Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.19 19:28:50 +0530 2025:CGHC:48228-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 697 of 2025 Smt. Hemlata Sahu D/o Late Mahendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Kotara Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3. Regional Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4. In- Charge Officer (Land Acquisition ) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5. Collector Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
Judge of this Court in WPC No. 994 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. The facts of the case as projected by the appellant is that her father namely late Mahendra Sahu had purchased the land in Panchayat Bijari,, P.H.No.10, Tahsil Ghargora, District Raigarh (C.G.) bearing Khasra No.38/51 admeasuring 0.161 hectare on 12-04-2004 in the name of his minor son. The above mentioned land has been acquired by the respondent SECL for the purposes of Open Cast Mining in Raigarh Area in the year 2012 and total of the land area admeasuring 0.141 hectare of petitioner's father has been acquired and rest of land i.e. 0.0202 hectare land is being left and was not acquired mentioning that will acquire in future. As per the revenue record, the name of petitioner was not recorded in the revenue record, whereas she was entitled for the same. Only the name of father and her brother was recorded. For the purpose of recording her name in the revenue record, the petitioner had preferred Civil Suit bearing Civil Suit No.A-15/2019 and the same has been decided by the learned Court and the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 16-05-2019. 3 Thereafter, the brother of petitioner namely Lakhan Lal Sahu whose name was already recorded in the revenue record and who is working on the basis of compassionate appointment in place of his father in Health Department and did not file his nomination for employment, whereas he forwarded the name of his sister for purpose of employment who is having equal right in the above mentioned property of his father. The brother of petitioner had relinquished his right by giving an affidavit stating that he is already working in the health department and he is not suppose to be employed in the SECL and has forwarded the name of his sister for the purposes of employment. In pursuance of the affidavit, the brother of the petitioner had also moved an application before the respondent No.2 for considering the claim of the employment in the name of his sister as on 24-09-2019. The representation given by the brother of petitioner was decided by the respondent No.4 and it has been vehemently said that according to the provision of Coal Bearing Act 1957, Section 9 of the Act, whenever, the proposed land is being notified for the purpose of notification, the right of the land immediately transferred to the Central Government, hence at the time of acquisition of land, the name of the petitioner was not recorded in the above mentioned revenue record, thus they cannot entertain the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing WPC No. 994 of 2020 4 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single
Arguments
: Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 4 For Respondents / State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.09.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Single
Decision
Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- 4. Perusal of the record, would reveal further that much after the acquisition of the alleged land in the year 2010, an application (Annexure P-5) was made by the Petitioner's brother on 24.09.2019 before the Respondents/SECL authorities nominating his sister, the Petitioner herein, to get an appointment in the Institution. It, however, appears from a bare perusal of the decree drawn aforesaid that the plaintiff was not held to be the owner of the alleged land acquired for the Respondents/SECL and, since the Petitioner, being a married sister, is neither dependent upon her said brother, nor would fall within the definition of "family" provided under sub-clause (b) of Clause 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, therefore, her claim to be appointed in Respondents/SECL Institution has rightly been turned down by the concerned authorities of the SECL and in view of such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity 5 in the order impugned dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure P- 1) passed by Respondent No.3-Regional Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh, refusing her claim to get an employment in the Institution.” 4. The writ appeal has been again filed by the appellant/ petitioner by reiterating the same plea praying for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and direction to the respondent authorities to grant service to the appellant under the rehabilitation scheme. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner submits that learned Single judge while passing the order failed to appreciate the fact that the brother, land owner has nominated the petitioner for the employment. He further submits that though the petitioner’s name was recorded in revenue records her claim for appointment was rejected which is bad in law. He, therefore prays that the appeal be allowed and the petitioner be granted service under the rehabilitation scheme. He further placed his reliance in the case of Smt. Sadhna Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. In WPS No. 1762 of 2014. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that the writ appeal is not maintainable. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 material available in the record. 8. Bare perusal of the material available on record, the appellant/ writ petitioner was not held to be the owner of the alleged land acquired for the Respondents/SECL and, since the Petitioner, being a married sister, is neither dependent upon her said brother, nor would fall within the definition of "family" provided under sub- clause (b) of Clause 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, therefore, her claim to be appointed in Respondents/SECL Institution has rightly been turned down by the concerned authorities of the SECL 9. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the matter of Smt. Sadhna Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed on 21.01.2016 in WP(S) No.1762/2014 is concerned, the same is, however, appears to be distinguishable from the facts involved herein, as in the said matter, the land in question was held by the father of the Petitioner who was his married daughter, therefore, being a daughter, she was held to be the affected member of his family and in view of such circumstances, she was held to be entitled to get an appointment. However, such a position is not involved herein, as in the instant matter, the appellant, who was neither held to be the owner of the land in question acquired already for the Respondents/SECL under the Act, 1957, nor would fall within the 7 definition of "family" provided under sub-clause (b) of Clause 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. 10. Considering the facts of the present case and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 11. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti