Shivsant Sahu v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.), whereby, the writ petition filed by the
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33929-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 492 of 2025 Shivsant Sahu S/o Dhilharan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shiud, Holha Chowk, Tahsil Navagarh, District - Janjgir - Champa, MANPREET KAUR Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.18 18:48:54 +0530 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through The Director (Personnel), Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gavera Extention Opencast Project, Gavera Area, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Land Revenue Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Office Of The General Manager, Gavera Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent / State as well as Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respective respondent. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2327/2018 (Shivsant Sahu v. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner in the instant case is land oustee whose land was acquired by the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Hereinafter referred as the S.E.C.L.) That, it is undisputed fact that the Section 4 (1) Notification was issued in the Year 2001 and finally the award was passed in the Year 2012. At the time of issuance of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 2001, the Madhya Pradesh Punarvas Niti, 1991 was in force and applicable. Furthermore, even the subsequent Rehabilitation Policy framed by the State of Chhattisgarh after its reorganization contains a categorical provision entitling at least one member of each displaced family to employment. The order was passed on 28/12/2016 wherein the representation moved by the writ 3 petitioner in accordance with the case decided by the Ratho Bai (WP(S) 432/2011) was rejected without citing any cogent reason.
Decision
The said order was assailed by the writ petitioner by way of Writ Petition bearing No. 2327/2018, which came to be decided by the impugned order dated 06/03/2025. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that, having accepted the compensation towards acquisition, no further claim for employment could be entertained. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 06/03/2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2327/2018 is contrary to the established legal position and suffers from non- application of mind, inasmuch as it fails to consider the binding precedent laid down in Rathho Bai v. SECL, W.P. (S) No. 432/2011, which squarely covers the writ petitioner's case. The impugned order seeks to introduce a new ground of rejection namely, acceptance of compensation which was never cited in the original rejection order dated 28/12/2016 and hence could not have been the basis for rejecting the claim in the writ proceedings. Further, the acceptance of additional compensation by the writ petitioner cannot be construed as a waiver of the statutory right to employment under the applicable Rehabilitation Policy and it is a settled law that no estoppel can be pleaded against a statutory right. Also, at the time of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 2001, the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 was in force, which categorically 4 provides for employment to at least one member of the displaced family, and this police remains binding on the acquiring body. The impugned order has failed to distinguish the writ petitioner's case on facts or in law from the case of Rathho Bai (supra), and such mechanical dismissal without proper reasoning renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of kalpraj Dharamshi and Another vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited and Another (2021) 10 SCC 401 and in the matter of Bank of Baroda and Another vs. G. Palani and Others (2022) 5 SCC 612. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.2327 of 2018 vide order dated 06.03.2025, holding that a perusal of the applications would show that the writ petitioner along with others 5 moved application along with affidavit before the SECL authorities for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of the employment and those applications were accepted by the SECL authorities and the writ petitioner herein was paid Rs.60,000/- additional compensation in lieu of the employment. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has already accepted the additional compensation in lieu of the employment, the learned Single Judge concluded that nothing survives for adjudication in the petition preferred by the writ petitioner. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet