next case relied on by the counsel for the Petitioner is 1985 II LLJ 4 workmen of Food Corporation of India vs. Food Corporation of India wherein the Food Corporation of India tried to reinduct the contractor as an intermediary and when it was questioned before the labour forum, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the workmen and passed an award accordingly. In the Writ Appeal proferred by the Union, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'employed' used in Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act has two known connotations . The context would indicate that it is used in the sense of a relationship brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
for and against the employment instead of going by the sole' test of control ' . An integrated approach is needed. 'Integration' test is one of the relevant tests . It is applied by examining whether the person was fully integrated into the employer's concern or remained apart from and independent of it . The other factors which may be relevant are, who has the power to select and dismiss , to pay remuneration , deduct insurance contributions , organise the work, supply tools and materials and what are the " mutual obligations " between them.
8663
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Management and the so -called contract is only nominal , I find the Petitioners 2 to 9 are entitled to the relief of regularisation of their service from the date of their retrenchment with all attendant benefits and with regard to back wages , they are entitled to half of the wages . No Costs.
18. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronouncd by me in the open court on this day the 14th March, 2005 )
K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses examined :-- Forthe I Party/Petitioners : WW1 Sri G. Sekar Babu WW2 Sri K. Vadivelu WW3 Sri P.S. Irudayaraj For the II Party/Management : MW1 Sri R. Elango
MW2 Sri A. Kasper MW3 Sri T.M. Gurusamy Documents Marked :-
Forthe I Party/Petitioner :-
Ex. No. Date
Description
2
3
1
WI May, 1989 Xerox copy of the details of Petitioners EPF scheme
W2
1996-97
Xerox copy of the statements of PF ofPetitioners
W3 6-3-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to P.F. Commissioner.
23-3-00
15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on these judgements argued that in this case though the Respondent contended that he has no control over the Petitioners 2 to 9 from the evidence adduced by MW2 and MW3 , it is clear that they have no control over the Petitioners and only the Respondent alone controlled the work of the Petitioners 2 to 9. Further, the Petitioners were fully integrated into the employer's concern and they are not independent of it . Even the pay of remuneration, deduction of P.F. and ESI contributions and also organise of the work was done by Respondent/Management and it has only supplied all the materials for house keeping work done by the Petitioners 2 to 9 and from all these circumstances , it is clearly established that the work done by the Petitioners 2 to 9 is perennial in nature and only to avoid the Petitioners to be regularised in service , the Respondent has taken this stand . It is his further contention that the Respondent to victimize the Petitioners has also taken action against the erstwhile union leader Mr. Govindaraj and only because Mr. Govindaraj has taken the cause of the Petitioners , he has been victimized which is a unfair labour practice done by the Respondent/ Management . From these circumstances shown before this Tribunal , the Tribunal has to come to a conclusion that the so- called contracts entered into between the Respondent and contractors S/Sri . Gurusamy, Kasper, Vadivelu and P.S. Irudayaraj are sham and nominal documents and the Petitioners are employees under the Respondent/Management .
16. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner because from the documents produced by the Petitioner and from the evidence given before this Tribunal , it can be seen that the so called contract between the Respondent and witnesses MW2 and MW3 are nominal documents and that the number of years the Petitioners have worked not for two or three hourse but worked under the Respondent/Management full day and they have spent most part of their life in working for the Respondent/Management . Under such circumstances, I find this point in favour of the Petitioners 2to9 .
Point No. 2 :-
W4 Xerox copy of the order of Deputy Labour Commissioner Bangalore .
W5 24-7-01 Xeroxcopy ofthe tax payment receipt of employees
W6 20-8-01 Xerox copy of the authorisation letter of Respondent to Government publication Department.
W7 21-5-02 Xerox copy of the revised scale of wages issued by Respondent/ Management
W8 21-08-98 Xerox copy of the contract order with Gurusamy
W9 21-08-98 Xerox copy ofthe contract order with Kasper
W10 21-08-98 Xerox copy ofthe contract order with K. Vadivel
W11 27-04-98 Xerox copy of the contract order with Irudayaraj
W12 11-05-98
The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?
Xerox copy of the agreement of contract with Irudayaraj
W13 3-08-99
17. In view of my foregoing findings that the Petitioners 2 to 9 are workers under the Respondent/
Xerox copy of the letter of Respondent to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Southern Zone 8664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
W14 16-02-94 Xerox copy of the renewal of contract withKasper
28-04-94
W15
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Kasper
W16 7-08-95 Xerox copy ofthe renewal of contract withKasper
W17 3-06-96 Xerox copy of the tender invited from Gurusamy
W18 26-07-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Gurusamy 26-07-96
W19
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Kasper
W20 03-09-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent extending Contract to Kasper
W21 30-08-99 Xeroxcopy ofthe renewal of contract toGurusamy
W22 17-07-89 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W23 14-07-89 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W24 28-07-89 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W25 01-12-89 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W26 31-03-90 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W27 02-03-90 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W28 16-03-90 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Vadivelu
W29 03-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Vadivelu to Respondent
W30 18-04-96 Xerox copy of the payment ofder issued to Vedivelu
W31 07-06-2000 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Vadivelu
10-09-98
W32
Xerox copy of the letter showing materials received from Vadivelu W33 11-11-98 Xerox copy ofthe details of payment to Vadivelu
W34 05-05-03 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Vadivelu
W35 03-06-03 Xerox copy of the payment order given to Vadivelu
W36 10-09-98 Xerox copy of the letter showing materials received from Vadivelu
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1
2
3
W37 31-08-94 Xerox copy of the TDS certificate of Vadivelu
W38 29-04-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Vadivelu
W39 9-08-96 Xerox copy of the purchase order issued to Vadivelu
27-08-97
W40
Xerox copy of the purchase order issued to Kasper , Gurusamy & Vadivelu
W41 3-09-97 Xerox copy of the change of order issued to Vadivelu
W42 31-03-94 Xeroxcopy ofthe letter from Vedivelu to Respondent
W43 11-07-88 Xerox copy ofthe file note in respect ofP.S. Irudayaraj
W44 27-04-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Irudayaraj inviting tender for contract
W45 08-08-99 Xerox copy of the extension of contract with Irudayaraj
W46 27-10-97 Xerox copy of the extension of contract with Irudayaraj
W47 31-03-04 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
W48 31-03-03 Xerox copy of the payment issued to Irudayaraj
W49 11-07-02 Xerox copy of the payment issued to Irudayaraj
W50 01-08-01 Xerox copy ofthe payment issued to Irudayaraj
W51 05-05-98 Xerox copy of the permit licence to Sri Irudayaraj
W52 03-08-2000 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
05-03-99
W53
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
W54 24-12-98 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
05-05-96
W55
Xerox copy of the contract given to Irudayaraj
22-03-97
W56
Xerox copy of the permit licence to Sri Irudayaraj
W57 25-03-95 Xerox copy of the letter for deputation ofwork to Irudayaraj
W58 06-06-95 Xerox copy of the permit licence issued to Irudayaraj [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
8665
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
W59 04-02-91 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
W60 11-04-94 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
W61 30-09-88 Xerox copy of the petty cash sheet W62 06-10-88 Xerox copy of the cash bill W63 Nil
Xerox copy of the sodex passed issued to Petitioners
W64 02-03-04 Xerox copy of the letter from PF Commissioner
W65 24-03-04 Xerox copy of the transfer of EPF account to Sekar Babu
W66 May, 89 Xerox copy of the details of EPF scheme
W67 1996-97 Xerox copy ofthe EPF statement of SekarBabu
W68 1990-93 Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Sri Sekar Babu
W69 1995-96 Xerox copy ofthe EPF statement of Sri Sekar Babu
W70 1997-01 Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Sri Sekar Babu
W71 16-05-01 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment ofmoney
W72 2-08-02 Xerox copy of the authorisation issued in respect of Sekar Babu to collect forms
W73 02-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
W74 23-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
W75 8-03-04 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation ofwork toRajkumar
W76 2000-01 Xerox copy of the details for EFP deduction forRajkumar
W77 4-12-03 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to P.F. Commissioner W78 20-06-97 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Williams
W79 27-08-97 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation ofwork to Williams
W80 29-01-03 Xeroxcopy ofthe letter for deputation of work to Williams
25-05-89
W81
Xerox copy of the file note W82 25-03-04 Xerox copy of the order in W.A. 627/04
W83 30-04-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Vadivelu
W84 30-04-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Gurusamy to Irudayaraj
2
1
3
W85 5-05-04 Xerox copy ofthe notice from counsel for Petitioners to II Party/ Management
7-06-04
W86
Xerox copy of the reply to the notice given by Respondent
W87 8-08-98 Xerox copy of the affidavit filed in W.P. 12297/98
W88 30-04-04 Xerox copy ofthe termination notice issued to Irudayaraj
W89 26-02-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Ministry of Labour W90 1-04-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Ministry of Labour W91 15-04-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Ministry of Labour W92 07-05-04 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Ministry of Labour W93 May'97 Xerox copy of the statement for wages paid to Petitioners W94 May'98 Xerox copy of the statement for wages paid to Petitioners W95 Feb. , 2000 Xerox copy of the statement for wages paid to Petitioners W96 Nov. 2000 Xerox copy of the statement for wages paid to Petitioners W97 May'01 Xerox copy of the statement for wages paid to Petitioners 25-04-01
W98
Xerox copy of the order of Disciplinary Authority against Govindarajan
W99 24-03-03 Xerox copy of the notice given by counsel for Petitioner to Respondent W100 27-03-03 Xerox copy of the notice given by counsel for Petitioner to Respondent W101 1-07-03 Xerox copy ofthe letter from opposite party to Irudayaraj
W102 05-05-04 Xerox copy of the notice of counsel for Petitioner to Respondent W103 19-10-2000 Extract of MOU with relevant portion relating to Janitorial services W104 15-04-99 Xerox copy ofthe payment order to A. Rajkumar
10-11-99
W105
Xerox copy of the petty cash voucher paid to A. Rajkumar
W106 15-04-99 Xerox copy of the petty cash voucher paid to A. Rajkumar
W107 7-04-99 Xerox copy of the petty cash voucher paid to A. Rajkumar
12-04-99
W108
Xerox copy ofthe petty cash voucher paid to A. Rajkumar 8666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
1
2
3
W109 Nil
Xerox copy of the ESI Statement issued to Rajkumar
W110 09-03-04 Xerox copy of the letter for deputation work to Rajkumar
30-04-04
W111
Xerox copy of the letter from Gurusamy to Sekar Babu
W112 24-03-98 Xerox copy of the PF statement of Sekar Babu
W113 26-10-96 Xerox copy of the ESI identity card ofSekar Babu
17-08-01
W114
Xerox copy of the letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
22-03-99
W115
Xerox copy of the payment order to SekarBabu
19-07-99
W116
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Sekar Babu
W117 10-07-01 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
W118 2-08-01 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W119 20-08-01 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
30-07-01
W120
Xerox copy of the letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
W121 21-11-01 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
22-11-01
W122
Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
26-11-01
W123
Xeroxcopy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
04-12-01
W124
Xeroxcopy ofthe receipt for payment made to Sekar Babu
W125 19-06-02 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
W126 20-06-02 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W127 03-03-03 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
W128 03-03-03 Xeroxcopyofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W129 27-07-03 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
12-08-03
W130
Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
30-03-04
W131
Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Sekar Babu
30-03-04
W132
Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
28-01-03
W133
Xerox copy of the receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1
2
3
W134 22-10-02 Xerox copy of the receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W135 29-08-02 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W136 20-11-01 Xerox copy of the receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W137 24-07-01 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W13802-03-01 Xerox copy of the receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W139 28-02-01 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
24-01-01
W140
Xerox copy of the receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W141 23-02-00 Xerox copy of the receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
W142 16-12-99 Xerox copy ofthe receipt for payment to Sekar Babu
16-12-99
W143
Xerox copy ofthe application of Sekar Babu for EPF advance
W144 2002-03 Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Sekar Babu
10-04-97
W145
Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Irudayaraj
W146 10-04-97 Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Irudayaraj
1-12-03
W147
Xerox copy of the application of Irudayaraj for EPF advance W148 29-12-00 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to ESI
1-03-00
W149
Xerox copy ofthe family declaration form of Irudayaraj
W150 1991-94 Xerox copy of the ESI statement of Irudayaraj
1995-96
W151
Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Irudayaraj
W152 21-12-93 Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
26-12-94
W153
Xerox copy ofthe payment order to K. Williams
20-11-95
W154
Xerox copy ofthe payment order to K. Williams
24-11-95
W155
Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
24-07-95
W156
Xerox copy ofthe payment order to K. Williams
23-01-95
W157
Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
5-2-96
W158
Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8667
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
1
2
3
10-03-97
W159
Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
W160 11-04-97 Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
W161 13-08-97 Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
W162 5-02-98 Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
3-01-97
W163
Xerox copy of the payment order to K. Williams
W164 30-05-01 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to K. Williams
8-10-01
W165
Xerox copy of the letter for deputation work to K. Williams
W166 30-05-01 Xerox copy of the letter for deputation work to K. Williams
W167 18-12-02 Xerox copy of the letter for deputation work to K. Williams
W168 21-05-96 Xerox copy ofthe letter for deputation work to Karmegam
25-07-92
W169
Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Karmegam
W170 06-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
W171 Nil
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
04-10-99
W172
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
23-11-99
W173
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
W174 14-07-01 Xerox copy of the outgoing pass issuedto G. Karmegam
04-12-03
W175
Xerox copy of the outgoing pass issued toG. Karmegam
W176 21-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued toG. Karmegam
W177 14-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
W178 09-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
01-10-99
W179
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to.G. Karmegam
W180 24-09-99 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to G. Karmegam
W181 1996-98 Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Karmegam
W182 1994-96 Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Karmegam
1992-94
W183
Xerox copy of the EPF statement of Karmegam
2149 G1/05-48
1
2
3
W184 25-01-94 Xerox copy of the file note to A. Casper
W185 1-06-00 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent
W186 26-04-00 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent South Zone to Mysore Plant
W187 8-01-97 Xerox copy of the judgement in WP 2404/96
W188 12-07-99 Xerox copy of the circular of Respondent
W189 19-04-04 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to T.M. Gurusamy W190 24-03-04 Xerox copy of the note by Respondent
W191 27-406-91 Xerox copy of the file note regarding contract rate revision
W192 20-07-95 Xerox copy of the file note regarding housekeeping contract
W193 25-404-94 Xerox copy of the file nete for contract rate revision
W194 29-01-04 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to K. Vadivelu
W195 29-04-04 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Kasper
Nil
W196
Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Gurusamy
W197 29-04-04 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
W198 29-04-04 Xerox copy of the payment order issued to Irudayaraj
For the II Party /Management:-
Date
Ex.No.
Description
2
1
3
M1 29-10-93 Xerox copy of the agreement between Respondent And P. S. Irudayaraj M2
16-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Gurusamy M3 16-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to A. Kasper M4 28-04-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Gurusamy
M5 28-04-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to A. Kasper 29-04-94
M6
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Vadivel
M7 31-10-94 Xerox copy of the agreement between Respondent and P. S. Irudayaraj M8 07-08-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to A. Kasper 8668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART 11--SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2
1
3
3
1
2
M9 07-08-95
M34 07-09-98
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondentto Gurusamy
Xerox copy of the purchase requisition
M 10 16-10-95
M35 23-12-98
Xerox copy of the letter from Irudayaraj to Respondent
Xerox copy of the letter from Gurusamy to Respondent
M36
MII 31-10-95
23-08-99 Xerox copy of the letter from Gurusamyto Respondent Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Irudayaraj
M37 30-08-99
M 12 09-05-96
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Gurusamy Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Gumusamy & 3 ors .
16-09-99
M13 09-05-96
M38
Xerox copy of the letter from Chief Manager to DGM
Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Kasper & 3 ors
M39
M14 09-05-96
24-12-99 Xerox copy of the letter from Kasper to Respondent
Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Chandramohan
M40 23-06-00
M15 09-05-96 Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Vadivel
Xerox copy of the letter from Gurusamy to Petroleum Workers . Umon
M16 03-06-96
M41 31-08-00
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Vasu
Xerox copy of the letter from Chief Manager to DGM
M 17 04-06-96
M42 31-07-01
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Chandramohan
Xerox copy ofthe cash bill issued by Gurusamyto Respondent M 18 0-1-06-96
M43 28-02-02
Xerox copy of the letter from Respndent to Murthy
Xerox copy ofthe cash bill issued by Vadivelu to Respondent M19 09-08-96
M44 28-03-02
Xerox copy of the materials received report of Kasper
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by Kasper to Respondent M 20 09-08-96
M45 31-03-04
Xerox copy of the materials received report ofVadivel
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by Kasper to Respondent M21 27-408-97
31-03-04
M46
Хегоx copy of the letter from Sr. Manager P & A 10 O & E
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by Vadivel to Respondent M22 03-09-97
31-03-04
M47
Xerox copy ofthe materials received report ofGurusany
Xerox copy ofthe cash bill issued by Gurusamyto Respondent M 23 03-09-97
18-08-98
M48
Xerox copy ofthe materials received report of Kasper
Xerox copy of the injunction order passed by High Court M24 03-09-97
M49 03-09-99
Xerox copy of the materials received report of Vadivel
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by P. S. Irudayaraj
M25 08-07-98
M50 31-07-00
Xerox copy of the letter from Kasper to Respondent
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by P. S. Irudayaraj
M 26 10-07-98
31-01-01
M51
Xerox copy of the letter from Vadivel to Respondent
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by P. S. Irudayaraj
M27 10-07-98
M52 31-01-02
Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Kasper
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by P. S. Inıdayaraj
128 10-07-98
05-02-03
M53
Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Gurusamy
Xerox copy of the cash bill issued by P. S. Inıdayaraj
M29 10-07-98
09-04-03
M54
Xerox copy of the letter from Gurusamy to Respondent
Petitioner's advocate Respondent's advocate. Xerox copy of the reply notice to from M30 03-08-98
M55 12-09-03
Xerox copy of the purchase requisition to Vadivel
Xerox copy ofthe order of High Court in W.P. 31862/2002
M31 21-08-98
07-06-04
M56
Xerox copy of the materials received report
08-09-98
M32
Xerox copy of the reply notice to Petitioner's advocate from Respondent's advocate. Xerox copy of the materials received report ofKasper
08-07-02
M57
M33 07-09-98
Xerox copy of the notice to Sri P. S. Irudayaraj by Respondent Xerox copy ofthe letter from Kasper to pondent 8669 [भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई , 2005
"Whether the dismissal of Shri K. Periasamy by the management of BPCL is legal andjustified? If not to whatrelief the workman concerned is entitled?
2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 315/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.
का० आ ० 2702.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत पेट्रोलियम कोर्पोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 315/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
3. The allegations of the petitioner in the claim Statement are brictly as follows: --
[सं ० एल-30012/55/2003 - आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2702. In pursuance of Section 17 of the ludustrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 315/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Corpn . Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-06-2005 .
No. L-30012 /55 / 2003 - IR ( M ) ] B. M. DAVID . Under Secy .
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 16th March , 2005
Present : K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer. Industrial Dispute No. 315/2004
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 ( a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Between the Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and theirworkmen. ]
BETWEEN:
:
I Party/Petitioner
Sri K. Periyasamy
AND
: II Party/
Management
TheDeputy General Manager (HR) M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpon. Ltd. Chennai
Appearance :
For the Petitioner
: M/ s . R. Singgaravelan , Advocates
For the Management
M /s . T.S. Gopalan & Co.
Advocates
AWARD
The Petitioner was employed in army for more than twenty years and he was selected for the post of security guard 11 ( Watchman II) in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in the year 1996 by an order dated 15-7-96 and he was posted to Trichy Depot. While he was in service , all of a sudden he was charge sheeted on 18-3-91 wherein there is specific charge and the charge was too vague . It was alleged that on 29-1-91 when the Petitioner was on night duty in the depot the Petitioner has sold 35 litres of petrol to one Mr. Kali for an amount of Rs . 440/- and it was kept in the drawer in the security cabin and the officers have seized the money and the Petitioner has given confessional statement before the officers of the Respondent / management and it was further alleged that as an arrangement of trap by the Corporation itself in the charge sheet it is stated that three witnesses have seen the occurrence who are none other than the officers of the corporation . But the Respondent/Management has not given any criminal complaint about the alleged occurrence. The Respondent/Management has asked the Petitioner for hisexplanation and the Petitioner has given his explanation and in that he has clearly stated that he has not stolen petrol for selling the same , but to help two persons out of sympathy to save one's lifc. But the Enquiry Officer has misconstrued the statement and drew it as an admission of guilt and the Enquiry Officer without examining any other witness and without seeing the records has held that the charge against the Petitioner was proved. On the basis of the said report , the Disciplinary Authority has also without applying his mind has passed an order dated 19-12-91 dismissing the Petitioner from service . There was no enquiry and the Petitioner has not admitted the charge of theft . Further. Disciplinary Authority based on the Enquiry . Officer's report has passed the order without applying his mind . The Enquiry report is not at all furnished to the Petitioner. What was admitted by the Petitioner was that he gave the petrol out of sympathy with good intention to save one's life . The above statement cannot be said to have amounted to admission at all as there is not admission ofillegal theft and sale of petrol . Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is wrong and based on such findings, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is also illegal . Neither the individual in whose favour the petrol was sold nor the witnesses who have alleged to have seen the occurrence was examined , therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and void ab intio and it is tainted with malafide motives and illegalities . The The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 30012 / 55 / 2003 - IR (M) dated 26-2-2004. has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned dispute in that order is-- 8670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8. 1927
[PART 1 ] -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] punishment of dismissal is not only arbitrary and fanciful being violative ofArticles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India but also against the principles of natural justice, fair play, equity and good conscience . Hence , for all these reasons , the Petitioner prays to set aside the order of dismissal dated 19-12-91 passed by the II Party/ Management and also to direct the Respondent/ Management to reinstate the Petitioner into service with effect from the date of dismissal with monetary and other attendant benefits .
passed against the Petitioner is for the act of scrious misconduct and hence the said dismissal is not liable to be interfered with . Further, the Petitioner has raised this dispute two years after the disposal of W.P. and it should not be countenanced on the ground of delay and latches . The Petitioner's date of birth is 15-9-43 and the age of superannuation is 60 years in the Respondent/ Management and therefore, the Petitioner has already passed the age of superannuation and hence , the Petitioner's claim for reinstatement cannot be countenanced . The Petitioner has not disputed the unauthorised supply of 35 litres of petrol on the night of 29-1-91 and he had no authority to supply the petrol to outsiders and his plea on humanitarian grounds cannot be accepted . Recovery of Rs . 440/ - is also not disputed by the Petitioner and therefore , this Tribunal cannot interfere with the punishment given by the domestic authorities . The past conduct is irrelevant when the misconduct is serious . The theft of petrol by a watchman on duty is grave enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal . Having regard to his conduct, the Respondent could not repose confidence on the Petitioner and on any ground , the order of dismissal cannot be said to be unjustified . Since the supply of petrol is not disputed by the Petitioner, and the recovery of amount is not in controversy, therefore , when the Petitioner admitted his guilt in the enquiry, there was no need to examine any witness . It was only because of the Petitioner's unconditional admission of guilt, no witness was examined. At no time, the Petitioner has alleged the admission was obtained by coercion. Theſt of company's property itself --isan act of serious misconduct and that too on the part of security guard cannot be countenanced by any standard ofdiscipline . Hence, for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that claim may be dismised with costs .
5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are -
(i ) "Whether the dismissal of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent/Management is legal andjustified?
(ii) "To what relief, the Petitioner is entitled?"
Point No. 1 : -
4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the Respondent is a Government of India undertaking engaged in sale and distribution of petroleum products . It is having depots in various places including one at Trichy . Watchman keeps watch of the depot premises on 24 hours basis and no product can be pilfered without the knowledge or connivance of watch and ward staff. No doubt , the Petitioner was employed as a watchman in Trichy depot and during January, 1991 the Operations Officer of Respondent/Management came to know that petroleum products were being stolen with the connivance of watch & ward staff during night shifts and therefore , the Respondent officers decided to conduct a surprise check during third shift on 29-1-91 when the Petitioner would be on duty. They requested one Mr. Kali and an amount ofRs . 600/-bearing numbers as mentioned in the Claim Statement were given and he was also given a jerry can with a mark batch No. 168 on it. On the early morning of 30-1-91 at about 3.30 hours the officers of the Respondent/Management seen the Petitioner was handing over the jerry can to Mr. Kali and immediately, they approached the Petitioner and rogatedhim about his surreptitious activities . The Pooner admitted having stolen 35 litres of petrol from the depot and sold it to Mr. Kali for an amount of Rs . 440/- . The said amount was also seized from the drawer in security cabin . On 30-1-91 the Petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. The charge sheet was issued on 18-3-91 charging with misconduct of theft , fraud , dishonesty in connection with corporation's property. On 27-3-91 the Petitioner gave his explanation pleading for lenience and as the explanation was not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered and in that enquiry, the Petitioner again pleaded guilty of the charges without any condition . Therefore , on 1-7-91 . the Enquiry Officer gave his report holding that the charges were established . The copy of the report of Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner and he was called upon to make his comments . On 3-12-91 the Petitioner gave a reply pleading for mercy. After considering his representation and on a perusal of the report , the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order dated 19-12-91 dismissing the Petitioner from service . Against the order of dismissal , the Petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No 3923/92 and on 1-10-91 . the High Court of Madras has dismissed the said W.P. After nearly two years of disposal of the W.P. , the Petitioner has raised this industrial dispute under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act . The dismissal order
6. In this case , the Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and marked documents Ex . Wl to W10 . On the side of the Respondent Sri J. Vedagiri . Senior, Sales Officer . Trichy Depot'at the time of occurrence was examined as MWI and on the side of the Respondent H documents were marked . The Petitioner's documents Ex. WI to W4 are letters of offer and appointment orders given to the Petitioner. Ex. W5 is the copy of suspension order passed by the Respondent/Management . Ex . W6 is the copy of charge sheet issued to Petitioner Ex . W7 is the explanation given by thePetitioner. Ex . W8 is the notice of enquiry Ex . W9 is the 2nd show cause notice issued by Respondent and Ex . W10 is the copy of the order passed by Disciplinary Authority. On the side of the Respondent/Management document Ex . M1 is the proceedings of enquiry conducted 8671 [ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
against the Petitioner . Ex . M2 is the copy of the management's letter to the Petitioner enclosing enquiry report calling for representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and Ex . M3 is the copy of the Petitioner's representation to the above . Ex . M4 is the copy of order in W.P. No. 3923/92 filed by the Petitioner. Ex. M5 is the copy of letter from Sri P. Salaisundaram to Deputy Manager of Respondent/Management . Ex. M6 is the copy of letter from Deputy Manager, Trichy to Chief Divisional Manager of the Respondent/Management . Ex. M7 is the copy of the statement given by the petitioner and English translation of the statement . Ex . M8 is the copy of the report given by Sri V.K.M. Sundar. Trichy . Exs . M9 , M10 and M11 are reports given by Deputy Manager, Enquiry Officer and also report ofdomestic Enquiry Officer respectively.
7. The main attack by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in this case is that the Petitioner has not given any unconditional admission and it is a fundamental principle of law that a person said to have been admitted the guilt only if the following conditions are satisfied -
(i) that admission must be unconditional :
(ii) that the admission must be admission of the entire charge and not the part of the charge alone:
(iii) that the admission must be free from any undue influence , coercion , force or threat;
(iv) the consequence of the admission should have been explained to the delinquent and he must be made to have understood the consequence :
(v) that the admission made by the delinquent should have been reproduced exactly in the report of the Enquiry Officer word by word; &
(vi) that there cannot be any enforce of admission when there is no specific admission.
which show that the employce officer has been induced or tricked into making such a plea of guilt , then such an acceptance of guilt cannot be made the basis of passing an order of punishment against the employee officer. " Under such circumstances , on the plea of alleged admission . the punishment awarded by the Respondent/Management on the Petitioner is illegal . He further contended that though under Ex. M2 namely 2nd show cause notice calling for his representation was served to the Petitioner, along with that notice the findings of the Enquiry Officer has not been given to the Petitioner . No doubt , the Petitioner has made an endorsement on the copy of Ex . M2 that he has received the copy of the letter, it cannot be said that this letter accompanied with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Since the Petitioner denied that he has not received the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer , the burden of proving that the copy ofthe report ofEnquiry Officer was given to the Petitioner is upon the Respondent/Management. But , on the other hand, the Respondent has not adduced any material evidence to show that the copy of the Enquiry Officer's findings was given to the Petitioner and he relied on the rulings reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL , HYDERABAD Vs. B. KARUNAKAR wherein Full Bench of Supreme Court have held that " since the denial of the report of Enquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice , if follows that statutory rules , if any which deny the reportto the employee are against the principles of natural justice and therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will therefore be entitled to a copy of report even ifthe statutory rules do not permit furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject . " He further argued that it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report as the waiver of his right, whether therefore , the employee asked for the report or not the report has to be furnished to him. In this case , even though on the side of the Respondent , it is contended that even in the explanation to the 2nd show cause notice the Petitioner has not disputed that the copy of enquiry report has not been given to him and on that count he was prejudiced, it cannot be said that on the score the enquiry report has been given to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner has specifically pleaded that he has not received the Enquiry Officer ' s report along with 2nd show cause notice , it was bounden duty of the Respondent to see that it has been served to the Petitioner along with 2nd show cause notice . On the other hand. nothing has been produced before this Tribunal to show that it has been served on the Petitioner. Therefore , on that score also the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority isvitiated.
8. But, on the other hand , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that even from the proceedings of the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner under Ex . M1 . itis clear that the Petitioner has admitted the guilt against him unconditionally and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that admission made by the Petitioner is a conditional one . When the Enquiry Officer has asked the But , in this case, none of the above conditions are satisfied and therefore , it cannot be said that the Petitioner has admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer. What was admitted by the Petitioner was that he gave petrol out ofsympathy to save one's life . At no stretch of imagination, itcan be said that this is an admission of theft of 35 litres of petrol that too for Rs . 440/- . Under such circumstances , it is not known under what basis the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the Petitioner has admitted the guilt. Further, the Pititioner has stated that only at the instigation ofthe Manager, he has given the letter namely under Ex . M7 series . Several High Courts and Supreme Court have deprecated this kind of obtaining admission from the delinquent employee and he relied on the rulings reported in 1990 1 SLR 325 G. SIVAPRASAD RAO VS. BANK OF INDIA, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the plea of admission of guilt is advanced by employee officer, it must be clear and unambiguous and must have been made at the proper stage of the enquiry at which such a question is asked to the employee officer. If there are circumstances which cast a doubt on the authenticity of the plea of guilt or if there are circumstances 8672
THE GAZETTE INDIA: JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PAR : IF S. 3 ( 1) |
Respondent/Management to adduce evidence to examine any of the witness before the Enquiry Officer.
10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that even assuming for argument sake that the Petitioner has admitted the guilt , the punishment given by the Respondent is disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against him and the Petitioner has served more than twenty years in the army and he was not issued with any memo or punishment in military and further he has served for more than four years in the Respondent and no memo was issued to him and no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him during that period and under such circumtances , the past record of the petitioner was not considered by the Respondent/ Management and therefore , this Tribunal has got every powerto reduce the punishment given by the Respondent under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act .
11. But , I find there is no point in the contention of the léasrned counsel for the Pentioner because the reference ofpast record is irrelevant when the misconduct is serious . The theft of petrol by a watchman on duty is grave enough to warrant the punishinent of dismissal. Theft of company's property itself is an act of serious misconduct , and such misconduct on the part ofa Security Guard cannot be looked into sympathetically by any Court of Law. Under such circumstances, I find the dismissal of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent/Management is legal and justified. As such, I find this point against the Petitioner. Point No. 2: -
The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Peitioner is entitled?
12. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. No Costs .
13. The reference is answered accordingly .
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him. coorected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 16th March, 2005 )
K. JAYARAMAN .. Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the I Party/Workman : Sri K. Periyasamy
Sri J. Vedagiri
Forthe II Party /Management : Documents Marked :
Forthe I Party/Petitioner: -
Ex. No. Date Description
W1 15-7-86 Xerox copy of the offer of appointment given by Respondent/Management
W2 1-8-86 Xerox copy ofthe terms and conditions ofemployment issued to Petitioner
1-8-86
W3
Xerox copy of the order of appointment issued to Petitioner
Petitioner Do you plead guilty to the charges contained in the charge sheet" , the Petitioner rephed tha " I plead guilty to the charges mentioned in the charge sheet dated 18-3-91 having fully understood them" and for the question "Do you plead guilty unconditionally " he answered " Yes , I plead guilty without any condition and under such circumstances , at no stretch of imagination , it can be said that the admission was made with a condition. Though the Petitioner has pleaded in the Claim Statement that out of sympathy he has given 35 litres of pettol to a party, it is only an aftert hought and he has never objected with regard to his admission that it was obtained by force or coercion or inducement . He has made this allegation only after the punishment was given to him on the ady ise of somebody else and therefore , it cannotbe said that the admission is a conditional one . Further , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the High Courts and Supreme Court have held that in such circumstances , there is no necessity for the management to adduce any evidence to prove the charges . In the case of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. KARUNAMOY BANERJEE AIR 1968 SC 266 , the Supreme Court has held that " when once the workman himself has in answer to the charge levelled against him. admitted his guilt in our opinion , there will be nothing more for the management to enquire into . That was the position in the case before us . Therefore , we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning of Labour Court that when thee has been an admission of guilt by the Respondent himself it can still be stated that there is a violation of principles of natural justice merely because of the fact that workman was examined in the first instance . " Therefore , the allegation that the admission is not an admission at all as of no consequence at all . Then the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that even in Ex. M2 namely 2nd show cause notice , it is mentioned by the Gerneral Manager (Marketing - South ) , the Disciplinary Authority, that he has forwarded along with the letter. a copy of the Enquiry Officer's letter dated 1-7-91 , wherein below that the Petitioner has made an endorsement which means , the show cuse notice along with the enquiry report and at no stretch of imagination , it can be held that he has made the endorsement only for the show cause notice and not for Enquiry Officer's report . Even assuming for argument sake, he has not received the enquiry report along with show cause notice , for this reply to this show cause notice namely Ex. M3 , he has not whispered anything that he has not received the Enquiry Officer's report . Therefore , it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management that along with show cause notice they have sent Enquiry Officer's report and it was received by the Petitioner and therefore, the argument of the counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent has not established before this Tribunal that the enquiry report has not been given to the Petitioner is without any substance.
W4 16-9-87 Xerox copy of the order of confirmation given by Respondent/Management
W5 30-1-91 Xerox copy of the order of suspension passed by Respondent
9 I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent . In this case , since the Petitioner has admitted his guilt , I find there is no necessity for the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
8673
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
W6 18-3-91 Xerox copy of the charge sheet W7 27-3-91 Xerox copy of the explanation submitted by Petitioner
W8 23-4-91 Хегоx copy of the notice of enquiry W9 19-11-91 Xerox copy of the notice issued by Respondent
W10 19-12-91 Xerox copy of the dismissal order issued by Respondent
For the II Party /Management: -
Ex . No. Date Description
09-05-91 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings MI
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent enclosing Enquiry report M2 19-11-91
Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner M3 3-12-91
M4 01-10-99 Хетоx copy of the order in W.P. 3923 / 92
M5 30-1-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Salaisundaram to Deputy Manager M6 30-1-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Deputy Manager to ChiefDiv. Manager .
M7 30-1-91 Xerox copy of the statement given by Petitioner and English translation M8 30-1-91 Xerox copy of the report given by V.K. M. Sundar
M9 Nil Xerox copy of the report given byMr. T.N. Ramesh
M10 Nil Xerox copy ofthe report given by R.D. Amarnath
MII 1-7-91 Xerox copy of the enquiry report. नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2005
का० आ ० 2703.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अमर ज्योति ग्रेनाईट प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं० एल-29012/110/97- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2703. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Udaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Amar Jyoti Granite Pvt . Ltd.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-2005 .
[No. L -29012/ 110/ 97 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
अनुबंध
न्यायाधीश
औद्योगिक अधिकरण, श्रम न्यायालय , उदयपुर मु.का. - 1/2001 , आई.टी.आर. केन्द्र सरकार अनवान : अ. खदान मज० यूनि ० लि०/अमर ज्योति ग्रेनाइट मार्बल अधिसूचना सं. 29012/ 110/ 97- आई आर ( विविध ) -29-6-98
निर्णय
30-3-2005
पक्षकार प्रतिनिधिगण के प्रार्थना पत्र पर पत्रावली पेश हुई । प्रार्थीगण की ओर से श्री रमेश नन्दवाना एड़वोकेट विपक्षी की ओर से श्री आर. एस. चौहान ऐवोकेट तथा श्री एस. एस . चूड़ावत पर्सनल मैनेजर, अमर जयोति ग्रेनाइट ने प्रार्थना पत्र पेश कर निवेदन किया कि पक्षकारों के मध्य लोक अदालत की भावना में राजीनामा हो गया है , पक्षकार अब इस विवाद को आगे नहीं चलाना चाहते हैं , एवं विड्रा करना चाहते हैं । अतः हस्व प्रार्थना पत्र पक्षकारगण के निवेदन पर प्रकरण में राजीनामे के कारण कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहने से प्रकरण में कोई- विवाद नहीं " नो -डिस्प्यूट " एवार्ड जारी किया जाता है । सूचना- भारत- सरकार को भेजी जावे । पत्रावली पैदल शुमार होकर दाखिल दफतर हो ।
ह./- अपठनीय न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 4 जुलाई , 2005
का० आ ० 2704.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट्स ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 110,111/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21- 6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं ० एल-11012/6/2003- आई आर ( विविध ) ] [सं० एल-11012/7/2003- आई आर ( विविध) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2704. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ). the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 110 , 111/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airports Authority of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005 .
[No. L - 11012/6/2003 - IR (M) ] [No. L - 11012/7/2003 - IR (M) ]
B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Thursday, the 31st March , 2005 Present : K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 110 & 111/2003 8674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( a ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . Between the Management ofAirport Authority of India, Southern Region and their workmen)
BETWEEN
: I Party/Petitioners
Sri N.Krishnagounder - in
ID No. 110/2001
Sri D. Rajendran - in
ID No. 111/2001
AND
1. The Director,
: II Party/Management
Airports Authority of India (NAD) , Chennai .
2. The Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India .
SR Chennai .
Appearance:
For the Petitioners
: Mr. T. Velumani Advocates
For the Management
: M/ s . Sree & Associates,
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government . Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 11012/07/ 2003 - IR( M ) dated 20-6-2003 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned dispute in that order IS-
"Whether the action of the management of the Regional Executive Director, Southern Region , Airports Authority of India ( NAD ) ( hennai Airport , Chennai , in terminating the services of Shri N. Krishnagounder is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 110/2003 and notices were issued to both the parties andboth the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.
3 The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows : -
the contract by the Respondents to do perennial work and taking advantage and by exploiting the requirement and the need of employment for his livelihood . This Petitioner was working for more than five years.but , the control of the management was with the 1st Respondent . The Respondent/Management is a Central Govt . organization maintaining operating and administrating ofAirports all over India . The nature of work done by the Petitioner is similar to the work done by regular workersin other airports . Thus , the Airport Authority is engaging thousands of contract labourers all over Inida . In Salem Airport the Respondent engaged the contract labour for watch and ward , conservancy, cleaning , dusting and other electrical work. The said works are perennial in nature and done by the contract workers regularly, but the allotment of work , supervision and immediate control on the contract workers was done by the 1st Respondent . Further, the 1st Respondent was maintaining attendance register for contract labourers. Monthly salary was pard to Petitioner and other contract workers and they were given pass and identity cards as that of regular employces. Though the Petitioner was formally named as contractor cum contract labour, there is a direct relationship of employees employce and the contract system is camouflage and sham & nominal . The contractor himself is working as a contract labour is unknown to contract labour system and therefore, the contract cannot be a real contract system and he can be classified only as a worker . Therefore , the Petitioner is deemed to be a direct employee of the Respondent organization and the Respondent has also not obtained certificate of registration as per Section 7 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act . Since they have not followed the mandatory provisions , the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent is only master and servant . The said contract is entered only with a view to deprive the entitlement of the workers and to deny their legal right . The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to regularize his service . The said W.P. was dismissed by the High Courtto enable the Petitioner to work out his remedy before appropirate authority. When the Respondent tried to terminate the service of the Petitioner without any reason whatsoever , the Petitioner has filed a civil suit before the Munsif Court for declaration and injunction to declare his status. When the injunction was vacated by Munsif Court , the Respondent has hurriedly terminated the service of the Petitioner on 27-1-2002 without any reason and hence , the termination of the employment of the Petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and against the law without following the procedure known to the law. Hence , the Petitioner filed this claim for reinstatement of service with back wages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits and also for regularization.
4. As against this , the 3rd Respondent has filed Counter Statement, which is adopted by the Respondents , The Petitioner was engaged as a contract labour in the Salem Airport by the Respondent . The Peitioner was maintaing all electrical equipments and cleaning , dusting of pump house , power house , technical block terminal building and NOB office . The Petitioner was engaged in 1997 as a contract labour and continuously working in the airport . The Petitioner approached the 1st Respondent for emplyment as a contract worker and the Ist Respondent establishment advised him to join as a contract worker under the guise of contract system and they also advised to sign contract to work as a contract worker . The said contract system is a formal one and created for name sake . The Petitioner was forced to sign 8675 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
Airports Authority of India (NAD) Chennai Airport, Chennai, in terminating the services of Shri D Rajendran is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
7. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 111/2003 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.
8. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:-
wherein it is contended that Salem Airport, of the Respondent/Management is non - operational airport, hence it has only two regular employees . It is false to allege that the Petitioner was appointed by respondents . The Petitioner is only a contractor to carry out a specific because of his lowest bid in the tender called for by the Respondent for maintaining electrical equipments in Salem Airport. The naute of work in Salem Airport is not the same but is different from that of other airports because Salem Airport is a non - operational airport having only two regular employees . Being a non- operational establishment having only two regular employees , the Salem establishment does not come within the purview of Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 and hence not bound by Section 2(e) of the said Act . The operation and maintenance of electrical installation at Salem Airport is not a permanent one and they are specified as non - core activities and therefore , it was awarded by 3rd Respondent on contract to Sri D. Rajendran who was the lowest bidder on specific terms and conditions . This Respondent has not maintained any attendance register for contractor nor paid any salary to the Petitioner. Since the airport is restricted area the passes were issued to the contractors to enter into the permises , there was no relationship of master and servant between the Petitioner and Respondent . Since the Salem Airport is a non -operational airport and since contract workers were more than two , Section 12 is not applicable to the contract awarded. It is false to allege that the contract awarded was sham and nominal . Since the Respondent has not appointed the Petitioner, there is no question of termination of his service . The maintenance of electrical installation was awarded periodically whenever the need arise and on completion of contract , the contractor ceased further activities with the Respondent establishment . Since the Petitioner has chosen so many forums this petition is without anyjurisdiction . Since he has filed civil suits before District Munsif which is pending, this petition is not maintainable. Therefore , the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement and therefore , the Respondent prays that the claim maybe dismissed with costs .
5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-
(i) "Whether the action of the Respondent/Manage- ment in terminating the services of the Petitioner is justified?
(ii) "To what relief, the Petitioner is entitled ? "
I.D. No. 111/2003 : -
6. The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 11012/06/2003 - IR(M) dated 20-06-2003 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned dispute is that order is-
The Petitioner was engaged as a contract labour in the Salem Airport by the Respondent. The Petitioner was maintaining all electrical equipments and cleaning, dusting of pump house, power house, technical block terminal building and NOB Office . The Petitioner was engaged in 1992 as a contract labour and continuously working in the airport. The Petitioner is a qualified electrical worker and approached the 1st Respondent for employment as a electrical worker and the 1st Respondent establishment advised him tojoin as a contract worker under the guise ofcontract system and they also advised to sign contract to work as a contract worker. The said contract system is a formal one and created for name sake . The Petitioner was forced to sign the contract by the Respondents to do perennial work and taking advantage and by exploiting the requirement and the need of employment for his livelihood . This Petitioner was working for more than nine years.But the control of the management was with the 1st Respondent/Management is a Central Govt . organization maintaining, operating and administrating of Airports all over India. The nature of work done by the Petitioner is similar to the work done by regular workers in other airports . Thus, the airport authority is engaging thousand ofcontract labourers all over India. In Salem Airport the Respondent engaged the contract labour for watch and ward, conservancy, cleaning, dusting and other electrical work. The said works are perennial in nature and done by the contract workers regularly, but the allotment ofwork, supervision and immediate control on the contract workers was done by the 1st Respondent. Further, the 1stRespondent was maintaining attendance register for contract labourers . Monthly salary was paid to Petitioner and other contract workers and they were given pass and identity cards as that of regular employees . Though the Petitioner was formally named as contractor cum contract labour, there is a direct relationship of employer employee and the contract system is camouflage and sham & nominal . The contractor himself is working as a contract labour is unknown to contract labour system and therefore , the contract cannot be a real contract system and he can be classified only as a worker. Therefore , the Petitioner is deemed to be a direct employee of the Respondent organization and the Respondent has also not obtained certificate of registration as per Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act . Since "Whether the action of the management of the Regional Executive Director , Southern Region,
2149 GI/05-49 8676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
termination of his service . The maintenance of electrical installation was awarded periodically whenever the need arise and on completion of contract , the contractor ceased further activities with the Respondent establishment . Since the Petitioner has chosen so many forums this petition is without anyjurisdiction. Since he has filed civil suits before District Munsif which is pending, this petition is not maintainable . Therefore , the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement and therefore , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .
10. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-
(i) "Whether the action of the Respondent / Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner isjustified?"
(ii) "To what relief, the Petitioner is entitled ? "
Point No. 1 :-
they have not followed the mandatory provisions , the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent is only master and servant. The said contract is entered only with a view to deprive the entitlement of the workers and to deny their legal right . The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to regularize his service. The said W.P. was dismissed by the High Court to enable the Petitioner to work out his remedy before appropriate authority. When the Respondent tried to terminate the " service of the Petitioner without any reason whatsoever , the Petitioner has filed a civil suit before the Munsif Court for declaration and injunction to declare his status . When the injunction was vacated by Munsif Court , the Respondent has hurriedly terminated the service of the Petitioner on 27-1-2002 without any reason and hence , the termination of the employment of the Petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and against the law without following the procedure known to the law. Hence, the Petitioner filed this claim for reinstatement of service with back wages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits and also for regularization .
11. As the issue involved in both these industrial disputes is same , a common Award is passed in these disputes . The case of the Petitioners in both cases is that Petitioners are qualified electrical workers and when they approached the 1st Respondent for employment as electrical worker, the officer in - charge of the Respondent advised the Petitioners to join as contract worker under the guise ofcontract system and the Petitioner in I.D. No. 111/2003 alleged that he was advised to sign the contract to work as a contract worker and the so called contract systemstem is a formal one and created for name sake and he was forced sign the contract by the officers of the Respondent/ Management . But , he and the Petitioner in I.D. No 110/ 2003 had done the work perennial in nature and the Respondent taking advantage of the poor nature of the Petitioners exploited them for the requirement of need of the employment for their livelihood . The contention ofthe petitioners that though they were named as contractors cum contract labourers , there is a direct relationship of employer - employee developed between them and the Respondent . Since the contract system is a camouflage . sham and nominal and the so called contract is also not valid as it is violative of the Contract Labour (regulation & abolition) Act and Rules , therefore, it is illegal and not enforceable in law and the Respondent/ Management cannot claim any protection under the guise of contract. It is their further contention that the so called contractors namely Petitioners themselves were working as labourers is not known to the Contract Labour system and therefore , itcannot be a real contract system and the Petitioner can be classified only as a worker and it is also clear from this that the system is not a genuine contract system and therefore , the Petitioner in both these cases deemed to be direct employees of the Respondent organisation .
12. In order to establish their contention, the Petitioner in I.D. No. 111/2003 was examined as a common witness as WW1 and on the side of the 20 common documents were filed. Ex . W1 is the copy of the pass issued by airport authority to both the Petitioners . Ex . W 2 is the 9. As against this , the 3rd Respondent has filed Counter Statement , which is adopted by other Respondents , wherein it is contended that Salem Airport ofthe Respondent/Management is non -operational airport , hence it has only two regular employees . It is false to allege that the Petitioner was appointed by Respondents . The Petitioner is only a contractor to carry out a specific job because of his lowest bid in the tender called for by the Respondent for maintaining electrical equipments in Salem Airport . He was awarded contract initially from 1-9-92 to 31-10-93 and then from 1996 to 1997, from 8-9-97 to 7-9-98 and then from 8-9-98 to 7-4-99 upto 7-1-2000, 24-3-2000 to 15-10-2000 and 16-10-2000 to 15-10-2001 . The nature of work in Salem Airport is not the same but is different from that of other airports because Salem Airport is a non- operational airport having only two regular employees . Being a non-operational establishment having only two regular employees , the Salem establishment does not come within the purview of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 and hence not bound by Section 2 ( e) ofthe said Act . The operation and maintenance of electrical . installation at Salem Airport is not a permanent one and they are specified as non -core activities and therefore , it was awarded by 3rd Respondent on contract to the Petitioner who was the lawest bidder on specific terms and conditions . This Respondent has not maintained any attendance register for contractor nor paid any salary to the Petitioner. Since the airport is a restricted area the passes were issued to the contractors to enter into the premises , there was no relationship of master and servant between the Petitioner and Respondent . Since the Salem Airport is a non - operational airport and since contract workers were more than two, Section 12 is not applicable to the contract awarded . It is false to allege that the contract awarded was sham and nominal . Since the Respondent has not appointed the Petitioner, there is no question of
4 8677 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
Xerox copy of the conduct certificate given to Petitioner in I.D. No. 111/2003 . Ex. W 3 is the copy of letter addressed by Petitioner to Respondent/Management to give passes .
Ex. W4 is the copy of the letter given by Respondent to WW1 with regard to his acceptance of tender . Ex . W 5 is the copy of special conditions mentioned in contract . Ex . W 6 is the copy of attendance register for the work of Petitioners in both the cases . Ex. W 7 to W 9 are copies of affidavit, counter and orders passed in W. P. No. 11257/98 . Ex . W 10 and W 11 are copies of affidavit and order in W.P. No. 11256/98 which are filedby the Petitioners before High Court . Ex . W 12 is the copy of affidavit in W.P. 8979/2001 .. Ex. W 13 and W 18 are eligibility and contents of the letter writtenby the airport authority of India to Salem Airport Manager . Ex. W 14 is the agreement for watch and ward service entered into between one K. M. Krishnan and Airport Authority. Ex. W 15 and W 16 are copy of the counterand order passed in W.P. 2719/98 . Ex. W 17 is the copy of inspection report of the authorities of Respondent/ Management . Ex . W 19 is the letter written by Sri Ranga Electricals to the Salem Airport authorities . Ex . W 20 is the copy of order passed in CMP No. 11645/98 batch .
offer given by WW 1. Ex . M 9 is the copy of order of release of security deposit . Ex. M 10 is the copy of acknowledgement given by Petitioner . Ex . M 11 is the copy oftender opening register . Ex . M 12 is the copy of extension ofone contract for one month for the Petitioner. Ex. M 13 is the copy of order passed by authorities acknowledging the contract . Ex. M 14 is the copy of agreement executed by the Petitioner. Ex. M 15 is the call for quotation for the year 1996 for which the Petitioner has offered his tender,. which is marked as Ex. M 16. After accepting the said contract, letter was sent to the Petitioner, copy of the award letter is marked as Ex . M 17. Ex. M 18 is the copy of letter written by the Petitioner to issue passes for entering into airport . Ex . M 19 is the acceptance of contract by the Petitioner . Similarly the contract was extended for two months and copy of the letter extending the contract is marked as Ex . M 20. In the year 1998, the Petitioner has requested the airport authority to send tender document andcopy ofthe same is marked as Ex. W 21. Xerox copy of the income tax return filed by the Petitioner is marked as Ex. M 22. In 1998 , the Petitioner executed an agreement for contract and copy of the same is marked as X. M 23. Xerox copy of the award letter sent by Respondent Manager is Ex . M 24. The copy of letter addressed by Salem Airport authorities to higher authorities is marked as Ex. M 25 . Copyofthe letter for extension of contract to the Petitioner for the year 1998-99 is marked as Ex . M 26. Similarly, on 10-5-99 the said contract was extended for certain time and the letter sentby the authorities is marked as Ex. M 27. Ex . M28 is the copy of agreement dated 26-9-97.
13. The Petitioner in his evidence has stated that the attendance register was maintained by Salem Airport authority, though he has executed the alleged contract document, he has received monthly payment of Rs . 1200/- atthe time ofjoining and at the time of his termination, he has received Rs . 3000/- as salary. It is not correct to say that he has worked only as a contractor on the other hand , he has worked only as a worker under the Respondent/ Management . Though the Repondent have called for tenders and though he has participated in the same, it was not a contract and it was obtained only for name sake and he has worked only as a worker under the Respondent/ Management . Though, it is alleged that in the year 1993-94 Sri Renga Electricals have taken the contract, even at that time he has worked as a worker and they have obtained documents to show that he has worked under Sri Renga Electricals It is also the contention of the Petitioner that though they have mentioned that the contention of the Petitioner that though though they have mentioned that the contract amount Rs . 82,800/- , he has received only monthly payments but he has not produced any document to show that he has received monthly salary as alleged by him.
15. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner was not appointed as worker under Airport Authority for maintenance of electrical work in Salem Airport, the contract system was valid one and the contract was executed by the Petitioner for one year and it was extended for certain period . For every period, they have called for tenders and the lowest bid in tender will be accepted for maintenance work and the Petitioner never worked as an employee under the Respondent / Management and the work was not perennial in nature and the Petitioner in I.D. No. 110/2003 worked under the contractor namely the petitioner in I.D. No. 111/2003 and the contract amount was paid in one lumpsum and it was not paid every month as salary to the Petitioners and therefore , the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these I.Ds. Further, it is the contention of the Respondent that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act is not applicable totheir establishment because the said provision was applicable only to the establishment who have employed twenty or more than twenty employees . Since the Salem airport has not employed twenty or more workers , it cannot be said that the Salem Airport authority must have registered their establishment under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , therefore, it cannot be said that the contract entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent/Management is unenforceable. It is 14. On the other hand , on behalf of the Respondent one Mr. G. S. Kumaran, Senior Manager (Electrical ) in Engineering department of Airports Authority of India who isworking at Chennai was examined as MW1 and through him Ex. Ml to M28 were marked . Ex. M1 and M28 are agreements entered into between the Petitioner and Airport Authority. Ex . M2 is the copy of affidavit filed in W.P. No. 11257/98 . Ex . M 3 is the copy of order in WPMP No. 12726/ 2001. Ex . M 4 and M 5 are plaint in O. s . No. 161-162/2001 filed before District Munsif Court, Omalur. Ex . M 6 is the copy of CMA No. 13/2002 filed by Petitioner namely WW 1. Ex. M 7 is the copy of quotation . Ex . M 8 is the copy of 8678
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the further contention of the Respondent that Salem Airport is a non - operational airport and they have got only two regular employees and under no stretch of imagination , it can be said that more than 31 contract labourers were employed in Salem airport . Further, the notification dated 9-12-76 passed by the Central Govt. in respect of contract labour for the purpose of sweeping , dusting , watching of building etc. has been quashed by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Vs. National Water Front Workers Union while overruling the judgement in Air India case judgement in the year 1996 and therefore , the contention of the Petitioner that they are entitled to the benefits is not valid . Though the Petitioners have filed WritPetition before the High Court , the High Court has rightly dismissed their claim petition stating that they have to approach the authorities under labour legislations, therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to any reliefbefore this Tribunal. It is the further contention of the Respondent that the Petitioners have not established that they were directly employed under the Respondent nor established that the contract is sham and nominal document and camouflage. Under such circumstances , they cannot get any relief in these industrial disputes .
further contended that the Respondent has not established before this Tribunal that there was genuine need to engage contract labourers and the Petitioners were under the control and supervision of the Respondent and therefore, it should be presumed that the contract is only sham and nominal document and it is a camouflage and he relied on the rulings reported in 2004 II LLJ 970 wherein the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that " since the nature ofwork of the workmen was perennial and since the workers were under the control and supervision of the management and since there was genuine need to engage contract labour, it is not established by theprincipal employer and because of the correct approach, held and adopted by the Tribunal , its findings of fact could not be interfered with in Writ Petition . " Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the absence of certificate of registration under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act on the part of the principal employer or licence on the part of the contractor will render workmen employed by intermediary as workmen of principal employer. In this case , the Respondent has not produced any document to show that they have registered as principal employer under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and it is also the case of the Petitioner that they have not licensed contractor under the said Act and therefore, they must be considered as a workman under Respondent/Management and he has also relied on the rulings ofGujarat High Court reported in 1992 I LLJ 257 Food Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation of India and others and for the same proposition, he has relied on 1999 Lab IC 1323-Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and others , 1988 I LLN 472- Food Corporation of India Vs. CGIT, Chandigarh and another and also 1976 Lab IC 745 M/ s . Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Asstt . Commissioner of Labour , Nagpur.
17.But , with regard to this point , I am not agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner because the Petitioner has not established that the Respondent/Management has engaged more than twenty workmen and therefore , it should be registered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Though , itwas contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he has made the allegation in the claim statement that theRespondent engaged contract labourers for watch and ward, conservancy, cleaning , dusting and electrical work and they have employed more than 31 contract labourers , the same were not specifically denied by the Respondent in the counter statement and therefore , it should be presumed that the Respondent has admitted that they have engaged more than 31 persons as contract labourers. Under such circumstances , as per the decisions cited above, the Petitioners are deemed to be workers under the Respondent/Management .
16. But, as against this , the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the nature of work done by the Petitioners are continuous , nature and the Petitioner in I.D. No. 111/2003 has worked for more than ten years and the Petitioner in I.D. No. 110/2003 has worked for more than five years and therefore , under the guise of contract the Respondent/ Management has employed these workmen for a perennial nature ofjob . Since the perennial nature of work was done by Petitioners for years together as contract labour, the contract is only camouflage and he has relied on the rulings reported in 2003 II LLJ 92 wherein the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court has held that " the concerned workmen have been doing their jobs regularly on permanent nature of job for years together suggesting that they were reallly workmen ofthe employer company and not of the contractor. Although the payments were made by the contractor, the Tribunal correctly found that it was a camouflage to deprive the concenred workmen of their bona fide and rightful claims which would accrued in their favour . The Tribunal also found that the most important works were done by the concerned workmen regularly " and therefore , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case the electrical maintenance work was done by the Petitioners andwithout them the airport will not operate and only on the direction of the Respondent/Management they have done these works daily and the work is of perennial in nature and under no stretch of imagination it can be said that this work is intermittent and not perennial . Under such circumstances , it is clear that the Respondent has forced the Petitioners to sign the contract to do these perennial works and therefore , the Petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed by them . Learned counsel for the Petitioner
18.But , though I find some force in the contention , I find there is no substance in the contention because , the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Respondent has clearly contended that they have not employed twenty or more persons as contract labourers . Under such circumstances , the initial burden of proving the contention is upon the Petitioners and since the Petitioner have not established that the Respondent/ Management has engaged more than twenty persons , I cannot agree with the contention of the Petitioners that Respondent should be registered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
19. Then, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even in inspection report under Ex . W17 , it ismentioned that due to non -availability of regular staff, the installtions are maintained through contract labourers . Therefore , it is clear that the electrical installations in the Salem Airport are to be maintained by regular staff andby engaging these Petitioners for the work under the guise of contract they were doing the perennial job and therefore , it is clear that the Petitioners have done the work of perennial in nature continuously from the year 1992 and therefore , it should be deemed that the Petitioners are employees under the Respondent/Management and the contract is only camouflage and the document Ex. M1 is sham and nominal document . He further contended that even in the agreement , the payment of the contract amount shall be paid to the contractor 100% of the bill amount after deducting security deposit , penalities if any. It is also mentioned that interim bills are allowed once in a month, which means the salary will be paid every month and the Petitioners have received the salaries every month as an interim bill . Though , the clauses in the contract documents mention as interim bill , it is only salary bill of the Petitioners . Further, the Petitioners have not fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract and it is also another circumstance , which proves that the contract is only sham and nominal document . The Petitioners have not fulfilled the basic qualification mentioned in the contract and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the contract document is a genuine and nominal one .
8679
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
22.Here again , I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the counsel.for the Petitioner because it is not established by the Petitioner that the attendance register was maintained by the airport authority. Therefore, merely producing a copy of the attendance register, it cannot be said that it was maintained by Respondent/ Management and they worked as regular employees of the Respondent /Management . Therefore , from the contention of the Petitioners , it cannot be said that the Petitioners have worked as regular workers under the control of the Respondent/Management . Therefore , I am not accepting the contention of the Petitioners and I find this point against the Petitioners .
Point No. 2 :-
The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioners are entitled ?
23. In view of my foregoing findings that the Petitioners have not established that the contract entered into between the Petitioners and Respondent/Management is sham and nominal document and as camouflage , I find the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them . No Costs .
24. The references are thus , answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , correctedand pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st March , 2005 ) .
K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Commonwitnesses Examined:
Forthe I Party/Petitioner : WW1 Sri D. Rajendran Forthe II Party/Management : MW 1 Sri G.S. Kumaran Common Documents Marked:
Ex. No. Date
Description
W1 Nil
Xerox copy of the passes issued to Petitioners W2 20-12-96
Xerox copy of the service certificates Petitioners issued to W3 08-09-98
Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent W4 16-10-00
20. But, though I find some force in the contention , I find there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner because he has not produced any document to show that the Petitioners have received the amount as monthly salary. Further, it is mentioned by the Petitioner in evidence that he has received Rs . 82,800/ -- mentioned in the contract and he has paid income-tax for the said amount .
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner W 5 Nil
Xerox copy of the special conditions mentioned in contract
W6 Nil
Xerox copy of the attendance register
W7 July, 1998
21. Again, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the copy of the attendance register produced by the Petitioners will clearly show that it was maintained by the airport authority of Salem and they have worked as regular employees and they have worked in regular post of the airport authority and therefore , they are workers under the Respondent/Management and they are not contract labourers as alleged by the Respondent .
Xerox copy ofthe affidavit filed in W.P. 11257/98 8680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
W8 Nov. 1998
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] W9 08-06-01
Xerox copy of the counter
affidavit in W.P. 11257/98
26-02-03
W9
Xerox copy of the order for release of security deposit to Petitioner
Xeroxcopy ofthe order in W.P.
11257/98
W10 July, 1998
W 10 08-06-01
Xerox copy of the hand receipt givenby Petitioner
Xerox copy of the affidavit of
Petitioner in WP 11256/98
W 11 26-02-03
W11 14-09-00
Xerox copy of the tenders/ quotations
Xerox copy ofthe order in WP
No. 11256/98
W 12 Nil
15-09-00
W12
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner
Xerox copy of the affidavit in
WP 8979/01
W 13 10-01-00
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Manager, Salem Airport (without contents) W 14 02-04-96
W.13 14-03-00
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner W 14 23-05-00
Xerox copy of the agreement W15 24-03-96
Xerox copy of the agreement
for watch & ward services
W15 06-04-98
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Calling for quotation W 16 22-04-96
Xerox copy of the counter
affidavit in WP 2719/98
W 16 19-06-98
Xerox copy of the order in WP 2719 & 407 to 3413/98 W 17 21-02-00
Xerox copy of the offer given by Petitioner to Respondent 13-05-96
W17
Xerox copy of the award of contract given to Petitioner 18-05-96
W18
Xerox copy of the inspection
report
W 18 10-01-00
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Manager, Salem Airport
W19 21-03-94
Xerox copy of the letter from Sri Renga Electricals to National Airports Authority, Salem
W20 16-09-98
Xeroxcopy of the order in CMP 11645/98 .
For the II Party /Management :
Ex. No. Date
Description
W1 23-11-00
Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner seeking passes for Entry of staff members 20-05-96
W 19
Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Asking for copy of agreement W20 16-05-97
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Extending contract period W21 30-07-98
Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent for Issuing tender document W22 Nil
Xerox copy of the Agreement
W2 July, 1998
Xerox copy of the Income Tax Return Form 2 Acknowledgement
Xerox copy of the affidavit filed
in W.P. 11257/98
W3 30-04-01
W 23 06-10-98
Xerox copy of the agreement 02-09-98
W24
Xerox copy of the order in
WMP 12726/01in W.P. 8979/01
Nil
W4
Xerox copy of the OS No.
161/01 filed by Petitioner
W 5 Nil
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Regarding maintenance contract
Nil
W 25
Xerox copy of the OS No.
162/01 filed by Petitioner
W6 Nil
Xerox copy of the memo forwarding tender
W26 06-04-99
Xerox copy of the Petition in
CMA No. 13/02
21-02-95
W7
Xerox copy of the letter from National Airports Authority to Petitioner
W8 17-03-95
Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to National Airports Authority.
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Extending contract period W27 10-05-99
Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Extending contract period W 28 06-09-97
Xerox copy of the agreement .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2705.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोझीकोड के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -17011/4/2000- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2705. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Kozhikode as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005.
[No. L- 17011/4/2000 -IR(M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE , KERALA STATE
Dated this the 12th day of May, 2005 .
PRESENT
SHRI K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, B.Com . , LL.B. PresidingOfficer L.D. (C) No. 2/00
BETWEEN :-
The Divisional Manager ,
L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, Kozhikode-673 001
8681
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
regularising service of 16 employees named in the annexure w.e.f. their date of joining as temporary employees and terminating the service of Smt . P.K. Bindu w.e.f. 10-2-1999.
2. In pursuance of the notice issued from this Court .
both parties appeared and filed their respective statements . 3. The case of the union representing the workers shortly stated is as follows :
In order to fill up the then existing 14 vacancies of the post of Assistants , management empanelled 147 successful candidates after test and interview. Out of the total candidates so empanelled, 130 candidates were given appointment after undergoing medical test , training and probation and the remaining vacancies were kept vacant for no valid reasons Later the remaining unabsorbed candidates were offered temporary employment they joined . But the management did not bother to provide them eligible service benefits given to the regularised employees or absorb them in permanent service without any reason or justification despite the availability of permanent vacancies . Employment was so denied by the management stating that they were appointed as temporary workers to meet the seasonal rush of work and on the legal advice from their counsel that further appointments were stopped as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court which was contrary to facts. The action of the management is arbitrary, discriminative and offends the principles of natural justice and rule ofequality.
Management
and TheGeneral Secretary, LIC Employees Union, Kozhikode Division , C/o . LIC of India, DivisionalOffice, P.B. NO. 177, HuzurRoad ,
Union Kozhikode -673001 REPRESENTATIONS :-
Sri Cleetus Chacko & Simon Chacko , Advocates , Calicut
5. Smt . Bindu was selected for the post of Assistant and short listed for appointment in the recruitment held in 1995 on the ground she was carrying. Late she was offered temporary appointment from14-10-1996 onwards to 17-3-1998 in various branches and ultimately she was appointed as permanent Assistant at Mattannur Branch on 21-3-1998 after undergoing medical examination and other formalities . After she worked for a month, she developed severe back pain and disc prolapse and so she applied for leave duly supported by medical certificates . The probation period of Smt . K. Bindu was once extended but since there was no improvement in her health condition she applied for further extension of medical leave .
ForManagement
ForUnion Sri.P. Kumarankutty, Advocate , Calicut
AWARD
This reference was made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per Order No. L - 17011/ 4/2000/IR (B - II ) dated 22-6-2000 to consider the legality and justifiability of the action of LIC management in not 6. On the advice of the management she was subjected to further medical examination by a cardiologist . The doctor arrived at a conclusion that she has been sympatomatic for the last four years and she had a past history of illness . On the basis of the report the management concluded that she had suppressed material facts in her personal bio-data and terminated the service w.e.f. 10-2- 1999.According to the union the candidate's service was liable to be reckoned as permanent service from the date she was offered temporary appointment and had it been done she would have been eligible to avail medical leave . The management also indiscriminately refused to waive the probation period. The action of the management amounts to gender discrimination. So the union prays to pass an award directing the management to give effective data of regularisation of 16 workers involved in the dispute 8682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
from the date they wee absorbed in temporary service and to give retrospective benefit retrospectively , temporary period, to make them available of the rights and benefits following there from and to reinstate Smt . Bindu in Service.
7. According to the management, vacancies are notified and recruitments effected forseeing the prospective permanent vacancies also . The appointments made were provisional . The appointment letters issued to the candidates contain an express stipulation that the employment is purely temporary and the candidates will not be entitled to any preference for absorption/ regularisation in service . The further appointment of 17 candidates out of the list was stopped pending legal advice from their counsel on account of the pendency of a writ petition. Challenging the entire selection process . The remaining 17 candidates were offered temporary appointments in accordance with staff recruitment instructions to meet the seasonal rush of work . Subsequently they were offered regular appointment on getting legal advice . They had to undergo 6 months probation. On completion of successful probation alone these candidates could claim absorption in regular service. 17 candidates involved in the reference have no legal right to claim for counting their length of service before they were absorbed in permanent service.
8. Smt . P.K. Bindu worked as temporary assistant fordifferent periods in different branches . She has never worked in permanent capacity. She was appointed as Probationary Assistant on 21-3-1998 . Since she stopped attending office from 15-4-1998 onwards after attending office for 24 days . The probation period was extended for a further period of six months . Even afterwords she was not able to attend the office . Later it was turned out that she was suffering from IDVP (Disk Prolapse ) symptomatic for the last 4 years . As per the rules and regulations the probation period cannot be extended for more than one year. On account of a prologned absence subsequent to joining and on suppression of material fact of her illness she was terminated from service as per the staff regulation. The action was perfectly justified and in accordance with the rules provided for the purpose . The evidence consists of the oral evidence of MW1 , WW1 and WW2 and documentary evidence Exts . XI , M1 to M7 and W1 to W7 .
9. On the basis of rival pleadings and evidence the following points emerge for determination :----
(1) What is the effective date of regularisation of 16 workers involved in the dispute?
(2) Whether the service of Smt . P.K. Bindu was unjustly terminated?
(3) Whether the impugned action of the management in not regularising the service of the 16 employees w.e.f. the date of their joining as temporary employees is justified or not ?
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 10. Point No. I - MW1 , an Officer of the Management establishment has given evidence about the process of selection and conditions under which the candidates were offerred appointment . Unit Secretary of the union and are of the workers involved in the disputes when examined as WW1 has deposed about the eligibility of the persons involved in the dispute for regularisation from the respective date of joining service as temporary workers.
11. There is no dispute that towards the total number of 148 vacancies spread over in the Kozhikode LIC Division , after conducting test and interview, 147 candidates were empanelled according to their ranking . Outof the candidates so empanelled 130 were appointed and confirmed in regular service after undergoing medical test, training and probation. In the meanwhile , a writ petition was filed at the instance of the one of the unsuccessful candidates challenging the entire selection processes . In view of the pendency of the writ petition and on the legal advice , management kept in abeyance further appointments . Subsequently, all the remaining 17 candidates were offered appointment as temporary assistants allegedly to meet seasonal rush of work . Ext . W1 is the letter of offer of appointment given to PW1 dated 23-3-1996 . Initially the workers were appointed for a period of 30 days and with notional broaks extended from time to time. Thus they worked for nearly 1¹/ , years as couldbe seen from Ext . W1 series . Subsequently excepting one Bindu who is involved in the reference , the remaining 16 candidates were given provisional appointment in regular service. After joining service and completing probation, the workers represented before management to regularise them in service from the date they worked as temporary assistants and as per Ext . W3 management declined their request . That led to the present dispute .
12. Ext . M4 is the copy of a circular issued from the Central office of the management to the Managers and Divisional Officers containing recruitment instructions of clause III and clause IV staffs and Ext . M5 is the copy of Staff Regulation , 1960. As per the provisions in Ext . M4 in the first year of recruitment the number of candidates to be empanelled will be equal to twice the number of vacancies in the year and in the second and subsequent years the number of persons to be added to the panel will be equal to twice the number of vacancies in that year less the number ofpersons remaining in the panel . Ext . M4 further stipulates that vacancies liable to arise during the course of years by retirement is also to be taken into account leaving hardly any candidates in the panel for utilisation for temporary appointment without need arises . Ext . M4 also permits for the utilisation of the remaining candidates in the panel for temporary appointments as per requirements . Mode of recruitment and selection process are also detailed therein. Ext . W2 is the L.I.C. employment of temporary staff instructions as per which employment of temporary staff in Class III post against sanctioned adhoc vacancies are 8683 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
made to cope up with the work of seasonal nature . Workers have a case that their appointment to regular service was unnecessarily and unjustly delayed. The fact that these 16 candidates were offerred temporary appointment in quick succession and they continued in service with small breaks for about 1' /, years strengthenes the case of the Union that there was vacancy of sanctioned staff strength.
17-1-1998 to 17-3-1998 . Thereafter she was appointed as Probationary Assistant on 21-3-1998 , Since she stopped attending office from 15-4-1998 onwards her probationary periodwas extended for further 6 months from 21-9-1998 . Further, Smt . Bindu was not able to attend office having no leave to her credit . It was turned out that she was suffering from IDVP for the past 4 years . This ailment was detected on medical test on reference made by the management . The worker has a case that the medical doctor who examined her and gave the opinion being a Cardiologist is incompetent to make any conclusion in her case . Her further case is that she was not symptomatic and was initially permitted to join only after undergoing medical examination twice by the management who found her fit to joinservice. The worker when examined as WW2 has also given evidence in this line.
13 : Admittedly and as evidenced by Ext . M6 and M7, in the Writ Petition filed by some of the unsuccessful candidates challenging the entire selection process , the Hon'ble High Court had passed an interim order clarifying that appointments to the post of assistants will be provisional and subject to the final result of the writ petition. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed upholding the selection process . It was in the meantime appointment of remaining candidates was kept in abeyance on the legal advice of the counsel of the management . These sixteen candidates were absorbed in service after the disposal of thewritpetition on getting clearance from the legal advisor. So technically though there was no stay of further appointments , the management might have thought it fit not to take risk in view of the pendency of writ petition. The appointments were also done without much delay after the dismissal ofthe writ petition . So the management cannot be totally blamed for the delay in appointments .
16. There is no dispute that Smt . Bindu was not able to complete her probation. As per clause 17 of Ext . M4 , a candidate on probation is liable to be discharged from service without any notice and without assigning any reason whatsoever . The said clause further makes it clear thatthe candidates appointed on probation shall be eligible for confirmation only on confirmation of probation and successful completion of the training . As per Ext. M5 Staff Regulation, the period of probation is normally six months . Clause 14 (3 ) empowers the management in its discretion to dispense with reduce or extend the period of probation subject to an outer limit stipulated in therein . In the case of clause III employees the maximum period of probation liable to be extended is one year. In this case the management in its descretion granted one extension to enable Smt. Bindu to complete her probation. But unfortunately on account of medical reasons she was not able to complete the probation and so ultimately she was terminated from service on 10-2-1999 . The evidence would show that Smt . Bindu hadworked in the office, only for 24 days during the entire period ofprobation. The termination being not punitive in nature, but in terms of Regulation14( IV) of Ext . M5 which has the force of statue , the acion was perfectly legal and inaccordance with rules. I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision ofthe management in terminating the service ofSmt . Bindu .
14. The empanelled candidates get a right for appointment only after undergoing medical examination, theoretical and practical training and satisfactory completion ofperiod ofprobation . Their services were not . regularised earlier apparently because they had not satisfied the eligibility conditions enumerated. In other words mere empenalling is not the criteria for appointment in regular pay- scale . Union has also not attributed any malafides against the management in the matter much and less any evidence to that time . The fact that the appointees worked for sometimes as temporary assistants may not give them any preferential right for regularisation . Ext . W1 offer of appointment also enumerates that by reason of temporary appointment , appoïntees shall not be entitled to any preference for recruitment to any post or claim absorbition/ regularisation in the service of the management . After having accepted the offer and worked for temporary periods it is not now open to the candidates to put forward any new claim. Therefore the claim is only experimental and hypothetical and therefore the prayer for retrospective regularisation is liable to be declined .
17. Point No. 3 :-In the result , an award is passed upholding the termination of service of Smt. P.K. Bindu from 10-2-1999 and the action of the management in not regularising the service of 16 employees named in the annexure w.e.f. their date ofjoining as temporary employees .
Dictated to Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, revised, corrected and passed by me on the 12th day ofMay, 2005 .
K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Presiding Officer APPENDIX
Witnesses examined from the side of the Worker :-
WW1 : Rajesh, P. V.
WW2 : Bindu , P. K.
15. Point No. 2 :-Smt. Bindu was selected for the post of assistant in the recruitment held in 1995. As she was then carrying , her appointment was deferred as per Rules . Though the worker has a case that this amounts to gender discrimination, so long as the rule stands this contention is not liable to be urged before a Labour Court . Later, she was offered temporary appointment from 14-10-1995 onwards at Vadakara branch . She worked there upto 29-5-1997 and from 14-8-1997 till 11-11-1997 , in the Perambra branch and then again in the same branch from
2149 Gl/05-50 8684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/SRAVANA 8, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Ext. W1 (n)
Witness examined from the side of the Management :-
MWI : V.S. Madhu.
Documents marked fromthe side of the Worker :-
Ext. WI : Temporary appointment letter issued to the worker (series P. V. Rajesh by the management dt. 23-3-1996, 19 No's .) .
Ext . W1 ( a) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 26-4-1996 .
Ext. W1 (b ) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt.29-5-1996 .
Ext. W1 (c) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one month dt. 26-6-1996.
Ext. W1 (d) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one month dt.27-7-1996 .
Ext. WI (e) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 24-8-1996 .
Ext. W1(f) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt. 24-10-1996 .
Ext. W1 ( g) : Letterised by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one month dt. 9-11-1996 Ext. W1 (h) : Letter issued by Management to P.V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt. 20-11-1996.
Ext.W1 (i ) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt. 23-12-1996 .
Ext. W1 (j ) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt. 25-1-1997 .
Ext. W1(k) Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 24-2-1997 .
Ext. W1 (1) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt. 22-3-1997.
Ext. WI ( m) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one month dt . 24-4-1997 .
Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 24-5-1997 .
Ext. W1 (o) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt. 23-6-1997 .
Ext. W1 (p) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 22-7-1997.
Ext. W1 (q) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 22-8-1997 .
Ext. W1 (r) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 20-9-1997 .
Ext. Wl ( s) : Letter issued by Management to P. V. Rajesh extending period of Temporary appointment for one monthdt . 21-10-1997.
Ext. W2 : Life Insurance Corporation of India Employment of Temporary Staff- Instruction 1993 dt . 28-6-1993 .
Ext. W3 : Lr . sent by Senior Divisional Manager, LIC to the worker, P.V. Rajesh regarding Regulation of Temporary Service dt : 30-4-1999.
Ext. W4
(Series) : Lr. dt . 8-3-1999 sent by Nisha P. to the Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C.
Ext. W4(a) : -do- dt . 8-3-1999 by K. Smith -do- Ext. W4(b) : -do- dt . 8-3-1999 Pushpakaran -do- Ext. W4(c) : -do- dt. 8-3-1999 Madhu T.K. -do- Ext. W4(d) : -do- dt . 8-3-1999 Anvar Sadath M.-do- Ext. W4(e) : -do- dt . 9-3-1999 Sanjeev Kumar , A.C. -do-
Ext. W4(f) : -do-dt . 6-3-1999 Shivappa Naik, K. -do- Ext. W4(g) : -do- dt. 8-3-1999 Sreela, P.K. -do- Ext. W5 : Order in CMP 23399/97 in O.P. 1818/97dt. 1-8-1997 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Ext. W6 : Discharge Certificate ofP. V. Rajesh by Br . Manager , LIC, Payyannur dt . 16-12-1997 .
Ext. W7 Letter sent by the Br . Manager LIC , Mattannur to the Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC , Kozhikode alongwith the petition of P.V. Rajesh for regularisationdt. 13-3-1999 .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 /श्रावण 8 , 1927
Documents marked from the side of the Management :-
Ext.M1 : Attested True copy of the appointment letter issued by the LIC of India to the candidate offering temporary employment dt. 9-10-1996 .
Ext.M2 : Attested True copy of the appointment letter issued by the LIC of India to the candidate offering temporary employment dt. 7-8-1997 .
Ext.M3 : Attested True copy of the appointment letter issued by the LIC of India to the candidate offering teniporary employment dt. 2-1-1998 .
Ext. M4 : Attested copy of the Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions 1993 of LIC of India dt . 25-2-1993 .
Ext.M5 : Attested True copy of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960 .
Ext. M 6 : Attested true copy of the Order in CMP 4372/96 in O.P. 2472/96 by the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala dt . 20-2-1996 .
Ext. M7 : Attested true copy of the Judgment in O.P. 1929/96 D before the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala dt . 5-6-1998 .
Ext. X1 : File S.R. No. 585/99 of Smt . P.K. Bindu , Assistantproduced as per direction by LIC of Hon'ble India , Kozhikode Division.
नईदिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2706.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेअरहाऊस कार्पो ० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-07-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42025/1 / 2005 - आई आर( विविध ) ]
बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2706.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Warehouse Corp. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-07-2005 .
[No. L -42025 / 1 /2005 -IR (M) ]
B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.
8685
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Shri E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Dated the 31st day of August , 2004 Industrial Dispute L.C.L.D. No: 2/2001 (Old I.D. No. 6/2000 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal cumLabour Court, Warangal)
Between:-
Smt.Enumala Laxmi ,
W/o Kattaiah,
R/o H.No. 20-7-3 , West Fort ,
Petitioner Warangal.
AND
1. The Branch Manager, The Central Warehouse Corporation Kashibugga, Warangal .
2. Sri Gunda Komuraiah ,
The President, The Central Warehouse Corporation of Hamali Society, Situated at Central Warehouse Corporation , Kashibugga,
Warangal
Respondents APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner :M/s . D: Janardhan, M.V. Raja Reddy, Ch. Lingamurthy, J. Damodhar and J. Yeshwanth Raj , Advocates Forthe Respondent : Sri M. Ramesh Babu, Advocate
AWARD
This is a case taken under Section 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Warangal in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others and transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H - 11026/1 /2001 - IR ( C - II ) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No. 6/2000 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 2/2001 .
2. In spite of several adjournments given from 6-7-2004 for 6 adjournments the Petitioner has not turned out. Petitioner and his Counsel absent continuously. Calleu 8686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8, 1927
absent today i.e. , the 31st day of August , 2004 also . There is not much material on record to support the case of the Petitioner. Hence , a ' Nil ' Award is passed , Transmit .
Award passed , Transmit .
Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personnal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 31st day of August, 2004 .
E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL
NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2707.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों 'के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 04-07-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-26025/1/2005- आई आर ( विविध ) ] एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4 , 2005
S.O. 2707 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd .. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on04-07-2005.
[No. L -26025/ 1/2005 - IR(M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT :
BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT :
Shri N.K.R. MOHAPATRA,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar
Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 11/2003 Date of passing Order 10th June , 2005
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Between :-
Shri R.P. Singh , Working President,
Rourkela Sramik Sangh, Qrs . No. A/97,
Section- 17, Rourkela-769003 ,
Orissa
Petitioner
AND
1. TheManagement of PL and DQ, RMD , SAIL 2. M/s . R.C. Sahoo
3. M/s . C.R. Bidolia
4. M/s . Sundargarh Mining
Labour Contract Society Ltd
5. M/s . Ores India (P. ) Limited
Opp . Parties APPEARANCES :
Shri R. P. Singh , working President,
For the Petitioner Rourkela Sramik Sangh
Shri R.C. Tripathy , Addl . Chief L.O. .... For O.P. No. 1 Shri Sahadev Kumar Sahoo .... For O.P. No. 2
... For O.P. No. 3 Shri Shyamlal Singhal
For O.P. No. 4 Shri B. Panigrahi , Accountant
.... For O.P. No. 5 Shri N.G. Mukherjee
ORDER
1. This Misc . case is the outcome of a petition under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by Rourkela Sramik Sangh against the Opp . Party Nos . 1, the Principal Employer and Opp. Party Nos . 2 to 5 the Contractors under Opp. Party No. 1 Neither party has adduced any oral evidence . They have based their cases on documentary evidence alone. Therefore , the case of both parties may be summarized on their admitted facts as follows:
2. The Opp . Party Nos . 2 to 5 had taken contract of work in Purunapani Lime Stone and Dolomite Quarry of Opp. Party No. 1 ( SAIL ) . The contract of Opp . Party Nos . 1 to 4 was to expire on 28-2-2003 while the contract ofOpp. Party No. 5 was to terminate on 31-8-2002 . Not being interested to take further contract or to renew their existing contracts all the above Opp . Party Nos . 2 to 5 applied to the Central Government for permission to close down their establishment in respect of their above contracts . The Central Government in its letter dated 27-1-2003 accorded permission to Opp . Party Nos . 1 to 4 to close down their establishment with effect from the date of cessation of their contractual period i.e. from 28-2-2003 . But in respect ofOpp . Party No. 5 no such order was passed at the earliest under the belief that the said Opp . Party No. 5 has renewed his contractbeyond 31-8-2002 even through the said Opp. Party had already stopped his work after the cessation of the contractual period from 31-8-2002 . However on a subsequent representation the Central Government accorded permission about seven months later in its letter dated 8-5-2003 . Since all the above activities took place 8687 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
during pendency of an Industrial Disputes bearing No. Tr . I.D. 24/2001 between the Petitioner - Union and the Opp . Parties for adjudication of dispute whether the contract labourer engaged in the establishment of Opp . Party No. 1 are entitled for equal pay for equal work with that of its regular employees and whether their services need to be regularized under the establishment of Opp . Party No. 1 , the Petitioner -Union filed the present application under section 33 - A against all the contractors and the Principal Employer for a direction to all the Opp . Parties not to close down their establishment .
3. At the very outset it may be pointed out here that, Section 33 -A of the I.D. Act has been designed to provide instant remedy to workmen against employer's harassment and victimization on account of their having raised an Industrial Dispute or their continuing the pending proceeding and while dealing with such application the Labour Court or the Tribunal have been vested with ample power to deal with such matter as it would have exercised in on a reference under Section 10 of the Act . In view of the above, it is for the Workman/Union to prove that the action oftheManagement in closing down its establishment is in violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act .
4. For our purpose Section 33 ( 1 ) ( a) is only relevant and as such the same is quoted hereunder .
Section 33 ( 1 ) ( a)-During pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an Arbitrator or a Labour Court or before a Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect ofan Industrial Dispute no employer shall :
(a) In regard to any matter connected with the dispute alter to the prejudice of the workman concerned in such dispute the condition of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding.
5. Thus to bring the act and action of the Management within the purview of Section 33 - A, it is to be proved that (i) the present action of the Management has got sufficient nexus with the pending dispute and that ( ii ) the same is likely to alter /change the service conditions of the workman which he was enjoying prior to commencement of such Industrial Dispute in Tr . I.D. 24/2001.
engaged in Purunapani Lime Stone and Dolomite Quarry of Opp. Party No. 1. are working since above 15 years under different contractors and as such they are entitled for equal pay and regularization at par with the regular employees of Opp . Party No. 1. In the above case it has further been alleged by the Union that through sham contractors these workers have been engaged through out . This suggests that the Opp . Party No. 2 to 5 ( the Contractors) have simply been made proforma parties even though they have nothing to share with the claim of the Union, when the entire term of reference is directed against theOpp. Party No. 1, the so -called Principal Employer. This itself is sufficient to hold that the Contractors -Opp . Parties No. 2 to 5 are in no way connected with the above claim of the Union and as such by closing down their establishment they are not going to bring any change in the service conditions of the workers or taken away the right which was available to the workers prior to the commencement of the above Tr. I.D. Case No. 24/2001 . From the terms of reference of Tr. I.D. Case No. 24/2001 it is clear that the same is not in respect of any existing right or service condition but in respect of a chance right . Besides the Union is also found to be guilty of not naming the workers who are deprived of regularization or equal pay for equal work. In other words the terms of reference being of general nature and the same having been based on a chance claim the Opp . Parties No. 2 to 5 can not be prevented from closing down their establishment on cessation of their contractual period . The various orders of the Central Governmentwhich the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 5 have filed indicates that after the Union was intimated of the intention of Opp . Parties No. 2 to 5 to close down their respective establishment , the Central Government have permitted these Opp. Parties to close down their establishment after cession oftheir contractual period . The evidence on record shows that the Contractors ( Opp . Parties No. 2 to 5) not being interested to renew their existing contract had applied to the Central Government for permission to close down their establishment after the existing contractual period is over . The said order of the Government having not been challenged before the proper authority, it would be a travesty ofjustice on the part of this Tribunal to direct the Opp . Parties not to close down their establishment on a complaint under Section 33 - A of the I.D. Act filed by the Union when they have already closed down their establishments under the orders of the Government much before filing ofthe complaint under Section 33 - A. As such I find no merit in the claim of the Union .
7. Accordingly, this Misc . Case is dismissed being devoid of any merit and it is without any cost under the facts and circumstances of the case .
8. Order is pronounced in the open Court today i.e. on 10th June 2005 .
N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer 6. A reference to Tr. I.D. Case No. 24/2001 shows . that the same is pending for adjudication as to whether the contract labourers engaged for years in the establishment ofPrincipal Employer (Opp . Party No. 1 ) are entitled for equal pay for equal work with that of its regular employees and whether their services are needed to be regularized under the establishment of Opp. Party No. 1. The above reference was originally directed against Opp. Party No. 1 the SAIL. But subsequently Opp . Party No. 2 to 5 were added as Parties by the Tribunal on the prayer of the Union . It is alleged by the Union that the contract labourers 8688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2708.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन ऑयल कॉर्पो. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 392/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30012/16/2004- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th July, 2005
S.O. 2708. In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 392/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corpn . Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005 .
[No. L -30012/ 16/ 2004 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 1st December , 2004 Present:
SHRIK. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 392/2004 (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of Contractor , IOCL and their workmen) Between
Sri R. Karunanidh
: IParty/ Petitioner AND
:
SriB. Selvarajan,
IIParty/
Contractor, Chennai
Management Appearances :
: None
Forthe Management
For the Respondent : Mr. J. Narayanamurthy, Advocate.
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 30012 /16/2004 - IR(M) dated 09-08-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The schedule mentioned in that order is - "Whether the action of Sri S. Selvarajan . Contractor for IOCL in terminating the services of Shri R. Karunanidhi w.e.f. 7-9-2003 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? " 2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 392/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties . Though the Petitioner in person appeared at the first instance, and the case has been adjourned thrice for filing Claim Statement of the I Party/Petitioner , he has not filed the same and there was no representation on his behalf, hence the I Party was called absent and set ex- parte.
3. Though , the Respondent has entered appearance through an advocate , they have not filed any objection in this dispute and remained absent . Therefore , the Respondent was also called absent and set ex - parte .
4. Since both parties to the dispute have remained absent and were set ex- parte, ' No relief award' is passed in this industrial dispute.
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected andpronounced by me in the open court on this day the 1st December , 2004. )
K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2709.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 98/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-7-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/123/93- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th July , 2005
S.O. 2709. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 98/93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on4-7-2005.
[No. L- 12012/ 123/ 93 - IR (B - II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .
8689 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT -1 ,
CHANDIGARH
Supreme Court on the principle of ' no work no pay ' . It is further averred by the management that in view of the provisions of the Bipartite settlement disciplinary authority vide order dated 24/25-2-93 dismissed the workman from service of the bank from the date of his conviction .
Case No. ID 98/93
OrganisingSecretary,
4.Workman filed the rejoinder controverting the contentions ofthe management in written statement .
...Applicant
PNB Employees Association , 398 , Sector 20A, Chandigarh .
VERSUS
5.To prove their case , both parties led oral evidence. Workman examined himself as WW1 and management examined one witness Shri Dalbir Singh. Both parties also filed written arguments in support of their claim .
Manager, Punjab National Bank ,
Sector- 17B, Chandigarh
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman :
Workman in person
Sri Ashok Sharma
For the management:
AWARD
Passed on 14-6-2005
The Central Government vide No. L- 12012/ 123/93- IR-B - II dated 2nd of September, 1993 has referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of PNB, Chandigarh in dismissing the services of Shri Ram Lal , clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 25-2-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date ?"
2.Workmanfiled the claim statement stating that he was dismissed by the management vide letter dated 24-2-93 w.e.f. 25-2-1993 on the ground of convictionby the trial court of Shri I. J. Kaushik JMIC, Chandigarh. That the workman opted for appeal and was clearly discharged from the said case by the Court of Dr. B.B. Parsoom ADJ, Chandigarh on 14-5-96 . That after this the management reinstate him on -18-9-96 but the management had neither given him the previous benefits nor termed the service being in continuity. That the conviction of the workman was set aside by the Court and he is entitled for the benefits of arrears and all related incentives from 25-2-93 to 17-9-96 and also the departmental seniority.
6.Mainly contention of the management is that as the reference to be adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal is that whether dismissal order of the workman is legal and justified . If not to what relief the workman is entitledand from what date . It is urged on behalf of the management that workman did not refer to change/make correction in the reference . The reference is made on 2-9-93 and corrigendum was issued with reference to the date of dismissal on 23-9-03 i.e. after 10 years . He submitted that workman was dismissed on conviction from the date ofjudgment ofTrial Court from 25-2-93 and was reinstated on 18-9-96 . i.e. during the pendency of this case . It was the duty ofthe workman and incumbent upon him that on his reinstatement on 18-9-96 after the judgement of the appellate court , to get modified the reference , whether on his reinstatement , he was entitled of relief, now he is claiming which is beyond the scope of reference. As the relief claimed by the workman is beyond the scope of reference , he is not entitled to the relief claimed as workman could not prove that the dismissal of the workman was unjust and illegal. On the other hand the management has proved that under the Bipartite Settlement on conviction ofa workman, he is to be dismissed and on his acquittal in appeal he is to be reinstated and management compiled with the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. It is also not disputed by the workman that he is not to be dismissed on his conviction in an embezzlement case . It was within the powers ofthe management and also as per the Bipartite Settlement . Hence the management rightly dismissed him w.e.f. 25-2-93 as the correct date is legal and justified. Accordingly, the workman is not entitled to any relief because reference further state that " if dismissal is not legalandjustified, to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date " . In the present reference , the workman dismissal was justified and legal , so in the present reference this Tribunal to answer to the appropriate Govt. after adjudication upon in term of reference which is beyond the scope of reference to entertain the relief sought by the workman as he failed to prove that dismissal of the workman was illegal and after the judgement of the appellate court workman has to sought the modification of the reference or withdraw this reference and seek another reference from the competent authority in the 3. The management filed written statement stating thatworkman was suspended in view of his conviction on 13-10-1992 and was acquitted by the ADJ on 14-5-96. Upon his representation dated 31-5-96 , he was reinstated on 18-9-96 . It is apparent that Ram Lal already stands reinstated in service and according to the above reference made by the appropriate Government as to legality and justifiability ofthe order of dismissal earlier passed by the disciplinary authority has become in fructuous , and the reference may be answered accordingly. It is also denied on merits that Ram Lal is entitled to any benefits for the period 25-2-93 to 17-9-96 keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble 8690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8, 1927
present circumstances . Hence to adjudication upon the reference claim by the workman which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and it is beyond the scope of reference , workman is not entried as he failed to take necessary action and failure is not on the part of the management . Hence workman should suffer and he is not entitled to any relief as he failed to prove that dismissal was illegal and unjust and accordingly reference may be answered in favour of the management.
7. On the other hand , workman argued himself in person and also filed written arguments . Be submitted that as he was acquitted by the appellate court , he is entitled for all the consequential benefits and back wages and all service benefits as it is settled law that when conviction is set aside and a person is acquitted. He is deemed to be acquitted from the day one and the period of his conviction part can not be taken separately and thus.the workman is entitled for the relief claimed by him in the present reference . He also referred number of judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court and that ofvarious High Courts in his written arguments .
8. On the other hand , management authorised representative also referred several judgements in support ofhis contention in rebuttal of the case of the workman . In view of the above submission of both parties , made orally and my perusal of both parties written arguments as well as law referred, I have found that the present reference sent to this court for adjudication on 2-9-93 is on two parts. First part relates to whether action of the management of PNB Chandigarh in dismissing the services of Shri Ram Lal clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 25-2-1993 is legal andjustified. IInd part of the reference is a consequence of the decision ofthe first part and in IInd part if the termination is not legal and justified, what relief concerned workman is entitled and from what date .
9. The management has contested this case mainly on the ground that it is claimed through the written statement as well evidence and arguments that dismissal ofthe workman is legal and justified on the ground that it was done in complying of the Para 19.3 (b ) of the Bipartite Settlement between the bank and the Union which is as under:
"If he is convicted he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in Clause 19.6."
10. The contents of the management bank further are that when the dismissal was not bad. illegal and unjustified as it is done in complying of the settlement and under the provision of the settlement and if it can not be declared with dismissal was illegal and unjustified . The workman is not entitled for consequential relief. It is also contention of the bank that it is a well settled principle of
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] law that jurisdiction ofthis Industrial Tribunal is confined to reference and it cannot travel beyond the term of reference. In the present case from the term of reference it is quite apparent that what has been referred to this Tribunal is to examine the legality and justifiability of the order of dismissal dated 24/ 25-2-1993 passed by the disciplinary authority.
11. Further more the dismissal of the workman against which this reference was made was revoked on 18-9-96 and the workman was reinstated in service . I have also found that as in the reference , it was a mistake in date ofdismissal , workman approached the competent authority i.e. Ministry of Labour for correction in the date in reference dated 2-9-93 and vide corrigendum dated 1-10-03 , the date from 23-2-93 was corrected to 25-2-1993 and thereafter proceedings continued . In oral arguments , management AR also argued that it was incumbent upon the workman to get the reference modified as to whether workman is entitled for the wages and other consequential benefits for the period 25-2-1993 to 17-9-96 when workman remained dismissed. Both parties have filed judgements regarding workman eligibility to back wages on reinstatement or not , but I am of the considered view that these judgements of both parties in the present context are not applicable to the case unless dismissal is held illegal . Further there is oral arguments of the workman is that this learned court has powers to re - modified the reference and to decide the second part also as the first part has become infructuous .
12. In view of the above submissions and my perusal of the oral evidence and pleadings , I have found that workman dismissed on 24-2-1993 when he was convicted by the Trial Court on 13-10-1992 . Thereafter from the perusal of the present reference workman acquitted by the appellate court on 14-5-96 and was reinstated on 18-9-96 , and the workman sought the adjudication of the reference by this Court when workman himself argued in person submitted that the Tribunal - cum- Labour Court has vast jurisdiction and can decide to what relief at present the workman is entitled and from which date to which the management opposed on the ground that this Tribunal can only decide to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date if this Tribunal held that dismissal of the workman is not legal and not justified .
13. In view of the above my discussion , I am of the view that as regard the present reference, this court has to decide first whether action of the management in dismissing the services of Shri Ram Lal clerk- cum- cashier w.e.f. 25-2-1993 is legal and justified. Considering all the evidence and referred law and written statement and submission ofboth parties , I found that management has taken an objection in the written statement that as the workman stand in the claim Ratement asto legality and justifiability of the order firmissal earlier passed by the diciplinary authority has become infructuous, the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
reference answered accordingly. It is further pleaded that Ram Lal was convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude vide judgment dated 13-10-1992 and was inflicted punishment of rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine and in view ofthe provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, the disciplinary authority dismissed Shri Ram Lal from the service of the bank from the date of conviction. I also gone through the provisions of Bipartite Settlement and found that there is provision as agreed that on conviction a workman can be dismissed or may be given any other less punishment . In view of the above, I find that in the present case as the bank complied the provisions of Bipartite Settlement and on conviction dismissed the services of the workman in accordance with the Bipartite Settlement, the action of the bank is not bad, illegal and unjustified and dismissal is just and legal and justified. Accordingly this part of the reference is answered in favour ofthe management and against the workman that dismissal of the workman Ram Lal w.e.f. 25-2-1993 is legal andjustified.
14.As regard second part of the above reference i.e. ifthe dismissal not legal and not justified to what relief is the workman and from what date entitled . In this regard the contention of the bank management that it was incumbent upon the workman to get the reference modified and corrected after his reinstatement by management on his acquittal in appeal . It is settled principle of law and also not opposed by the workman that jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court is confined to the reference and this Tribunal can not travel beyond the term of reference . In the present case from the term of reference above it is quite clear that what has been referred to this Tribunal is to examine the legality and justifiability of the order of dismissal dated 25-2-1993 passed by the disciplinary authority and only thereafter this Tribunal can decide second part of this reference.
15. As I have held alerady above , that dismissal by the management was not illegal and unjustified and this court has to give consequential relief only from the decision of this court on first part, then only ifthe dismissal order held by this court as illegal and unjustified, second part of the reference , consequential relief to the workman ensuing from the first part, no relief can be granted by this court inthis reference and from what date . Accordingly in the present reference held that dismissal of the workman fromthe service of the bank w.e.f. 25-2-1993 was legal and justified, as a consequential relief it can be said that in the IIndpart ofthe reference, he is not entitled for any relief as it has been held by me above that dismissal is legal and justified. Further relief of ensuing wages etc. for the period he remained dismissed , this court cannot grant and held that workman is entitled a consequential relief of the main part ofthe reference. Accordingly this part of the reference also is decided in favour of the management that workman is not entitled to any relief under the present reference 2149 GI/05-51
8691 sent for adjudication as workman did not prefer it to modify by the competent authority New Delhi as the dismissal order was held above as legal and justified by me . The reference is thus answered in favour of the management . Central Govt .be informed. File be consigned to record .
Chandigarh.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005
का. आ. 2710.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 110/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -14012/48/92- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 5th July, 2005
S.O. 2710. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 110/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 1 Chandigarh , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-05.
[No. L- 14012/48 /92-IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 110/93
Shri Nasim Akhtar , House No. 193/1 , Mohalla Ram Kundi, Nahan (Himachal Pradesh)
Applicant
Versus
(1) The Garrison Engineer, MES , Chandigarh.
(2) The Assistant Garrison Engineer, ( Cantt . Area) Nahan. Respondents APPEARANCES
: Shri D.R. Sharma
For the workman
Forthe management : Shri Dinesh Nagar 8692
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
AWARD
as RIto R9 . The workman has worked only for 150 days and he is not entitled to any relief.
Passed on 10-6-2005
Central Govt . vide notification No. L - 14012/48/92/ IR (D.U. ) dated 16-9-1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
4. Along with written statement the management has filed muster roll i.e. attendance register for the month of March , April , May, July and again July , October and November only.
5. Workman filed rejoinder controverting the claim made by the management and reaffirming the claim statement .
"Whether the action of AG.E. , B/R Nahan in terminating the services of Shri Nasim Akhtar in the year 1987 is legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"
6. To prove its case workman examined himself as WW1 and management examined one witness MWI S.V. Dubey G.E. Air Force Chandigarh . Both parties in this manner examined only one witness in support of their case .
2. Workman in his claim statement submitted that he was matriculate and appointed as motor pump operator now known as Pump House Operator on 13-2-1986 and continuously worked along with other regular employees . To show the evidence to this effect photocopy of each of the duty roaster is annexed and marked as documents A to K respectively. He submitted that from the persual of these duty roasters it shows that workman performed the same duties at par with regular employees, but was paid on daily wages . Services of the workman were terminated in the end of Jan. 1987 without complying the provisions of I.D. Act 1947. The workman had completed 240 days from Feb. 1986 to Jan. 1987 as is evident from record from Feb. 1986 to Jan. 1987 . Thereafter workman raised industrial dispute and reconciliation proceedings were failed and failure report is dated 30-11-1992 . In that report ALC in para 3 & 4 nentioned that reply filed by the management was not ategorical. Initially the management taken a plea that the workman had worked only for 150 days and in a subsequent reply filed on 23-9-92 it was mentioned that the workman was engaged on daily wages so his services got terminated automatically. Duty roaster from March 1986 to December 1986 were also produced before the learned ALC and the respondent No. 2 admitted that the duty roaster bears the signatures of MES officials . The workman was appointed vide order dated 13-2-1986 and joining report to that effect was submitted on 19-2- 1986. Further workman averred that since workman had completed 240 days excluding the off days , his services can not be dispensed with , without following the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25H of the I.D. Act 1947. Therefore , workman may be reinstated with full backwages along with interest 18% per annum .
7. Final arguments of both parties heard. Learned counsel for the workman, Sh . D.R. Sharma submitted that vide documents Ex . W14 , the workman was appointed as MPA on daily wages and Ex. W15 is his joining report . His services were terminated on 31-1-1987 without notice , without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman is to prove in this case only that ifworkman had worked for 240 days proceeding to the date of termination , he is entitled for the relief claimed. The workman also proved the documents Ex. W2 to W11 duty roasters showing the working days of workman except off days and with that off days if not counted coming to total 347 working days and with off days it comes to 380 days total working days . He further submitted that these documents Ex . W2 to W11 are admitted by the management as MW1 the only witness of the management has admitted in cross - examination that documents Ex . W2 to W11 are correct . MWI admitted the case of the management to the extent that he did not know whether new persons were appointed after the termination of the services of the workman. He also submitted that as this witness is ignorant admitted this fact that he did not know whether new persons were appointed after termination of the workman, hence there is no evidence of the management on this point and oral evidence of the workman should be accepted that other persons were appointed after the termination of the workman as management did not file any document and only witness examined by the management has denied having any knowledge that management appointed new persons after termination of the workman or not . He has shown his ignorance and non - production of any document in this regards could prove further that new persons were appointed after the termination of the workman. The workman in his cross - examination has deposed on oath as under :
3. Management filed written statement denying the claim of the workman as the management is not an industry. Management stated that claimant/ workman was engaged as MPA w.e.f. 19-2-1986 and he was not entitled for regular appointment . He was appointed on daily wages so his services came to an end automatically after the expiry of the period as his services no longer required after 15-1-1986, the claimant was engaged on muster roll, he had accepted the payment as is clear from the photostat copies of the attendance sheets attached
" I can give the names of junior persons and the names are Amrit Parkash , Vinod Kumar, Kuldip Kumar, Kuldeep Singh , Jai Parkash but I can not 8693 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
upto 15-11-86 hence reference may be answered in favour of the management .
tell the date of joining of each of them . Subsequently the juniors were terminated but they were re-employed and made regular. I called them juniors because they were recruited after termination of my services . "
10. In view of the above submission and my perusal of documents proved by the workman and also admitted by management which as correct , I found that Ex . W3 is a document which is not disputed by the management, the failure of conciliation report copy of which was sent to both the parties and this report was sent to the Ministry of Labour for sending a reference . In this report I found that management has accepted before the Labour Commissioner that log book/ attendance register in respect of workman is not traceable. However he admitted that duty roaster bears the signatures of their official and even in 1992 during the conciliation proceedings the attendance register of the workman was not produced before the Labour Commissioner and they taken a plea that this attendance register is not traceable of the workman. On record in evidence I have also found that management only witness MW1 S.V. Dubey, Garrison Engineer Air Force Chandigarh on oath in cross -examination admitted that " it is correct that duty roaster are prepared by the office of AGE with regard to the posting of daily wager . Documents Ex . W2 to W15 are correct . No notice was given to the workman before termination of services . I am not aware whether new persons were appointed after termination of the services of the workman . "
8. From the above deposition of the workman and there is no suggestion that no junior or new persons were employed or engaged or re-employed , the workman has proved his case. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that in written statement the management has only submitted that workman only worked for 150 days . Concealing vital facts that workman worked in Dec. , 1986, October 1986 and Jan. 1987 and August 1986 for 24 days but that the only witness examined by the management ,ment , the highest officer admitted that documents of the workman Ex . W2 to W11 which are duty roaster October 1986 to Jan. 1987 are correct and although it is also correct that are not the attendance register but it is a roaster chart deputing the workman for the duty in months given in the duty roaster. He also submitted that even before the ALC( C) the management admitted that the attendance register i.c. log books are not traceable. However admitted only that duty roaster bears the signatures of his officials . He submitted that when the management has shown and deposed before the Labour Commissioner that attendance register for the relevant periods are not traceable , thereafter only evidence left available Ex . W2 to W11 which the workman has filed and which proved that workman has worked for more than 240 days and therefore , the reference may be answered in favour of the workman .
9. On the other hand in reply to the submission of the workman advocate , learned counsel for the managementment Shri Dinesh Nagar who submitted that in this case as the workman did not worked for 240 days from the date of his termination in preceding year and worked only for 150 days , there is no necessity of complying with the provisions of Section 25F & H of the I.D. Act , 1947. The workman did not produce the relevant record of attendance of workman and it is the duty of workman and it is a settled law to prove that workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination . It is the duty of workman to produce the log books i.e. attendance register which was not produced by the workman and has worked only upto 15-11-86 for 150 days only. He also submitted that when workman did not submit attendence register /log books and did not prove these documents persumption should be drawn against the workman that he did not work for 240 days as date oftermination 31-1-1987 and preceding a calendar year he worked only for 150 days . He submitted that there is no documents to prove that workman completed 240 days and management is not liable to make compliance of Section - 25F and H of the I.D. Act . He virtually worked
11. Further I have found that workman has filed alongwith his affidavit documents Ex . W2 to W15 documents which include 12 duty roasters which bears name of Nasim Akhtar. Ex. W13 is the failure report of the Labour Commissioner wherein management has taken a plea in conciliation proceedings that attendance register i.e. duty log book is not traccable . Joining report of the workman Ex . W15 is not disputed and is correct as workman joined on 19-2-1986 . On the other hand management also filed copies of attendance register for some months only. From perusal of these photo copies ofthe attendance register it is revealed that workman did not work for certain months . But his name existed in duty roaster and therefore attendance register in original were not produced and stated to be not traceable even in 1992. To counter the plea of the management , workman has filed duty roaster upto Jan. 1987 and has submitted that in case the workman has not worked his name should not come in the duty roaster after 15-11-1986 and to evade giving reply management has pleaded that they have lost the original attendance register and not produced. It is fact that earlier in 1992 workman served a demand notice . Management has taken this plea before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C). It is settled law that workman has to prove that he worked for 240 days from the date of termination preceding one year and now even as agreed by the parties during the arguments , it is pleaded by the 8694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
management that as workman did not work for 240 days and was a daily wager his services automatically stand finished and there was no violation of provisions of Section 25F & H of the I.D. Act 1947. On the other hand it is a case of the workman that he had completed 240 days and that as the original attendance register of the workman are not traceable , the workman can only produce the secondary evidence which are the duty roasters and these duty roasters are duly admitted to be correct by the management's witness .
12. In the circumstances , I am of the considered view that the main point remains to be adjudicated upon his whether workman has completed 240 days . The workman has produced his evidence , documents Ex. W2 or W11 and these documents are correct and bears signatures of the management's officials . The management has also given calculation in the affidavit but on persual of even affidavit I found that management has relied and referred and proved only six duty roaster and even in written statement they have stated that workman has no case since the claimant was engaged on daily wages and his services came to an end automatically after expiry of service after 15-11-1986 . He has accepted appointment as is evident from photocopies of the R1 to R9 muster rolls , attendance sheets to annexure R1 to Re. I thows that there was nine muster rolls attendance sheets of workman , management has filed photocopies of only six and has given no explanation where three other muster rolls/ attendance sheets have gone . The contention of the management are quite clear in affidavit of the MW1 proved on record, they have wed only six muster rolls instead of nine and thusmently alleging that workman worked only for 150 days but they did not produce originals of these attendance register and also did not file copies of three other attendance register of which workman filed duty roaster .
13. The point of workman is convincing and having a great force that in case the workman worked only for six months as per copies of six attendance register and the management admitted existence of three other duty roaster bearing signatures of management officials to be correct . It is not disputed by the management . If the calculation of the workman is accepted, he has completed 240 days . Further more as regard non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F and H of the I.D. Act that juniors were kept employed , the workman has given names of the juniors and only witness of the management to rebutt is this that witness is not aware, whether new persons were appointed after the termination of the services of the workman. This is also an evassive answer and it can safetily be taken that management is concealing to bring truth in Court. Non- traceable of the record in the Govt . Office where officials are duty bound to maintain and keep in safe custody, when the management has taken a plea that these are
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
১ not traceable, certainly irrestible conclusion is that they deliberately not producing . Further when the record is not traceable with the management and they did not care to keep it since in the year 1992 when demand notice was served and ALC( C) served summon and the management produced photocopies of muster roll / attendance register clearly shows that record was in the custody of the management and they did not produce it deliberately and do not want to produce it in the court. Agreeing with the contention of the learned counsel for the workman . I hold that as the management concealed the record and did not produce the same before this court on the ground that they are not traceable , only the secondary evidence is to be accepted and relied upon and relying on the evidence which workman has filed, I hold that workman has worked for more than 240 days from the date of his termination in the preceding 12 calander months and it is also admitted by the management's witness who is the highest officer in the office that no notice was given to the workman before terminating his service, I am of the considered view that management did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F and H of the I.D. Act as no retrenchment compensation was paid and no notice was given. Further juniors were appointed after termination of the services of the workman. I am therefore , of the considered view that management did not comply provision of I.D. Act and failed to proved the reference that action of the AGE , B /R Nahan in terminating the services of Shri Nasim Akhtar in the year 1987 is legal and justified. On the other hand workman proved that action above was not legal and not justified.
14. As I held above that action of the AGE B /R Nahan in terminating the services of Shri Nasim Akhtar in the year 1987 is not legal and not justified and management has not complied the Section 25F & H of the I.D. Act 1947 which were mandatory, the above termination is void abinitio and the workman is entitled to be reinstated. Therefore , the management is directed to reinstate the workman on the post on which he was working before the termination in the year 1987.
15. As regard full back wages which the workman has claimed . In claim statement he did not mention and claimed in his affidavit Ex./W1 and also in his evidence in court not proved that he was not gainfully employed , I am of the considered view that he is , therefore , not entitled for full back wages with interest @ 18% and he isonly entitled 50% of the back wages without interest . The reference is thus answered in favour of the workman. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record .
Chandigarh. RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2005
का. आ. 2711.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी.एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 113/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-7-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42012/65/92- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 5th July, 2005
S.O. 2711.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 113/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.B.M.B. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2005 .
8695
भारत काराजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
terminating the services of Shri Jasbir Singh son of Shri Tarsem Lal , w.e.f. 31-12-1991 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
[No. L-42012/65/92- IR (DUJ
KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH Case No. ID 113/93
.Applicant Jasbir Singh C/ o Shri R.K. Singh , President, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh , Nangal Township (Punjab )
Versus
Respondent Chief Engineer, BBMB , Nangal Township , District Ropar(Punjab)
APPEARANCES
2. Workman filed claim statement wherein he averred that he was appointed as skilled mazdoor on 10-7-87 on daily wages and continuously worked till 31-12-1991 when his services were terminated which according to the management is due to completion of work in Bhakra Mechanical Division . That he is a workman and the management is an ' industry' . That the management did not maintain the seniority list of his category before effecting the termination in view of Section 25G of the I.D. Act, 1947. That the management had been able to succeed in retaining a number of juniors to the workman in violation of Section 25G and the names are mentioned in para 3 of the demand notice . That one month notice which is pre -condition to the retrenchment has not been served before effecting the termination and retrenchment compensation was also not paid that workman was never called for re - employment although quite juniors were retained /fresher were recruited in employment and the management thus indulged in unfair labour practice and his seniority was also not fixed at proper place and he is unemployed since the date of his termination. He prayed for his- reinstatement with full backwages .
Shri R.P. Rana Advocate
For the workman :
For the management : Shri R.C. Atri
AWARD
Passed on 10-6-2005
Central Govt . vide notification No. L-42012/65/92- IR-DU dated 20th of September, 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief Engineer, BBMB , Nangal Township Distt . Ropar in 3. The management filed written statement denying the contentions of the workman and admitted that workman was employed as skilled mazdoor w.e.f. 6-9-88 to 5/89 and 7/89 on specific work in Bhakra Mechanical Division Nangal . Due to completion of specific job for which daily rated workmen were employed , a large number of workmen had to be retrenched with one month notice and one month notice was served upon the workman on 30-6-89 and retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs . 285/ - was offered vide letter dated 1-8-89 which was not received by the workman. During notice period , workman approached the Punjab . & Haryana High Court through writpetitioner No. 9546/89 and got status quo and was allowed to continue upto 31-12-1991 when the interim order was passed by the Hon'ble Court on 30-10-1991 . Again he was served on month notice vide letter dated 28-11-1991 . It is denied that juniors were retained in service of the category of the workman . Services of the workman were terminated after serving one month notice vide letter dated 28-11-1991 . Retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 285/- was also offered on 31-12-1991 which was not accepted which was again sent through cheque on 2-1-1992 which was received back undeliever from the postal authorities . Seniority 1 of the daily wages employees has been maintained in accordance with the instructions . The workman has not any justified ground to get employment as the department has retrenched the 8696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY- 30 , 2005/ SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )] workman after complying with the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947.
4. Workman filed rejoinder controverting the contentions of the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the claim statement .
3
worked from 1987 till December 1991 as skilled mazdoor on daily wage basis and period of working of workman from 1987 to 1991 was not denied by the management . The contention of the management that he worked due to the status quo granted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court . He also submitted that junior continued and workman was retrenched and the management violated the provisions of Section 25 of the I.D. Act 1947.
5. To prove his case , workman filed his affidavit in evidence and management filed the affidavit of MW1 Ranjan Kumar Sharma SDO BBMB Nangal.
7. Learned counsel for the workman Shri R. P. Rana further submitted that case of the workman is that workman worked from 10-7-87 to 31-12-1991 continuously. Hc completed 240 days in a calendar year and further that period workman worked in compliance of the stay order of Punjab & Haryana High Court is to be counted and therefore , he is entitled for the relief claimed . He was never given re - employment nor he was paid retrenchment compensation and no notice was given to him.
8. In view of the above submission and my perusal of the oral evidence and pleadings of the parties, I found that as per the learned counsel for the parties the dispute is very short whether extended period rendered by the workman upto 31-12-1991 by virtue of interim order passed by Hon'ble High Court can be counted for the counting/ completion of 240 days in one calendar year or not. It is admitted case of the parties that cut out date i.e. and show cause notice was served upon the workman on 30-6-1989 and by offering payment of Rs . 285 retrenchment compensation to the workman till 30-10-1991 when the Hon'ble High Court vacated stay, again show cause notice for retrenchment and that a cheque of retrenchment compensation due up to 31-12-1991 during this period interim order was applicable. The learned counsel for the workman Shri R.P. Rana vehemently argued that extended period of working must also be considered for the purpose of completion of 240 days and this period can not be excluded and applicant is entitled to retrenchment compensation and the management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. Therefore , the applicant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits . He relied on the admission of the management that workman worked upto 31-12-1991 may be in the garb of and because of stay of the Hon'ble High Court.
6. Final arguments heard . Learned representative of the management submitted in arguments that this Tribunal earlier also decided number of cases on this point and that whether extended period rendered by the workman , while workman was allowed to continue in service also there was no work for Jasbir Singh and remained in employment upto 31-12-1991 due to the stay order granted by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. That the above stay order was vacated by the Hon'ble High Court on 30-10-1991 as admitted by the workman during his cross - examination. Workman also deposed that he used to continue in service due to the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court . The competent authority has referred dispute before this Court for adjudication in which date of termination is given as 31-12-1991 . Taking date of termination number ofdays put in by the workman are to be counted in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination. Since Jasbir Singh remained employed for continuously 12 months from the date of termination due to stay order granted by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and this period to be taken for counting the number of days put in by the workman with the management . He also referred to the Award dated 10-6-02 of this Court given in I.D. 10/2001 Mohinder Singh Vs. The Chief Engineer , BBMB BSL Project Sundernagar (copy filed) . He was also given one month notice on 28-11-1991 and he was also directed to collect retrenchment compensation amount of Rs . 285. The workman also admitted in his cross -examination that he worked with the BBMB as skilled mazdoor during 1992- 93 for 102 days and in 1993-94 for 61 days . He also referred the cross - examination of the workman wherein workman admitted that he worked in the BBMB as skilled labour from 9/88 to 6/90 . He used to continue in service due to stay order . Authorised representative of the management also submitted that as the claim of the workman based on the period he worked despite no work for him with the management due to the operation of stay granted which was vacated in 1991 and that period is to be counted and if not counted the workman has not completed 240 days and he is not entitled for any relief .
9. I have found on the other hand, management has relied on the authority of Hon'ble High Court in LPA No. 958/2002 in Amended CWP No. 17469/1998 and the management has filed the certified copy of the above judgment of the Hon'ble High court. I have found that in this judgment the Hon'ble High Court has held that challenge in the present appeal is to order dated 16-1-02 recorded by learned Single Judge in CWP 17469/98 by which the writ petition filed by the respondents herein 6. On the other hand learned advocte Shri R.P. Rana for the workman opposed the contention of the A/R of the management and submitted that workman [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
seeking regularization of service was allowed holding that:
" I do not subscribe to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that a person who had put in three years service should be considered for regularization as per the terms of the policy. Admittedly, the petitioners have put in three years service though under the interim orders of this court . Therefore , they are entitled to be considered for regularization as per the policy dated 23-1-2003 . "
10. It is not disputed during the course of arguments in LPA that relief asked by the respondents has been given only on the ground that the respondents had put in three years service . The three years aforesaid includes the period, under which the respondents had worked on account of order of interim stay during pendancy of the writ petition . This court is of the firm view that the position with regard to continuance of an employee for a specified period entitling him to regularization of the service has to be seen on the date when the petition is filed and the period for which the employee works by virtue of ad - interim stay granted by the court can not be counted towards the requisite period.
11. Hon'ble High Court also referred the Division Bench judgment of this High Court in Gurpal Singh Vs. State ofHaryana and others ( 1993 -I) P.L. R. 232 wherein also it is held by the Hon'ble High Court that in other words , the petitioner can not , in such a case , be permitted to add on the period of his continuance in service by virtue of an interim order passed by the High Court, and to thereby fulfill the requisite length of service to claim regularization of his service .
12. On perusal of file and evidence on record , I have also found that workman has wrongly in claim statement that he was appointed as skilked mazdoor since 10-7-87 and that he has never been called for re- employment although quite juniors were retained and fresh workmen recruited I referred the cross -examination of workman wherein he admitted that " it is correct that I worked with the BBMB as skilled Labour during in 1992-93 for 102 days and in the year 1993-94 for 61 days . It goes to prove on record that workman was also given employments though periodical as available with the management in two years for two times . Further management's witness MW1 Ranjan Kumar Sharma also deposed on oath that workman was appointed in September 1988 and he worked intermittently up to 1991. Workman was placed at serial No. 47 in the seniority list Ex. W4 and the names mentioned in Ex . W4 are juniors to the workman and at the time of termination of the workman these person were in service but they were in different category.
13. In view of above my discussion and submissions of both parties and my perusal for record,
8697
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
documents and pleadings , I have found that contentions of the advocate of the workman Shri R. P. Rana that extended period of service due to the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court can be counted and by virtue of this he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Further on perusal of the affidavit of the workman, he stated in his affidavit that a notice was served on 30-6-89 on him and he approached the Hon'ble High Court and got the interim order in his favour . He also submitted in his affidavit that retrenchment compensation of Rs . 285/ - was not adequate which was offered to him along with notice dated 30-6-89 served uponhim.
14. I have found that workman was served a notice of termination on 30-6-89 and that after that he worked up to 31-12-1991 for more than two years continuously only due to the existence of the stay order obtained by him against the management and the stay order was vacated by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 30-10-1989 and again he was served with a notice and paid a cheque of retrenchment compensation . From the above evidence and documents ofthe workman, it is quite clear that management served notice upon the workman on 30-6-89 and thereafter on 31-10-1991 and that he was offered to payment of retrenchment compensation. I have also found that contention of the management are that workman was deputed as skilled labour on daily wages on casual work which was completed on 30-6-89 and that workman was offered retrenchment compensation with notice above and thereafter his services were retrenched on 31-12-1991 . Excluding the period he worked under the existence of stay order of the Hon'ble High Court against the management and excluding this period, he is not entitled for any relief as also admitted by his advocate and the contention of the workman are that this period, should be included and he has so completed 240 days and workman should be reinstated with full backwages .
16. In view of the above . I hold that management has proved in view of the judgment of the our own High Court referred above that this period is to be excluded and workman can not get any help of this period and this period should not be counted for any help to the workman in completion of mandatory 240 days in one calendar year preceding one year to the date of termination and that he was given employment 2 times Accordingly, I hold that the action of the management of ChiefEngineer, BBMB, Nangal Township Distt. Ropar in terminating the services of Shri Jasbir Singh son of Shri Tarsem Lal , w.e.f. 31-12-1991 is legal and justified. Further as I hold above part of the reference in favour of the management , that their action of termination was legal and justified, I further hold that workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered in favour of the managment. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.
Chandigarh
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 8698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
नई दिल्ली , 7 जुलाई, 2005
का० आ ० 2712.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. I धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12 ऑफ 1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-7-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-12012/143/97 - आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th July, 2005
S.O. 2712. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( 12 of 1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , No. I. Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-7-2005 .
[No. L- 12012/ 143 / 97 - IR (B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d)( 2A) of I.D. Act. Reference No. 12 of 1998
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Ranchi . AND Their Workmen
Present : SHRI S. PRASAD Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers : Shri R. N. Ganguly . Advocate .
For the Workman : None
STATE: Jharkhand INDUSTRY: Banking Dated , the 30th June , 2005
AWARD
By Order No. L - 12012 / 143 / 97-1.R. ( B - 1 ) dated 1/3-4-1998 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub - sec . ( 1 ) and Sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the State Bank of India Management Asstt . General Manager - in transferring Sri D.K. Kar frequently within a short span of time
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] and not considering his application to transfer him back at Jamshedpur where his wife is working was proper and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
2. On 23-6-2005 none appeared on behalf of the concerned workman . But Shri R. N. Ganguly, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the management filed a zerox copy of letter by which it appears that the concerned workman had already taken V.R.S. in the year 2001. In such circumstances it is needless to keep this reference pending further.
