Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:12593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2854 of 2018 Smt. Sukmat Bai D/o. Dular Sai Kanwar, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Bhathora, Post Bhilaibazar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L., Gevra Area Korba, District Korba (Chhatisgarh), 3 - General Manager, S.E.C.L., Gevra Area Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Staff Officer (Land Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba (Chhatisgarh). 5 - Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) And WPS No. 2863 of 2018 2 / 6 Budhwaro Bai D/o Dular Sai Kanwar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bhathora, Post Bhilaibazar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director , Head Office , Basant Vihar , Seepat Road , Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief General Manager , S E C L Gevra Area Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manager , S E C L , Gevra Area Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Staff Officer ( Land Revenue ) South Eastern Coalfields Limited , Gevra Area, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector, Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners For
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Respondents/SECL Mr. Atul Kesharwani and Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocates. For : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Respondent/State D.G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By way of aforesaid petitions, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents/SECL authorities to provide them with employment in lieu of the acquisition of their land as per the 3 / 6 Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in force at the time when their respective land was acquired. 2. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :- In WP(S) No.2854/2018 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent company to provide the employment to the daughter of petitioner namely Anita Kanwar in lieu of the acquirement of land by the respondent company. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate” In WP(S) No.2863/2018 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent company to provide the employment to the son of petitioner namely Ravi Kumar and Ravindra Kumar in lieu of the acquirement of land by the respondent company. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land of the petitioners bearing Kh. No.272, 369 & 376, total area 0.165 hectare, 0.202 hectare and 0.959 hectare total area 1.776 hectare situated at village Bhathora, Tahsil Kathora, District Korba has been acquired by the respondents/SECL authorities in the year 4 / 6 2004 and final award has been passed in the year 2013 but till date no employment has been given to the petitioner’s daughter in WP(S) No.2854/2018 and petitioner’s son namely Ravi Kumar and Ravindra Kumar in WP(S) No.2863/2018. Learned counsel further submits that as per policy dated 08/13-08-2002, a person to be eligible for obtaining employment in lieu of acquisition of land, a minimum two acres of land has to be acquired, therefore, the extent of land acquired from the petitioners being only 0.29 acres. Learned counsel also submits that as per para 3 (ga) of the Rehabilitation Policy of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh issued on 25.09.1991, such families whose entire agriculture land or residential land has been acquired, one candidate of such family shall be entitled for employment as third preference category. Thus, the said rehabilitation policy nowhere states that for seeking employment a minimum two acres of land has to be acquired. Learned counsel also submits that the policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002 makes such provision, however, a reading of the policy would indicate that the said policy does not have any statutory force, whereas the rehabilitating policy issued by the State Government has been issued for and on behalf of Governor. Since there is no legislation covering the said field, the policy has statutory backing in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the rehabilitation policy issued by the State Government would prevail upon the policy of the SECL. Learned counsel further submits that the identical issue has also been adjudicated and decided in the case of Rattho Bai and Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 432/2011 5 / 6 on 23.07.2015, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court settled the issue at para 6 and 7 holding that he rehabilitation policy of the State Govt./Central Govt. would prevail upon the policy of the SECL as well as Coal India Limited, but the respondents/SECL authorities have not given employment to the kin of the petitioners till date. Therefore, respondent/SECL authorities may be directed to provide employment to the kin of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondents/SECL authorities submits that the case of the petitioners have been considered, land compensation has been paid and employment nomination form has been issued to the concerned khataholder. However, the aforesaid petitions may be disposed off directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation/employment nomination form raising all grounds before the respondents/SECL authorities, which may be considered and decided in accordance with the policy and law thereof. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the land compensation has been paid and employment nomination form has been issued to the
Decision
petitioners, the aforesaid petitions are disposed off with direction to the petitioners to file a fresh representation/employee nomination form with regard to the employment before the respondents/SECL authorities within one month from the order of 6 / 6 this Court. The respondents/SECL authorities are also directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners with regard to employment as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months, in accordance with policy and law thereof. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the aforesaid petitions stand disposed off. No cost(s) Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE