Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. sections 209 & 210; [dr. arijit pasayat & aftab alam, jj] effect of failure to execute decree under section 209 of the act within period of limitation - held, to attract applicability of section 210 two conditions are required to be fulfilled if the decree holder of a decree obtained in a suit under section 209 of the u.p.z.a.& l.r. act has to loose his rights; first, he should fail to execute the decree within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, the person (claiming adverse rights) should take or retain possession of the disputed land. where there was conclusive finding of possession by the consolidation officer in favour of the decree holder, it was held that it was erroneous to overlook such finding and to hold that the person claiming adverse possession would be deemed to be in possession simply because the execution application filed by the decree holder was rejected as being time barred. - 2. learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned single judge of the patna high court in chandra bhushan v. state of bihar 2000(1)bljr686 .learned senior counsel points out that it was held in the case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant......the above judgment, the same learned judge has now held on 21.4.1997 that the application is time-barred. learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this court in director of education and anr. v. pushpendra kumar and ors. 1998 (2) pljr 181. he submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts.3. we are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. this court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood: in fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in director of education and anr. v. pushpendra kumar and ors. (supra). it is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. this is conceded by the petitioner. there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. the very basis of compassionate appointment is to sec that the family gets immediate relief.4. we are, therefore, unable to agree with the view expressed in chandra bhushan's case.for the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in this slp and the same is accordingly dismissed.