1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Udal Ram S/o Gopi Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram Ralia
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37047-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 424 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Udal Ram S/o Gopi Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Gram Ralia, Post Mudhali Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WA No. 425 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Ravi Shankar S/o Raghuraj Prasad Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram Podi, Post Mudhali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Khokhara, Tahsil Janjgir P.O. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 --- Respondent(s) WA No. 429 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhatisgarh, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Staff OfÏcer Land Revenue South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Area District - Korba Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Kirti Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Santosh Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sohagpur Police Station And Post Sohagpur, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhatisgarh 2 - Collector Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WA No. 431 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants(s) Versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Usha Sharma W/o Ram Sajivan Sharma Aged About 56 Years R/o Gram Bahanpath, District Korba Presently R/o Amarpatan, Block Colony, Satna Road, District Satna (Madhya Pradesh) 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba, (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 432 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel), Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Shiv Narayan S/o Gokul Prasad Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Podi, Post Mudhali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Khokhara, Tahsil Janjgir P.O. Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WA No. 433 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Moolchand S/o Faguram Aged About 46 Years R/o Gram Podi, Post Mudhali Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Khokhara, Tahsil Janjgir, Po Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WA No. 435 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattistarh District -Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager Gevra Extension Opencast Project Gevra Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) 4 Versus 1 - Manish Pathak D/o Narayan Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o Bahanpath Post Bhilai Bazar, Tahsil Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WA No. 487 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Director, (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area Disrict Korba Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Shrawan Thawait S/o Parmananda, Aged About 48 Years R/o Khokhra, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WA No. 488 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Lalaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WA No. 489 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, District Biilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager, Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Dileep Kumar S/o Lalaram, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector, Korba District Korba (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 491 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Director (Personnel), Seepat, Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gevra Extension Opencast Project, Gevra Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Balram Thawait S/o Sadaram Thawait Aged About 42 Years R/o Khokhra, Tahsil Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., --- Respondent(s) WA No. 528 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh 1 - Anita W/o Narad Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Budbud, Tehsil ---Appellant(s) Versus Pali, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba District Korba (C.G.) 6 WA No. 532 of 2025 --- Respondent(s) 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mines Project, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Korba area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Lalita Bai W/o Gopal Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, (through Video Conferencing) Senior --- Respondent(s) Advocate, Mr. V.R.Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Takeshwar Nath, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocates. For Respondent No. 1 / : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Mr. S.B.Mukherjee, Mr. Chandresh Writ Petitioners Shrivastava, Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Mr. Shishir For Respondent/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate Dixit, Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/07/2025 1 Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, (through Video Conferencing) Senior Advocate, Mr. V.R.Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Takeshwar Nath, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant-South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. 7 (for short, the SECL). Also heard Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Mr. S.B.Mukherjee, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Mr. Shishir Dixit, Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 2. 2 Based on the orders passed by different Benches, these appeals can be segregated into three categories, the first comprising of (i) WA/424/2025 which arises from order dated 06.03.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS/1545/2018, (ii) WA/425/2025 which arises from WPS/1546/2018, (iii) WA/429/2025 which arises from WPS/6898/2017, (iv) WA/431/2025 which arises from WPS/1562/2018, (v) WA/432/2025 which arises from WPS/1871/2018, (vi) WA/433/2025 which arises from WPS/1554/2018, (vii) WA/435/2025 which arises from WPS/1557/2018, (viii) WA/487/2025 which arises from WPS/2313/2018 and (ix) WA/491/2025 which arises from WPS/2326/2018. 3 The second batch comprises of WA No. 488/2025 which arises from the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPC/6303/2024 and WA/489/2025 arises from WPC/6322/2024. 4 The third batch comprises of WA/528/2025 which arises from the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPC/361/2025 and WA/532/2025 arises from WPC/345/2025. 5 6 Since the issues raised in these appeals are identical, they all are being considered and decided by this common judgment. The facts, in brief, so far as the first batch of appeals is concerned, the Central Government had initiated land acquisition proceeding in the year 2001 under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’) and in the aforesaid cases final award 8 has been passed. It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the family members of each land oustee as per the MP Punarvas Niti 1991 (for short, the 1991 Policy) issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, but employment was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 (for short, the 2012 Policy) 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 petitioners have filed these petitions 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 initiation of land acquisition. There is a prayer by some of the petitioners to quash the orders passed by the SECL authorities, whereby their claims have been rejected. 7 In the second batch and third batch of appeals, the facts as projected are that land acquisition proceedings was initiated by the State Government in the year 2005 for the ‘Saraipali Open Cast Project’ of the appellant/SECL. 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 appellant-SECL to provide employment to one of the family members of each land oustee as per the Policy of 1991, however, after the passing of the award, compensation was paid to the land oustees by appellant- SECL, but employment was offered according to 2012 Policy 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 9 land less than 2 acres were not entitled to get employment. The applications/ representations of some of the writ petitioners were
Decision
rejected by the SECL authorities. The writ petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment according to the Policy of 1991, which was in existence at the time of land acquisition. 8 The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties in all the three batches of writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeals, vide order dated 06.03.2025 (in first batch of appeals) and 15.01.2025 (in second and third batch of appeals) quashed the order passed by the appellant-SECL by which the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of employment was rejected and the appellant-SECL was further directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in light of the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this High Court in Pyarelal v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others {WPC No. 3076 of 2016, decided on 11.09.2017} as similar issues were raised in that petition also and the learned Single Judge had directed the appellant-SECL to provide employment strictly in accordance with the rehabilitation policy applicable on the date of acquisition of the land within 45 days. 9 With regard to the first batch of writ appeals, Mr. Tushar Mehta, (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. V.R.Tiwari, learned Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant-SECL submit that paragraph 5 and 8 of the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge {in WPS/1545/2018 and connected matters} suffers from illegality, perversity and error on face of record that the appellant-company contested the claim of the writ petitioners wherein it was categorically stated that the acquisition of the 10 entire village Ralia, Bahanpath, Bhilai Bazar, was concluded on 29/9/2009, for village Pondi on 16.11.2004, under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition And Development) Act, 1957 (for short, the CBA Act). As per the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 {for short, the CG R&R Policy 2007}, a District Level Rehabilitation Committee (DRRC) was constituted under the rehabilitation and resettlement policy of the State. Whatever has been decided by the Committee, has been provided. Since, there was a better provision of employment under the CIL policy, it was made part of the DRRC and the right and entitlement of the writ petitioners would be strictly as per the DRRC guidelines and not as per MP Punarvas Niti, 1991. During the course of hearing, the writ petitioners relied on the decisions of a learned Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Pyarelal (supra) and Rattho Bai & Another v. SECL & Ors {WPS/432/2011, decided on 23.07.2015} and other decisions followed them which laid down that the policy in force on the date of the acquisition of the land would be applicable. It is in this backdrop of the legal proposition laid down by this court that the petitions were to be disposed of. However, the learned Single Judge has erroneously applied the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 (i) of the CBA Act and not the date of acquisition under Section 9 or Section 11 of CBA Act to hold that the subsequent policy of 2012 was not in force. The finding recorded and the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material on record and the provision of the CBA Act and liable to be set aside. As settled, the right of the land outsees to be considered for the benefit of the rehabilitation and resettlement, would be governed in accordance with the policy which was in force on the date of acquisition or award passed thereof. In the instant case, the State Policy of 2007 was in force on the date of 11 acquisition of the land which was acquired under Section 9(i) of the CBA Act. Further, as per clause 1.2 of the said State policy, DRRC was constituted and the right and entitlement of the writ petitioners would be governed according to the settlement of the DRRC. The impugned order, in so far as, it holds 1991 State policy to be applicable in para 8, is contrary to the order passed in respect of the same acquisition in Writ Petition No. 1559/2018 {Bihari Lal v. SECL}, for the same acquisition wherein, the monetary compensation in terms of DRRC settlement dated 12.12.2010 was paid to the land outsee which is an alternate to employment and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, acknowledging and upholding payment and acceptance of compensation. Thus, there cannot be two contradictory policies for the same acquisition. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, so far as it holds that 1991 State policy would be applicable. The issue as to which policy would be applicable was never been argued during the course of hearing and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant- SECL or opportunity of hearing was granted to SECL/review petitioner to rebut the proposition of applicability of any particular policy. All the other land oustees except the writ petitioner, the case was considered under the Coal India Policy, 2008 as per the decision of DRRC and therefore, there cannot be a separate parameter or policy for consideration of the case of the writ petitioners under the 1991 Policy. The 1991 Policy nowhere provides for compulsory employment to land oustees. Para 3 of 1991 Policy says that employment shall be provided on the priority basis to the land looser, even in which Clause (b) says that the land loser who have more than 3 acres of non irrigated land or more than 2 acres of irrigated land shall be on the second priority for getting employment apart from other land loser. 10 In addition to the above, with respect to WA No. 487/2025 and 12 491/2025, Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant-SECL submit that when the award was passed in the year 2017, the 2007 Policy was in force and not the 1991 Policy and as per Clause 1.2.1 of the aforesaid policy, the 2007 Policy will be applicable to all projects in which proceeding of land acquisition is not completed like in the present case wherein, though Section 4 Notification was issued in 2001 but the acquisition was not complete as award was passed between the year 2011-2015. Under the 2007 Policy, the DRRC was constituted for deciding and considering the claims of employment and other rehabilitation benefit wherein, the writ petitioner was also represented, in its meeting dated 12.12.2010 decided to consider the cases of land oustees for grant of employment under the Coal India Policy which was in vogue i.e. Coal India Policy of 2008 which provided that one employment would be given for acquisition of every 02 acres of land in descending order system. The DRRC in its meeting dated 12.12.2010 has also observed Coal India Policy of 2008 provides for better employment opportunities, therefore, the claims for grant of employment has to be considered under the Coal India Policy, 2008. Meaning thereby, when the DRRC which has been constituted under the 2007 Policy having statutory backing has itself waived off the operation of Policy of 2007 and 1991 for which, the writ petitioner has also consented. Therefore, the finding of this Hon'ble Single Judge that 1991 Policy was in force and Coal India Policy was not in existence is an error apparent on the face of the record. The appellant-SECL in paragraph 13 of the reply filed before the learned Single Judge has taken the categorical stand in this regard. The learned Single Judge has wrongly observed at paragraph 5 of the order, that the 13 appellant-SECL, during the course of hearing have consented to the application of Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 or 1991 Policy. The issue as to which policy would be applicable was never been argued during the course of hearing and therefore, there was no occasion for SECL or opportunity of hearing was granted to SECL to rebut the preposition of applicability of any particular policy. The case was considered under the Coal India Policy, in vogue as per the decision of DRCC and therefore, there cannot be a separate parameter or policy for consideration of the case of the petitioner under the 1991 Policy. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that, from the acquisition of land of seven villages, there were total 5478 land oustees, and after the meeting dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) they are already provided employment and monetary benefits in lieu of employment according to the decision taken in the said meeting. Now, just few of the writ petitioners could not be allowed to change the right, title and interest of the majority of the land oustees by indirectly challenging the said decision dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure P-3), more so without giving them any opportunity of hearing as they were not made party to the case. Apart from that, all the land oustees of the project, can be considered for rehabilitation and employment benefits under the one policy and for different land oustees separate parameters or policy cannot be considered. The learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that, even in the above matter of Pyarelal (supra) the Hon'ble Court no where has held that, 1991 Policy would only be applicable for the acquisition of land for the project of SECL. The instant case was decided on 06.03.2025 by the Hon'ble Court, in a bunch of cases. In the same bunch matter, the Hon'ble Court has passed another order dated 06.03.2025, in the matter of Bihari Lal (supra) in which considering the fact that, the writ 14 petitioners of that cases have already accepted the additional compensation in lieu of employment under the Policy of CIL and also as per the decision dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure P/3) taken by the District Collector in the meeting, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the case of Bihari Lal (supra). However, in the instant matter on the same day i.e. 06.03.2025 the Hon'ble Court has held that CIL Policy would not be applicable in the same land acquisition proceedings. Both the observation of the Hon'ble Court is contradictory to each other and suffers from an error apparent in the face of record and is liable to be set aside. Further, the writ petition has been filed with inordinate delay without any explanation which is evident from the fact that land of the writ petitioners was acquired in the year 2004 to 2010 whereas, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2018 i.e. about 8 to 14 years of their land acquisition. Apart from that, by way of writ petition the petitioners have challenged the impugn order, whereby, the decision has been communicated to the petitioner that she has been ineligible for employment as per the decision of DRRC Korba dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) whereby after several meeting with the villagers and other public representatives and after examination of the 1991 Policy, 2007 Policy, C.G. R&R Policy 2007 and CIL R&R Policy, the DRRC committee has decided that the CIL R&R Policy is more beneficial hence employment is to be provided under the CIL policy to the persons affected by the project of Coal India Ltd. Moreover, the writ petitioner has not submitted any objection, against the above decision, before the DRRC or Collector or any other authority and kept silence over the matter for years. Therefore, at this stage, they cannot challenge the same, when the employments have already been provided to many land oustees. As such petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay 15 and latches only. As per the approved recommendation of the Central Government ministerial committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal made a 2012 Policy for the land oustees. The provision of National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 and the Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Bill, 2011 have also been considered while forming the Policy, 2012. The DRRC in its meeting observed that opportunities of providing employment were more under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd. as compared to the 2007 Policy. Therefore, it was decided that employment is to be provided under the Coal India Policy to the persons affected by the project of Coal India Ltd. It is also submitted that the CIL R&R Policy 2008 was in vogue at that time. Subsequently, CIL R&R Policy was revised in the year 2012 and it was implemented as it was offering better resettlement and rehabilitation package to land oustees. 11 According to the 2007 Policy, employment is to be provided to the member of the displaced family subject to vacancy in the project and priority for employment also given in the policy. As per the Coal India Policy, employment is provided on the basis of per two acre land against the entire land acquired in the village, irrespective of the land owned by the individuals. In the present case employment are offered against the total acquired tenancy land in a particular village as descending order concept as per CIL R&R policy. All the land losers who are not eligible for employment as above, shall be entitled to receive monetary compensation in lieu of employment at the rate of Rs.5 lacs for each acre of land on pro-rata basis. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen that, in the present case the writ petitioners do not qualify for employment as the quantum of land is less than the quantum upto which employment is being provided. As per the direction issued by the DRRC 16 the employment was to be offered in descending order list duly approved by the Collector Korba. Wherein employment is to be provided to the land owners having certain quantum of land in the village. The land acquired of petitioners was less than quantum of land upto which the employment has been provided to the land oustees, therefore the petitioners were not eligible for employment. The 2007 Policy also says that, if opportunity for regular employment is less then to the number of displaced person then displaced person who is not eligible can opt for self employment in transport business, dairy, Poultry Form, Fisheries etc., or can be provided shop. The appellant-SECL being a Public Sector Mining Company, the lum-sump of amount of Rs. 5 lacs per acres subject to minimum of Rs.50,000/-on prorate basis, has been paid immediately to land oustees as compensation who were not being eligible for employment. The Policy 2007 also says that the persons not eligible for employment can form a co-operative society and can get employment through petty contract. The subsidiary will assist affected persons to take up non farmself employment through petty contract or formation of co-operative society. If such co-operative society will not be entitled for awarding work as per manual for lack of experience, the said co-operative society will be facilitated by awarding small jobs to acquire experience after relaxation of the provision of the Manual pertaining to experience with approval of the subsidiary Board and subsequent jobs may be awarded after getting report of the timely completion/quality of the awarded jobs from the concerned department or contractor. Contractor will also be persuaded to give job to eligible affected person on a preferential basis where feasible as per terms of contract. 12 Mr. Mehta submits that in the Ku. Rattho Bai & Another v. SECL & Others {WPS No. 432/2011}, though Rathto Bai was eligible to get 17 employment but the employment was not offered to her being a woman. The present case is entirely different from Ku. Rattho Bai (supra). The claim of Ku. Rattho Bai was refused on the ground that being a woman is not eligible for employment in terms of clause (VIII) k (b) of uniform guideline for employment to land loser issued by CIL on 08/13.08.2002. In the present case the writ petitioner is not eligible for employment due to her land acquired is less than the quantum upto which employment is being provided. The learned Single judge ought to have seen that, the purpose of the policy for the grant of employment to the land oustees is to rehabilitate and resettlement of the displaced family and the same is not a mode of recruitment in the public services and issuance of such direction after long lapse of 21 years is against the mandate of Article 14, 15 and16 of the Constitution which provides equal opportunity to all citizens in the public service. Apart from that the petitioner has claimed employment for his child and who was in existence as her family member at the time of acquisition of land and not covered under the definition of displaced person. It is well settled law that, for all public services, equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as a mandate under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of the land oustee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate appointment to the land oustee is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the scheme must be satisfied by all the aspirants. 13 It is next submitted that the learned Single Judge has also not noticed that the impugned judgment/order shall open a Pandora's box of litigation and all the persons who have been denied such appointment shall take recourse to the similar litigation which will be in clear disregard 18 and violation of the provisions constituted to serve a bona fide and legitimate purpose under the referred policy. 14 Similar submissions have been advanced in respect of other two batch of writ appeals. 15 Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vivek Krishna v. UOI {AIR Online 2022 (SC) 754} to contend that policy matters are never interfered with unless patently arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In M/s. Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India {2007 AIR SCW 5350}, it has been observed by the Apex Court that when a party approaches the Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. 16 On the other hand, Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Mr. S.B.Mukherjee, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Mr. Shishir Dixit, Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioners submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge being just and proper, warrants no interference and the appeals being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed at the threshold. 17 Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate relying on the return filed before the writ Court, submits that when the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued, the Policy of 1991 was in force, however, when the acquisition proceedings were finalised, the rehabilitation policy was revisited. The SECL has no authority to bypass the statutory applicable rehabilitation policy of 1991 or 2007. However, apart from the benefits provided in the State policy, the SECL may grant other benefits which is not mentioned in the State Policy. Hence, in case of the writ petitioners, the Policy of 1991 would prevail. 19 18 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 19 In the first batch of writ appeals, the petitions filed by the writ petitioners were disposed of by the learned Single Judge observing that when the land acquisition proceedings were initiated, the Policy of 1991 was in force and as such, in light of the order passed by a Single Bench in Pyarelal (supra), the appellant-SECL was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with the observations made in Pyarelal (supra), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Identical orders have been passed in the second and third batch of writ petitions. 20 A similar issue came up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Lahre v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others {WA No. 254/2023}, wherein a learned Division Bench has taken note of the fact that a writ petition being WP No. 13561/2005 which was a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Sarpanch of the affected Gram Panchayat where acquisition was to take place and various grounds were taken to challenge the acquisition inter alia the ground that no acquisition could take place in a Scheduled Tribal Area. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had passed a detailed order dated 12.11.2008 deciding the said petition being WP No. 13561/2005 and batch and ultimately held in paragraph 24 that the State Government and SECL would ensure that the persons who are eligible to the rehabilitation facility indicated in the MP R&R Policy of 1991 will receive the said facility of rehabilitation and resettlement. The Central Government was also directed to issue Notification under the 1957 Act for acquisition of land and take possession of the land in question in the manner detailed in para 22 of the said judgment. In para 20 22, the Division Bench had held that instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings, it is immaterial under which Act the acquisition has been made, but the land owner should be given higher compensation applicable to avoid discrimination. Therefore, the Division Bench directed that compensation be determined under the 1957 Act and any compensation already received by owners of the land will be adjusted by the compensation to be determined under the Act of 1957. The aforesaid order was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 2915/2009 and initially the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment on 18.02.2009 subject to compliance of rehabilitation as directed in the said judgment. Subsequently, agreement for opening of mines were arrived at between the villagers on 20.02.2009 and 23.02.2009. Subsequently, the interim order was also modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition came to be finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 observing as under: “It has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would follow the policy set up by the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to giving employment to the persons whose lands have been acquired. In addition thereto, it has been submitted by him that even as per the policy laid down in the Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Policy of Coal India Ltd., 2012, all the 899 persons will be given employment. It has been further submitted by him that no land owner has filed any appeal which is to be decided in accordance with Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and, therefore, the Tribunal has not been constituted. In view of the above facts stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we see no reason to 21 interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The impugned order stands modified to the extent as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 21 Ultimately, at paragraph 38 of the judgment, the learned Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as under: “38. However, at the same time, since the appointments granted by way of mutual agreement to various land losers in terms of CIL R & R Policy, 2008 have not been interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court nor such agreements by mutual consent has been held illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we hold that after extending appointments to all the eligible persons under M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R Policy, 2012, the persons appointed under CIL R & R Policy, 2008 by way of mutual agreement shall be adjusted subject to maximum limit of 899 employments, which have been undertaken to be granted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the SECL. These persons appointed underCIL R&R Policy 2008 have put in almost 16 years of service till date and subject to ceiling of maximum 899 employments, employments to these persons appointed by mutual agreements between SECL and land losers will stand validated because the undertaking of SECL before the Supreme Court to grant 899 employments in total, impliedly saves the remaining appointees subject to maximum limit of 899 after all persons are considered and given employment under the M.P. R&R Policy, 1991 and CIL R&R Policy, 2012 (in descending order), because it will not affect rights of any of the residents/land losers of these villages who are entitled to be appointed in terms of Govt. of M.P. R&R Policy 1991 as also CIL R & R Policy, 2012. 39. Therefore, first the respondents SECL and DRRC of the State Government shall examine the claims of remaining eligible persons under State of MP R&R Policy 1991 and CIL R&R Policy 2012 and all the remaining eligible persons under these two 22 policies be given employment. This exercise be completed within one month of this order.” 22 A learned Single Bench of this High Court, in Pyarelal (supra), while dealing with similar issue, had framed various issues among which one was as to whether the petitioners therein were entitled to be rehabilitated as per the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, which has been answered in paragraph 66.3 that the petitioners therein were entitled for consideration or rehabilitation as per the policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of the order. It was also observed that the policy in force on the date of acquisition will be the relevant date for grant of rehabilitation, and subsequent change in policy would not affect the claim of rehabilitation. At paragraph 65 of the judgment, it has been observed 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 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.” 23 A query was made to the learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Pyarelal (supra) was challenged before any higher forum, it has been stated that no appeal has either been preferred before this Court or before the Apex Court till date. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge holds good. 23 24 The orders sought to be impugned in these appeals are also based on the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Pyarelal (supra). The learned Single Judge, in Pyarelal (supra) has held that the petitioners therein were entitled for consideration of rehabilitation as per the policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of the order. 25 The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-SECL have utterly failed to persuade us to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 26 We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which are impugned herein and as such, these appeals stand dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.02 14:25:11 +0530