Korba, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Head Office, Basant
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:30894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6250 of 2018 1 - Vijay Kumar S/o Rati Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village Naraibodh, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., 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., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, Chhattisgarh District Korba Chhattisgarh, District Korba, : 4 - Senior Manager (Mining), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Gevra Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Additional Tahsildar, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent/State : : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri S.P. Sannat, Advocate. Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 05-04-2018 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent company to provide the employment to the petitioner 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.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 17/3, 437/1, 17/2, 124/2K/1 and 408 were acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) according to the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act, 1957’) and a notification under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 was issued on 3.6.2010. He would contend that an award was passed in the year 2013. He would further submit that initially, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 437/1 & 17/3, admeasuring 0.29 acres were recorded in the name of the petitioner’s maternal grandmother, namely Smt. Urmila Bai, whereas Survey No.17/2 & 124/2K/1, admeasuring 0.35 acres were recorded in the name of the petitioner’s mother Smt. Sushila Bai. He would contend that Smt. Urmila Bai died on 3 11.3.2014. Thereafter, an application was moved before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), who called for a report from the Naib Tehsildar, Dipka and recorded a finding that Smt. Sushila Bai, the petitioner’s mother, is the sole legal heir of the deceased. He would also submit that the total landholding in the name of the petitioner’s mother thereby became 0.64 acres and accordingly, the petitioner became entitled to employment in lieu of the land acquisition under the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 (for short ‘Policy, 2007’). He would also contend that a representation was made by the petitioner in compliance with the order passed in WP(S) No.200 of 2018, which was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 5.4.2018. He would pray to quash the said order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that Smt. Urmila Bai died in March, 2014, whereas the notification under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 was issued on 3.6.2020, and by that time, the land had already vested with the government. He would further submit that the lands recorded in the name of the mother of the petitioner and maternal grandmother were separate holdings. He would also submit that the employment was being provided by SECL in descending order of area of the land acquired, and the cut-off area -4- of land was 0.51 acres. Since the land originally recorded in the name of the petitioner’s mother was only 0.35 acres, the petitioner was not found eligible. It is further contended that out of a total of 460 acres of the land acquired, SECL has already provided 230 employments as per the Policy, 2007. Hence, it is contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. A perusal of the documents would show that Survey Nos. 17/2 & 124/2K/1 were recorded in the name of the mother of the petitioner, whereas Survey Nos. 17/3 & 437/1 were recorded in the name of his maternal grandmother. All these lands were acquired under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Act, 1957 and the notification under Section 9 was issued on 3.6.2010. According to the pleadings made by the petitioner, the award was passed in the year 2013. The maternal grandmother of the petitioner, in whose name 0.29 acres of land was recorded, died in March, 2014. Subsequently, an application for mutation was filed, and the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) found that the mother of the petitioner was the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the land. It is not in dispute that the SECL provides employment in descending order 5 based on the extent of land acquired, and the minimum qualifying landholding was 0.51 acres. Initially, the petitioner’s mother owned only 0.35 acres and was thus not sufficient to claim employment. However, after the death of Smt. Urmila Bai, her land devolved upon the petitioner’s mother, increasing her total holding to 0.64 acres and the revenue authority informed SECL accordingly. An application was moved by the petitioner to SECL for employment. Though a notification under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 was issued in the year 2010 and the award was passed in the year 2013, but by that time lands remained in the name of the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner’s maternal grandmother. Therefore, an application was moved by the petitioner’s mother for the mutation before the Tehsildar after the death of the petitioner’s maternal grandmother and that was allowed and an intimation was also sent to the SECL by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) but no action was taken. Further, the order passed by the Tehsildar was not challenged before the Higher Revenue Authorities and thus that order attained finality. 7. As the land of late Smt. Urmila Bai devolved upon Smt. Sushila Bai (mother of the petitioner) and her total landholding became 0.64 acres, she became entitled to employment in lieu of the land acquired. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the SECL erred in law in rejecting the petitioner’s representation. -6- 8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondents is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for employment in lieu of land acquisition in light of the observations made herein-above. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge