1 - Shashikanta D/o Jawahar Lal Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Budbud, Tehsil v. 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office At
Case Details
1 / 6 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:14462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1551 of 2025 1 - Shashikanta D/o Jawahar Lal Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District- Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba Area, Korba (C.G.). 3 - Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba (C.G.). 4 - Collector Korba, District - Korba (C.G.). For Petitioner For Respondents/ SECL For Respondents/ State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. ... Respondent(s) (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board 26.03.2025 1. The State Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings 2 / 6 in the year 2005 for the 'Saraipali Open Cast Project of the respondent/Sub Area Manager, Saralpali, Open Cast Mining Project, SECL, Korba. The award of said acquisition proceedings was passed on 06.09.2007 in Land Acquisition Proceeding Case No. 10A/82/2004-05. There were a total of 856 land oustees. It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the family members of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. After the passing of the award, compensation was paid to the land custees by SECL, but employment was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 and not according to the Policy of 1991, which was prevalent at the time of land acquisition. According to the Policy of 2012, the land oustees having land less than 2 acres would not be entitled to get employment. The applications/representations of some of the petitioners have been rejected by the SECL authorities. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in existence at the time of land acquisition. There is a prayer made by the petitioner to quash the orders passed by the SECL authorities, whereby her claim has been rejected. 2. Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 3 / 6 would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. He would contend that a similar issue was raised in the mater of Pyarelal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others and connected matters passed in WPC No 3076 of 2016, dated 11-09-2017, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for rehabilitation/employment strictly in accordance with the Policy on the date of acquisition of her land within 45 days. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the SECL would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. They would further submit that some of the petitioners are not original land oustees. He would also submit that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, provides that if any of the land oustee has less than 2 acres of land, he would not be entitled to get employment. He would further contend that it would not possible for the SECL to provide employment to each and every affected family. He would also contend that the full and final compensation has already been paid to the land oustees. He would argue that this petition deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 / 6 documents. 5. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), a similar issue was raised and the Co-ordinate Bench in Para-65 of its judgment directed the SECL to provide employment strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy applicable on the date of acquisitions of land within 45 days. 6. In the present case, the proceedings with regard to land acquisition were initiated in the year 2005 and the award was passed on 06.09.2007 and at that time, the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 was in force. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was floated in the year 2012 and certainly, it would not attract the case of the petitioner. 7. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court in Para-65 held as under:- “65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 5 / 6 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation/employment strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.” 8. A specific query was made from the counsel appearing for SECL as to whether the order passed in the matter of Pyarelal (supra) has been assailed before the Superior Court or not. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the order dated 11.09.2017 has not been challenged and thus, it attained finality. 9. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), is categorically observed that the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21 and the Policy applicable on the date of acquisition of the land would be applicable, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities should consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in light of the observations made in the matter of Pyarelal (supra). The orders, if any, passed against the petitoner by the SECL is hereby quashed. The SECL/respondents are directed to consider 6 / 6 the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by verifying whether the petitioner has received the compensation amount in lieu of employment or not.
Decision
10. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. No order as to Cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat