Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.06 18:37:40 +0530 2025:CGHC:38959-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 575 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Director (Personnel) Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In Wp) 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gavera Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In Wp) 3 - Land Revenue OfÏcer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. OfÏce Of The General Manager, Gavera Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In Wp) ... Appellants versus 1 - Arun Mishra S/o Gandharva Prasad Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Bahanpath, District - Korba, Presently R/o Mariyadpur, Jasthatola Tehsil - Ramnagar District Satna Madhya Pradesh (Petitioner In Wp) 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4 In Wp) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2025 1. Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no. 2 on I.A. No. 01/2025, an application for condonation of delay in fling the appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. By the present writ appeal, the appellants are seeking quashment of order dated 06.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 1555/2018 by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 06.03.2025. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties would jointly submit that the issue involved in this appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court in Writ 3 Appeal No. 424/2025 decided on 29.07.2025 and other connected matter and as such this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 424/2025. In the said appeal this court has observed thus:- “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 4 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 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 5 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 interfere with the impugned order passed by the High 6 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 7 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 policies 8 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 9 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 10 Apex Court till date. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge holds good. 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. 6. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed, in terms of the judgment rendered in Appeal No. 424/2025 dated 29.07.2025 and other connected matters. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Amardeep