3. Accordingly, I pass a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .
S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई, 2005
का० आ० 2713.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 23-4-2004 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना , जिसके द्वारा सी जी आई टी- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़- I , चंडीगढ़- II , और दिल्ली-1 , के क्षेत्र संबंधी अधिकार क्षेत्र निर्धारित किए गए थे, का अधिक्रमण करते हुए यह निर्णय लिया गया है कि वे औद्यागिक विवाद जिनका न्यायनिर्णयक चंडीगढ़ के सी जी आई टी- सह - श्रम न्यायालय I और II , द्वारा किए जाना अपेक्षित है , उन्हें अब सी जी आई टी- सह - श्रम न्यायालय I और II , के बीच समान रूप से बांट दिया जाएगा और उन्हें न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु तदनुसार भेजा जाएगा । यह भी निर्णय लिया गया है कि सी जी आई टी-सह- श्रम न्यायालय - Ⅰ , चंडीगढ़ सम संख्या वाले सभी औद्योगिक विवाद सी जी आई टी- सह- श्रम न्यायालय II , चंडीगढ़ को स्थानांतरित करेगा ।
[फा. सं० ए-12030/1/2004- सी एल एस- II ] प्रकाश ताम्रकार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 11th July, 2005
S.O. 2713. In pursuance of this Ministry's Notification of even number dt . 23-4-2004 vide which the territorial jurisdictions of the CGIT-cum- Labour Courts at Chandigarh - I , Chandigarh - II and Delhi - I had been fixed, it has been decided that the industrial disputes that will be required to be adjudicated by the CGIT -cum- Labour Courts- I and II of Chandigarh , shall henceforth be distributed between the CGIT - cum- Labour Courts - I and II at Chandigarh evenly and referred to them accordingly for adjudication. It has also been decided that the CGIT - cum- Labour Court - I , Chandigarh shall transfer all industrial disputes bearing even number to the CGIT- cum-Labour Court- II , Chandigarh .
[ F. No. A- 12030/ 1/ 2004 -CLS - II ] PRAKASH TAMRAKAR, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2005
का० आ ० 2714.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार फडरेल बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी आर सं . 2/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-7-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-1202/ 228/2004 - आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
:
8699 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005/ श्रावण 8 ; 1927
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
the said mis- conduct or what are the relief entitled to the above workman" .
New Delhi , the 13th July, 2005
Onreceipt of the above said reference before this Tribunal, notice to both sides were issued by registered post. Claimant and respondent accepted notice and entered appearance through their respective counsel.
S.O. 2714.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (CRNo. 2/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Federal Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-7-2005.
The claimant-Workman filed his claim statement and respondent later filed written statement . No rejoinder for the claimant. On a perusal of the contentions of parties , I find that there is no need for raising any ancillary issues over and above the issue referred .
[No. L- 12012/ 228/2004-IR(B-I) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
As suggested by the counsel of both sides respondent Bank produced the enquiry file from their custodyand witness list attached with that file.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, A2 KARITHALA LANE, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN -682016
(Dated this the 30th day ofJune , 2005)
Present:
Shri N. RAJENDRAN, PresidingOfficer
C. R. No. 2/2004
When the case posted for evidence , as agreed by both sides , the enquiry file was marked as Ext . M1 on consent, without examining the Enquiry Officer who conducted the domestic enquiry. Later it is found that the enquiry file produced after giving copy to claimant contained another file, which produced as part oftof enquiry file, which are the steps and actions ofdisciplinary authority, appeal filed against punishment imposed on claimant worker; the order ofappellate authority in the said appeal; and report ofConciliation Officer to Government of India, whenhis conciliation attempt failed.
Between
Shri . K. Hashim,
Represented by the General Secretary Federal Bank Staff Union Bank Junction, Aluva-683101 .
And
Thedocumentearlier marked is only this domestic enquiry file without knowing the availability of other file which attached with Ext . M1 . So fresh opportunity given to both sides to file witness schedule if any as well as producing documents for the decision of this reference . But no separate witness list or documents filed by any side, apart from the enquiry file produced at the initial stage . Onconsent ofboth sides , the second file which contained documents No. 2 to 10 stated in the list of witness attached withExt. Ml file . Separately marked as Ext: M1 (a) . No other evidence adduced from either sides .
The Chairman The Federal Bank Ltd; HeadOffice, Federal Towers , Aluva -683101 .
Representations:
1. Shri Ashok B. Shenoy
2. Shri Abu Mathew Advocates for Respondent .
1. Shri K. Anand
2. Smt. Latha Krishnan Advocates for Management .
AWARD
Thus the evidence now before this Tribunal for passing award on the issue referred, consists of Ext . M1 domestic enquiry file and Ext.M1 (a), which contain steps and actions taken by the disciplinary authority, together with the appeal preferred by the claimant worker against the final order ofdisciplinary authority. Also contained the report ofA.L.C. , Cochin after his conciliation, to Government of India. In Ext:M1 file contained the occular evidence recorded in domestic enquiry of MW1 to MW3 . Also containedExt. El to E5 , ME1 to ME14 and Ext. DE1 andDE 2.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , by Order No. L- 1201/228/2004 -I.R. (B- 1 ) dated 30-09-2004 referred a dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. , Head Office Aluva and their workmen under Section 10( d) ( 1) and Section 10 (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) for adjudication and passing award of an issue, which was raised from their respective contentions of Management, and worker and the same is referred to this Industrial Tribunal for giving the award. The issue raised and referred read as:
Thisevidence recorded by domestic enquiry officer by examining three witness on the side of Management before him anddocuments marked during the examinations in the presence of claimant and respondent can safely be taken as evidence recorded as in a case where evidence recorded through a commissioner appointed as provided orderXVIII ofC.P.C.
Both sides were heard coleberately. For a better appreciation it is worthy to State in brief how this dispute arose and now the above said issue referred for award by the Government of India to this Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court.
"Whether the punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the scale of pay imposed to Shri . K. Hashim for committing an act of misconduct ofgross negligence by Federal Bank Ltd. is proportionate or not? Ifnot what is the appropriate punishment for
2149G1/05-52 8700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005/SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
the enquiry Officer . The domestic enquiry file reveals that the officer has followed. Procedures and examined the witnesses MW1 to MW3 at the presence of both parties and representative of Management and claimant. No denial of any opportunity is seen from the records . examination in chief and cross examinations are seen done without any objections. So the 1st submission of claimant counsel is devoid of merits . The Argument whether the finding is perverse can be considered while considering the referred issue for award . Regarding the argument of respondent admittedly reference is not U/s . 11 A of I.D. Act . But the argument this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the referred issue from the Central Government is without substance . This tribunal is duty bound to pass an award on the referred issue independently and not as a Court of appeal .
The Claimant Shri . K. Hashim is a Bankman of FederalBank Ltd. branch at Badagara . The Federal Bank Ltd. is the respondent in this reference . The local collection of cheques is one of the duty among other work assigned to Shri K..Hashim, the Bankman , who wasworking in Badagara branch of Federal Bank Ltd. , during June 2002. One Mr. V.J. Lukose is a customer of the Federal Bank . He entrusted two Government cheques for a total amount of Rs . 4,03,374/- in April 2002, which were presented to sub-treasury and obtained token and kept with the Bank since it could not be encashed due to government ban for certain items of payment. On 28-6-2002 it is confirmed by Mr. Lukose that the payment for the said two token will be made on 29-6-2002 . On 29-6-2002 at about 11.45 a.m. the Bank Manager sent Shri Hashim, the Bankman to S.B.T. Badagara for surrendering the two tokens received on the cheques of Mr. Lukose for getting their proceeds credited in the account of Federal Bank with S.B.Τ. Badagara . But Shri Hashim returned from S.B.T. only at 1.30 p.m. and informed that the token could not be encashed as he reached there late . When he was asked about the reason for his late , the worker Hashim become agitated and left the Manager's Cabin closing the door forcefully and by murmuring . Shri Hashim was late in reaching S.B.T. before the close of business hours , since he had appropriated that time for his personal purpose and there by committed lapses and omission of serious nature which prompted the Bank authority to take disciplinary action. Initially show cause memo issued and on dissatisfied by the expianation submitted by the worker, charge memo issued by the disciplinary authority and finally the impunged order of punishment imposed on the worker. The claimant filed appeal before the appellate authority, but failed. The conciliation attempt also failed . The A.L.C. Cochin, who conducted the conciliation, on seeing the failure , wrote the matter to Government of India , which resulted in the present reference.
Then I shall consider the relevant referred issue in the light of available evidence before me. The definite case of respondent Management Bank is that the claimant . The bankman Shri Hashim was entrusted the duty ofcollecting the proceeds for the two treasury token received on the government cheque presented with Federal Bank by its customer Mr. Lukose in April 2002 and the encashment from S.B.T Badagara was dragging due to State Government ban for certain items of payments during this period . When it known that the payment for the above said two token will be encashed on 29-6-2002 , Shri Hashim was sent to S.B.T. Badagara with that two token to get the proceeds credited in the account of Federal Bank and he was set from the bank at 11.45 a.m. on 29-6-05 . It is also admitted that it is a Saturday. But the worker claimant returned onlyat 1.30 p.m. without encashing by presenting token by stating that he reached late at the bank . The claimant worker taken another definite stand that there is no negligence onhis part and on that day he was highly engaged from 10 a.m. onwards for doing several items of duty, and out ofthree bankman in the office , one was on leave on that date and he has to discharge more work on that day and he was engaged in other work from 10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and he was sent to S.B.T. Badagara branch with the two token only at 12.30 p.m. and business hours on government transaction at S.B.T. Badagara is only up to 12 noon on all Saturdays and there is no negligence onhis part . He also set up the case that he returned not at 1.30 p.m. but at 1.15 p.m. With these two different cases we have to appreciate the evidence to pass the award.
The learned counsel for the claimant covers his argument by referring the business hours on government transaction on Saturday in S.B.T. Badagara, and trying to show that the finding of guilt of claimant is perverse . It is argued that main evidence is over looked and important part of evidence relied upon for entering a finding of guilt . The counsil also refers the clause 6 , 7 (c) and clause 8 in the Bipartite, Settlement dated 10th April, 2002 between BA and AIBEA , NCBE and INBEF. The learned counsel for the respondent bank argued that reference is not maintainable . Since punishment is not one come under Section 11 (A) and so the Before evaluating the procedures adopted and evidence for answering the referred issue for award i shall consider the main arguments raised by both sides generally. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant Worker(CSE) argued that there is no valid charge against the claimant in the enquiry proceeding and the finding against the claimant is perverse and it is against natural justice . The learned counsel for respondent Management Federal Bank Ltd. , argued that this reference is not under Section 11 (A) of I.D. Act and thus this tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the present reference . As regards the argument regarding the non- availability of a charge against the claimant , counsel of claimant could not pointed out substance to substantiate this contention. Ext . E2 is dated 31 July, 2002 issued by respondent to claimant for showing cause for not proceeding against the negligence and alleged misconduct on the part of claimant . Ext . E3 is the explanation given by claimant . Ext . E2 order of Management after considering Ext . E3 to proceed further against the claimant . Enquiry is ordered and appointed [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
proportionality of punishment cannot be considered by this tribunal and interference if any justified only when the punishment is shocking and argued to justify the legality of proceeding and imposition of punishment which is now become the subject matter of reference in this case . Admittedly punishment imposed is not one which covers S11 (A) of I.D. Act . But that will not a justification for restricting the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal in passing awards independently in the issues referred from Central Government . This tribunal is not sitting in appeal against the punishment imposed by respondent Management but bound to arrive a legal finding in the dispute between Management and his workers.
I have at the out set stated the evidence before this tribunal for passing award on the issue . The claimant when taken a definite case that he was sent with two token to S.B.T. Badagara for crediting proceeds in the account of Federal Bank maintained at S.B.T. Badagara, only at 12.30 p.m. 29-6-2002 , which is beyond the business hours in government transactions on Saturday at S.B.T. Badagara, and so there is no negligence on his part and also to justify he has returned at 1.15 , which is by taking only minimum time needed for going and returning from S.B.T. Badagara. Initial attempt on the part of claimant is to show that he was otherwise engaged for Bank matters from 10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and there was no time to direct himto go to S.B.T. with 2 token at 11.45 a.m. as alleged. The claimant for justifying his stand tried to show that he went to S.B.T. for remitting cash alongwith K.P. Raju , clerk and after returning from Bank he was sent to post office and also he was directed to go to treasury. He also claims that he had attended counter duty, when there is absence of one Bankman by name Asoken . MW1 to MW3 categorically denied the claim of claimant that he was sent for treasury duty on that day. No evidence also produced by claimant to justify that contention . The above contentions are taken to make it appear that there isno possibility of sending the claimant before the closing of business hours on Government transaction at S.B.T. Badagara on 29-6-2002 , which is Saturday. Thus the crucial questions is to see what is the legal evidence available , to find the correctness of these two different cases . That is one of claimant and other of respondent .
The counsel for claimant initially pointed out that there is in - consistence regarding the time when initially the claimant gone to S.B.T. Badagara for remitting case with C.K. Raju. MW1 to MW3 gave evidence that it is at 10.15 a.m. but in Ext. D1 while is copy of relevant page of cash in transit register of Federal Bank Ltd. which contained the entry dated 29-6-2002 . The time of transit ofK.P. Raju on 29-6-2002 is seen entired as 10.50 a.m. MW3 pointed out that there is correction in the numerical number ' 5 ' . When it is admitted that claimant went to S.B.T. alongwith Mr. K.P. Raju and returned to Bank in the morning and he had attended other work before sending with the two token for crediting the proceeds in the account of respondent , the difference in time on this aspect is irrelevant since the enquiry is not regarding the correctness of entry in Ext . D1 . Thus the crucial question 2149 Gl /05-53
8701
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
is the time when claimant was sent to S.B.T. with token. Regarding the business hours on government transaction in S.B.T. Badagara MWI version is from 10.00 το 12.30 p.m. Ext . ME3 is a letter of respondem bank to Assistant General Manager, H.O. Always dated 22-7-2002 where in it is shown that on Saturday working hours of S.B.T. Badagara is 10.00 a. m. to 12.30 p.m. This is only a self serving document . On the side of claimant marked Ext . D2 which is the copy of certificate issued from S.B.T. Badagara. Showing the working hours of the Bank where in it is shown that for Government transaction it is between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon . Moreover when examined MW2 , who is the Manager (Adm. ) of respondent Bank admits in cross examination that on Saturday the business hours for Government transaction is 12'O clock. ( Page 37 ) in Ext . C1 file . So , that is to be accepted and found that the business hours on Saturday for Government transaction is only upto 12.00 noon.
When the claimant has no case that he was sent to S.B.T. at 11.45 a.m. and there was no time to reach at Bank in time by walk, Ext . , D2 also got no much help for the claimant . MWI to MW3 gave evidence that 15 minutes are sufficient to reach S.B.T. from Federal Bank by walk, which is not disputed during the cross examination or any of the statement filed by the claimant so far. MWI to MW3 categorically gave evidence that the claimant was sentwith two tokens to S.B.T. for crediting the proceeds in theaccount of respondent at 11.45 a.m. Even though these three witnesses were freely cross examined at length for the claimant, no iota of substance brought out to disbelieve this version or even to make some suspicion as regards the time of sending . MW3 is the Assistant Manager who handed over the token to claimant for collecting the proceeds . MW3 gave evidence fully supporting the case of MW1 . He was cross examined at length by the representative of claimant in the domestic enquiry. In the searching cross examination relevant defence of the claimant also put as a suggestive questions . The questions and answers of MW3 is convincing and natural and it cut the root of defence taken by the claimant . Even in chief examiriation he has given evidence that he is the custodian oftreasury token received and two token in the cheque in the name of customer Mr. Lukose handed over to claimant at 11.30 a.m. and further gave evidence that at his memory, claimant left S.B.T. Badagara before 11.45 a.m. Further he gave evidence that on 29-06-2002, he did not sent the claimant to treasury on that date. It is the admitted case that MW1 send the claimant at 11.45 a.m. to S.B.T. for crediting proceeds of the token obtained for the cheques surrendered by customer Mr. Lukose .
The learned representative wisely put a question to MW3 , assuming that MW3 had sent the claimant to S.B.T. Buthe denied the suggestions . The relevant question and answer are relevant for finding a legal answer. The question and answer read as :
Q. "At what time he (CSE) was sent out on 29-06-2002 with the treasury cheque ? " 8702
THE GAZET TE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
justice in the proceedings against the claimant by respondent management .
Answer is " It was not with the treasury cheque , but with the token that CSE was sent out on 29-06-2002 . "
The attempt of claimant side to bring some answer that the claimant was sent on that day to treasury but that attempt stands disproved, when there is no other evidence also produced on this respect . Further he says that on 29-06-2002 he had not received any token from treasury. It is also brought out in the cross examination of W3 itself ( Page 59 ofExt . C1 ) that CSE returned from post office before 11.30 a.m.
follow: The question and answer are relevant which read as
"Q. At what time was CSE sent to SBT for surrendering the token ? "
The answer is " I have only given the token. I have not deputed him to SBT. "
"Q. When was the token given to CSE ?
"About 11.15 a.m. "
Then again put a question that ,
"How could token be given to CSE by about 11.15 a.m. when he has left for post office before 11 a.m. ? "
Answer is " The coming and going time of the CSE is not recorded as a usual practice . There may be slight veriations , say 10 minutes or so."
The above evidence is sufficient to find further that claimant returned from SBT along with Mr. C.R. Raju after remitting money in SBT before 11 a.m. In short it is proved that claimant was at the bank at 11.45 a.m. as claimed by respondent . This is further enlightened in the answer of MW3 in a suggestive question put to him in further cross examination which contained in Page 62 in Ext . Cl file . It is worthy to extract the suggestive question and answer for appreciating the contention set up by claimant and respondent.
"Q. CSE states that Manager has told him to go to SBT for surrendering the token after the close ofbusiness hours at 12.30 p.m. on 29-06-2002 . Which was conveyed to Bijoy at the same time. Isit not right ." ?
The answer of MW3 is :
"Only a part of it is right CSE came to me and said he is entrusted to surrender the token at SBT by the Manager. " It was about 11.30 a.m. I gave the token to him .. "
(The underline is given by this tribunai ) .
Though the disciplinary authority had complied the procedures to be followed before imposing punishment by a final order, it is the legal obligation on the part of this tribunal to appreciate the entire facts and evidence to see whether the punishment imposed is just and legal to the offence if any committed and whether the punishment is proportionate or not , by considering the offence committed and see what is just and legal punishment when considering the nature of the offence committed . Those questions are one referred as issue for award from the Central Government . So we have to look the facts revealed so as to weigh the gravity of offence committed by claimant. Of course, claimant is a bankman and in Banking business all workers have to be worked with almost responsibility and earnestness and the timely discharge of their work . Here is this case admitted by claimant is attending his duty from 10 a.m. onwards . He accompanied with C.K. Raju to SBT for remittance of money without any objection or reluctance . He returned from SBT and went to the post office to attend his duty. Also he received the token from MW3 at 11.15 or 11.30 at the direction of MW3 . He also went to SBT Badagara for surrendering the token and for crediting the proceeds in the account of respondent Bank with SBT Badagara without any objection or reluctance. Admittedlyhe was sent only at 11.45 a.m. At thisjuncture we have to look the nature of responsibility discharged by his superior officers namely MW1 to MW3 . it is admitted case of respondent that the tokens obtained for two cheques . Surrendered by a customers are with the Bank from April 2002. It is also admitted that customer Mr. Lukose informed the responded Bank , that the treasury passed the cheques since the Government ban on the payment was raised and bank will positively make payment on 29-06-2002. This information received on 28-06-2002 as well on the morning of 29-06-2002 . But the higher officers send the token with the claimant only at 11.45 a.m. Being Saturday bank business on Government transaction only till 12 noon , which is evident from Ext. D2 and from the deposition of MW2 . Moreover, the claimant was sent to some SBT Badagara at 10.15 a.m. with C.K. Raju for some remittance, but not taken care to send the two tokens in question with the claimant at that time. True though the claimant went to Bank SBT at 11.45 a.m. , according to his own case that has returned only at 1.15 p.m. and not given satisfactory explanation for collecting the proceeds after surrendering cheque . He had taken a defence that he was deputed after 12.30 p.m. , which is after business hours on Saturday at SBT Badagara . There was another charge against the claimant , which is seen given up by MWI , itselfwhile giving evidence . So though in the nature ofthe defence taken, the offence stands proved . Punishment proposed and subsequently imposed is not at all justifiable and not proportionate to the offence proved against him. So hereby set aside punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the scale of pay imposed to Shri K. Hashim , the bankman for committing an act of misconduct of gross Even after re - cross examination of MW3 nothing brought out to give any support to the case of claimant. So the argument that the finiding of respondent that claimant is guilty is without legal evidence and finding is perverse and without considering the evidence favourable to clainent is without merits . Finding of guilt of claimant is breed on legal evidence and there is no violation of natural
negligence.
8703 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30 , 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, A2 , KARITHALA LANE , KARSHAKA ROAD , ERNAKULAM, COCHIN -682016
(Dated this the 30th day of June , 2005)
PRESENT:
Shri . N. RAJENDRAN , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 1/2004
Between:
Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram
Represented by the General Secretary
Lord Krishna Bank Employees ' Union
Nair SamajamBuilding
Chendamangalam -683 512..
By taking in to consideration of the act of negligence on the part of claimant in causing some delay in surrendering token in time before SBT. No direct evidence whether it is deliberate or accidental . But from the nature of defence taken gross negligence cannot be overlooked . It is also come out that on 1-7-2002 , the token in question in this case surrendered and proceeds credited. The customer complaint is also after 8 days. So in my view legal and proper punishment in this instant case is debarring one increment for 6 months without cumulative effect , so as to remind the claimant about the timely action expected from him in discharging duties in banking business field . All benefit forbidden to claimant as a result of nature of punishment imposed by respondent under the impugned order have to be given back to claimant other the effect of punishment ofbarring one increment for 6 months from the date of this order. Award passed accordingly.
And
(Dated this the day of 30th June , 2005)
The Chairman
N. RAJENDRAN, Presiding Officer
M/s . Lord Krishna Bank Limited
APPENDIX
Express Tower, Kaloor .
REPRESENTATIONS
C. R. No. 2/2004
Advocates For Respondent
1. Shri H.B. Shenoy
Witness Examined on the side of the Management :--
2. Shri Ashok B. Shenoy
NIL
3. Smt Lakshmi B. Shenoy
Witness Examined on the side of the Workman :-
4. Shri Abu Mathew
NIL
5. Shri Anil Kurian Thomas
Exhibits marked on the side of the management :-
6. Shri Sobhan George
1. MI
2.M1(a)
1. Shri M. Pathrose Mathai Advocates - For Management
नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2005
2. Shri Rony. J. Pallath
AWARD
का. आ. 2715. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार लार्ड कृष्णा बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी आर सं. 1/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-7-2005 को प्राप्त .हुआ था ।
[सं० एल-12012/ 211/2004- आई. आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 13th July , 2005
C. R. No. 1/2004 of this Central Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court is one registered on receipt of a reference No. L - 12012/ 211 / 2004- C.I.R . ( B - 1 ) dated 30-9-2004 from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi about the dispute existed between Shri Shanmugha Sundaram an employee of M/ s . Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.. Kaloor and the emplover Bank M/s . Lord Krishna Bank . The employee Shri Shanmugha Sundaram is a member of Lord Krishna Bank employees Union , Chendamangalam . This dispute is in respect of a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect to Shanmugha Sundaram by the Management alleging that he had stolen 3DD leaves and thereby committed misconduct of" doing act prejudical to the interest of the Bank " , while working at Erode branch of Management Bank.
as: The issue referred for adjudication and award read S.O. 2715.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( CR No. 1/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court. Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-7-2005 .
[No. L - 12012/211 /2004 - IR (B - I ) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
"Whether the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect to Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram by M/ s . Lord Krishna Bank Limited, Kaloor was correct justified legal or not ? If not , what relief he is entitled to ? " 8704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30, 2005 / SRAVANA 8 , 1927
Onreceipt of reference the same registered as C. R. No. 1/2004 before this Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court and notices were issued to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel . Claimant union filed detailed claim statement and respondent Management thereafter filed Reply statement. No rejoinder for claimant . From their contention there is no ancilary issue arise.
Respondent management Bank produced the enquiry file against the employee Shri S. Shanmugha Sundaram. The witness list also filed by Management .
The short facts revealed from the contentions of parties are as follows:
Shri Shanmugha Sundaram is an employee ofM/ s . Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. , Kaloor with Roll No. 830. On 25-7-2001 he was working as a clerk , in the Branch Office Erode . On 25-7-2001 while authorising the issue of four demand drafts with serial numbers 69677 , 69678 , 69679 and 69681 written by Shri Shanmugha Sundaram it came to the notice of Shri . G.B. Narasimham, Assistant Manager ofthe Bank that the D.D. leaf No. 69680 was missing . On asking about the missing D.D. leaf No. 69680 , Shri Shanmugha Sundaram stated that he did not know about it . On further verification ofthe D. D book of 50 leaves with serial numbers 69651 to 69700 , the Assistant Manager had found out that two other DD leaves " 69692 " and "69696 " were also missing from D.D Book . Which was to draw DDs on the branches of Federal Bank on places where Lord Krishna Bank has no branch . It was also noticed that D.D leaf 69693 was attached with D.D leaf 69694 with the help of a very small piece of cello tape. Deputy General Manager, Audit and Inspection , investigated the matter and questioned Shri Shanmugha Sundaram. Qts and circumstances brought out in the preliminary enquiry the Management bank took the view that Shri . Shanmugha Sundaram had stolen the D.D leaves but he could not utilise the stolen leaves as the loss of D.D leaves was informed immediately to all the consigned branches of Federal Bank . The acts/ omissions on the part of Shri . Shanmugha Sundaram is one involving dishonesty such as theft , fraud , criminal breach of trust etc. and it would amount to the misconduct of "doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank " . On this basis bank decided to hold enquiry in the charges levelled against Shri . Shanmugha Sundaram clerk of the Bank . Enquiry officer as well as presenting officer were appointed by the respondent Bank . " Proceedings of Asst . General Manager ( Personnel ) disciplinary Authority served to Shri Shanmugha Sundaram .
Before charge sheet dated 6-11-01 issued to the workman, he was issued with memo dated 4-9-01 by DGM- Auditregarding loss ofD.D leaves requiring him to submit his explanation . The workman submitted his explanation on 20-9-01 . On dissatisfied with the explanation the management bank issued the above said charge .
The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and arrived a finding that " that the CSE is guilty of the charges in the charge memo served on" .
1
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] There after Assistant General Manager ( Personal) Disciplinary Authority issued notice to officer the comments of the worker on the finding of enquiry officer, within15 days of receipt of the notice together with copy offindings submitted by the enquiry Officer.
The employee Shri S. Shanmugha Sundaram filed his representation before the disciplinary authority on the finding of the enquiry officer into the charges levelled against him on 9-8-2002 .
After this the Deputy General Manager (Admt) by exercising the power of disciplinary authority conferred on him vide circular No. 14/98 dated 22-01-1998 on the reason that " at present there is no Asstt . General Manager (Personal) in the Bank after considering the findings of enquiry officer, the comments filed by the CSE passed an order of punishment that of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect . Later the Dy. General Manager (Administration) Disciplinary Authority reviewed his order of impositions of punishment by order dated 23-4-2003 and stated that he decided to have a review over the matter before finally imposing the punishment and to Mr. Shanmugha Sundaram a hearing before me regards the nature of the aforesaid punishment " . The CSE filed his reply on 30-4-2003 at sought opportunity for personal hearing. On 2-5-2003 submitted his defence in writing. After personal hearing final order was passed by disciplinary Authority. As per the final order the punishment imposed on the C.S.E. is .
"Stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect for the misconduct he is found guilty of" .
The claimant employee preferred an appeal before the appellate authority General Manager of Lord Krishna Bank, but failed .
Before this Tribunal the claimant employee , represented by the union Lord Krishna Bank employees union filed a detailed claim statement . The material contentions are as follows .
While working as a clerk at Erode branch of the management bank the workman was issued with a memo dated 4-9-2001 by the management bank , requiring him to submit in writing the incidents of loss of D leaves at Erode branch . On 20-9-2001 workman submitted explanation that he is noway responsible for the loss of D leaves. He is not the person entrusted with the custodian of D.D leaves at Erode branch and he has nothing to do with the loss of D.D leaves there . The charge alleging that he stealed the D.D leaves and committed act of misconduct of " doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank " under the provisions of the First Bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 Shri K. Sankar who was then the Assistant General Manager ( o ) in the institute of Training and Development of the bank was appointed as the enquiry officer and Shri S. Radha Krishnan, who was the Assistant Manager in the Law and Recovery department of the bank at its administrative office was appointed as the presenting 8705 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 30, 2005/ श्रावण 8 , 1927
officer . The enquiry officer , on the basis of the evidence in the enquiry submitted his report on 18-06-02. All opportunities were given to the worker. The workman was an employee of a banking institution dealing with public money. As a bank employee he was expected to maintain absolute integrity, devotion , diligence and honesty. The charge proved against the workman are of serious nature . The punishment imposed is legal , proper and just . The enquiry was conducted strictly adhering to the provisions ofBipartite settlement . The allegation that the enquiry was vitiatedby bias is denied , the bipartite settlement provides for nominating as officer of the bank as enquiry officer and not any outside as enquiry officer . There is no prohibition in the settlement that the enquiry officer should be superior to all the witness to he examined at the enquiry. Fair and full opportunity was given to the workman to participate on the enquiry and adduce evidence. The enquiry officer hasallowed to produce all the document found relevant to the enquiry. The allegation that the evidence on record on the enquiry does not substantiate the charges against the workman is denied . The punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect is proper and legal. The punishment given to workman is not disproportionate, harsh or excessive . There is no violation of clause 19.12 (c ) of the settlement dated 19-10-1966 . Hence prayed to reject the claims and contentions of the union against the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect imposed on Shri Shanmugha Sundaram .
officer . The enquiry hold in an unfair manner and in violation of principles of natural justice and hold the workman guilty of the alleged charges and misconduct on mere surmise and suspicion . Workman submitted his comments on the enquiry report . But without properly considering the submission, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increments for 3 years with cumulative effect without giving an opportunity of personal hearing on the nature of punishment . But by a letter dated 23-04-2003 the disciplinary authority of the Management Bank afforded the workman an empty opportunity of personal hearing and then by order dated 18-09-2003 imposed on the workman the punishment of " Stoppage if increment for a period with cumulative effect " upon review of the earlier punishment order dated 31-03-2003. Appellate authority rejected the appeal without proper consideration . The punishment imposed on the workman is illegal , unreasonable and unjust and it is also vitiated by bias . The workman was denied opportunity and permission to avail the assistance of a lawyer to defend him in enquiry, despite the fact that the presenting officer representing the management was a legally trained mind. Workman was also not allowed an opportunity to cross examine MW1 in the enquiry after re - examination , despite the fact that new evidence was brought in through re- examination . The workman was denied the opportunity to adduce evidence in proof of his innocence by declining to produce in the enquiry vital documents available in the exclusive custody ofthe management sought to be relied by the workman, in proof of his innocence . Workman is punished based on finding arrived at on pre -conceived notion deviating from an impartial adjudication of evidence on record and disregarding the relevant evidence on record. Evidence on record in the enquiry does not substantiate the charges against the workman . If at all it may amount only, "Minor misconducts " as defined in the First Bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 . The punishment imposed without considering circumstances in violation of clause 19.12(c) ofFirstBipartite settlement . In any event in the facts and circumstances of the case the impunged punishment is harsh and unfair. Hence prayed to set aside the punishment imposed on the worker and exonerate him of the charges levelled against him.
The only issue for consideration is the issue referred from the Government of India . Which I have stated earlier . Before this tribunal both sides adduced no evidence other then the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry and the other records in the enquiry report . At the consent of both sides the enquiry file produced from the side of management bank, which contained pages 1 to 124 marked as Ext . M1 . Though opportunity was given to both sides to adduce any further evidence before this tribunal , both sides not filed any witness schedule or adduced any evidence and this the evidence closed on 30-05-2005 . Thus the evidence now before the tribunal is Ext. M1 enquiry file, where in contained the oral evidence of MW1 to MW4, Ext . M1 to M5 on the side of Management, Ext . D1 to D7 on the side of claimant employee of the bank and Ext . El to E3 marked by the enquiry officer for the purpose of his enquiry.
Heard both sides elaborately the gist of allegation is . that Shri S. Shanmugha Sundaram is an employee of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. and on 25-07-2001 he was working as such in branch Erode of the bank and Shri S. Shanmugha Sundaram was the clerk in charge of writing D.D. for issue and on that day Assistant Manager while authorising the issue of four demand drafts with serial numbers 69677 , 69678 , 69679 and 69681 written by the CSE , noticed that the D.D. leave No. 69680 was missing. Also noticed on verification of the D.D. book of 50 leaves with serial numbers 69651 to 69700 , it is further found out that two other D.D. leaves 69692 and 69696 were also missing from D.D. book , which was meant to draw DDs on the branches Inthe reply statement of respondent management all the allegation in the claim statement are denied and stated the facts leads to the imposition of punishment on the worker . The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry complyingwith the principles of natural justice giving the workman full opportunity to defend himself. He was allowed to be represented by a union representative of his choice Mr. M. Devassy, Vice President, Federal Bank Employees Union represented him . The evidence of witnesses recorded inthe presence of the workman as his representative . The defence representatives cross examined all the management witnesses effectively at elobrately. The workman was afforded opportunity to adduce his evidence by the enquiry 8706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 30 , 2005 /SRAVANA 8 , 1927
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii)]
impressions that might reasonably be left on the minds of the party aggrieved or the public at large "
and further held that (In para 16)
"The tests of " real likelyhood " and reasonable suspician are really inconsistant with each other . We think that the review any authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it" .
The above referred decision also of not helpful for the claimant . Since the facts prove in this case , there is no reasonable reason for any bias .
ofFederal Bank on places where Lord Krishna Bank has no branch. On preliminarily enquiry it is found that Shri Shanmugha Sundaram , who was incharge of writing , D.Ds in the branch Erode is responsible for this loss of 3 DDs leaves and he has admitted theft of the same .After following the procedural formalities Shri Shanmuglia Sundaram, the employees of the bank found guilty for the charge alleged against him . by the enquiry officer after a full fledged enquiry. As stated earlier in the domestic enquiry MWI to MW4 were examined at the presence of CSE and his representative who is Mr. C.M. Devassi , vice- president , Federal Bank Employee Union . A perusal of claim statement would show that the claimant employee admits the proccedures adopted by the Management for holding guilty ofthe charge levelled against him . But the claimant's definite case is that the entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated and proceeded with on a pre - concocted assumptions and it is vitiated by bias . Also there is a defence that the enquiry is conducted by violating natural justice and also he was denied the opportunity of engaging a lawyer for representing in the enquiry and further the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and without any legal evidence against him . On perusal of evidence and records I find that there is no procedural irregulately in endering the finding of guilty by the enquiry officer who conducted the domestic enquiry and recorded evidence . The enquiry officer who imposed punishment initially committed an error in passing the punishment that error was subsequently corrected by reviewing his order imposing on the CSE without affording and opportunity to be heard on the proposed punishment .
In the facts of this case clause 12 in Bipartite settlement dated 10th April , 2002 in directly applicable . The denial of engaging a lawyer to defind the CLC in domestic enquiry is not a ground for bias . The case that the management engaged Shri S. Radhakrishnan , who was then the Assistant Manager in the law and Recovery Department of the bank as the presenting Officer , the claimant is entitled to engage a lawyer for defending him in the enquiry . Admittedly he is not an advocate or a prosecutor and not a person legally trained mind. "Having a law degree is not sufficient is hold that he is legally trained mind person" . So it is to be found that the domestic enquiry ways conducted without any bias . There is a case for the claimant that the enquiry Officer denied the opportunity to cross examine MWI after re - examination on perusal I am satisfied that there is no new points brought out in the said re -examination. There is no case that no opportunity given to claimant and this representative to cross examine MW1 to MW4 and no case that MWI to MW4 were examined not at his presence . Full opportunity is seen given . So the case the enquiry was in violation of natural justice is also without merits . Then we have to look to the evidence to see whether the charge is proved . This being trial court , we have to appreciate the evidence independently.
The learned counsil appearing for the claimant argued that the enquiry was vitiated by bias as much as it is imposed in gross violation ofprinciples of natural justice . This argument in based on a statement that the enquiry officer who had held enquiry into the alleged charges against the workman is an officer inferior to the investigating officer, who had conducted the investigation into the alleged - charges . The learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon . High Court of Kerala in V. Abu Sali Vs The Commandant and Ors . reported in 1995 ILJ page 547 and the decision of High Court of Allahabad in Ajay Pal Singh I's District Panchayath Raj Adhikari , Ferozabad and Ors. reported. III ILJ Page 799. Both these decision are not atall applicable to the facts of this case and both decision referred are not one touching a domestic enquiry and the enquiry made as per the disciplinary action and procedure therefor under Bipartite settlement . The 1st case referred in respect of enquiry on a complaint made by an Assistant Commandant against the subordinate and it is one relating Central Reserve Police Act . Both decision referred have no application in this case . Counsel also referred the decision ofS.C. reported in AIR 1973 S.C. page 2701. In para 15 it is held by S.C. that
Apart from marking the enquiry file an Ext . MI.on consent of both sides , no witness or no new documents produced by either side . So the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry is the evidence before this tribunal to find the question whether the finding of guilt on Shri Shanmugha Sundaram is with legal evidence . The enquiry officer had examined for witness before him and recorded evidence . MWI to MW4 were seen examined at the presence of claimant employce and his representative MW1 to MW4 , were seen examined at the presence of claimant employee and his representative MW I to MW4, were cross examined on the side of claimant elaborately. There is an argument for the claimant that the officer who conducted domestic enquiry decline request of the representative of claimant be permit him to cross examine on re - examination made on MW1 . I have gone through the re -examination of MW1 and found there is no defect in the stand taken by the enquiry officer. Further what is clarified in re- examination is not taken an evidence to find the claimant guilty to the charge levelled against him . MW1 is the Asstt. Manager at Erode branch of respond bank during the time of accurance in this case . Ext . M2 is the D.D. book . from "The question then is whether there is real likely- hood of bias existed is to be determined on the probabilities to be inferred from the circumstances by Court objectively or upon the basis of the 8707 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 30, 2005 / श्रावण 8 , 1927
clearly pointed out the clear guilt of the claimant . Mr. Karthic was examined before enquiry and he faced, chief examination as well as the searching cross - examination on the side of claimant. No evidence what so ever brought out to disbelieve MW2 . The evidence given by Mwl . MW3 and MW4 appears to convincing and it is natural . The claimant did not bold enough to figure as a witness to testify his versions. It is admitted by MW1 that D.D. books used to keep in double lock system and this book is used to take it out for preparing D.D. and, the book so taken is kept in a box behind the officer who is in charge of writing D.D. The possibility oftaking a leaf without the knowledge of other staffs , are denied by MW1 , MW3 and MW4 . On the evidence and circumstances brought out in their case through the examination of MW1 to MW4 during domestic enquiry, the only legal conclusion that can be drawn is the guilt of claimant . No other inference is not at all legally possible . Thus the irresistible conclusion is the charge against the claimant stands proved and finding of the enquiry officer is correct and no other interference is need inthis count .
Regarding the punishment imposed, though there was an error happened from the hands of MW4 in imposing punishment it is seen corrected subsequently. He initially imposed punishment without affording the CSE an opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence . But that is subsequently corrected by reviewing his first order and giving the CSE the opportunity to heard . The punishment finally imposed, in my view is highly reasonable when considering the nature of offence ; committed . Hence no interference in the nature of imposition of punishment bythe enquiry officer is justified in this case . So the finding ofthe enquiry is found to be just and proper and claim is therefore dismissed. Award is passed accordingly.
(Dated this 30th day of June , 2005) N. RAJENDRAN, Presiding Officer APPENDIX CR. NO. 1/2004
Witness examined on the side of the Management NIL Witness examined on the side of the Workmen NIL Exhibits marked on the side of the Management 1. CI
which , three D.D. leaves are alleged to be removed by the claimant . The claimant employee Shanmuga Sundaram denied his liability and set up a case that he was not the custodian of D.D. book and he is no way responsible for the alleged loss of D.D. leaves and further suggests that, the book is the access of others and also tried to attribute the act with a temporary employee Mr. Karthic, with the loss ofD.D. leaves . This D. Karthik was examined at the enquiry as MW2 . MW3 is the Chief Manager at Erode branch of respondent bank Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. MW4 is Sri . T. Paramassivam , who investigated the case in the enquiry. I have at the very outset noted that Mwl to MW4 were cross examined for the claimant worker at length. The claimant had made a suggestion that there were negligence onthepart ofMW1 , MW3 and MW4 and in order to cover up the same, this case is foisted on him. It is very significant to note that the claimant has no case that he was not the person, who put in charge of writing D.D. during the month July, 2001 or on 25-07-2001 . Also got no case that he is not the person who wrote D.D. having numbers 69677 , 69678 , 69679 and 69681. When he wrote 4 D.Ds he could have w noticed the missing of one leaf leaf. Which is 69680, ana ne could have brought to the higher authority before writing D.D. No. 69681. This is self is sufficient to find that the claimant is in full knowledge about the missing D.D. No. 69680 and wisely wrote the next D.D. No. 69681 as a continuous number of D.D. 69679. The evidence ofMW1 , MW3 and MW4 clearly brought out this fact . The allegation against Karthic totally denied by him while giving evidence as MW2 . A close scrutiny of the evidence of MW 1 to MW4 would prove that the claimant is responsible for the loss of D.D. 69680. It is also the case , apart from D.D. No. 69680, the 69692 and 69696 are missing on the inspection immediately after finding the missing ofD.D. No. 69680. From the evidence adduced it is brought out legally that D.D. leaf 69693 was attached with D.D. leaf 69694 with the help of a small piece ofcello tape . The claimant tried to say that he managed to paste it with by giving direction to temporary worker Karthic and tried to make a doubt that Karthic is the person is responsible for missing ofalleged D.D. leaves . But he MW2 denied the same and further in the evidence of Mwl , MW3 and MW4 it is brought out that the claimant while questioning disclosed about the pasting of D.D. leaf No. 69693 was attached with leaf69694 whom seeing the DD leaf 69693 is hanging in the D.D. book . If claimant is innocent in the matter he would have brought to the notice of his superior then itself. The total denied of claimant about these aspect and trying to put a blame upon the temporary worker . Mr. Karthic , would
Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .