1 2025:CGHC:28243 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 994 of 2020 Smt. Hem Lata Sahu D/o Late Mahendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Kotara Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manger 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 - Incharge Officer (Land Acquisition) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner :Shri Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1,2,3 :Shri Satish Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.4,5: Shri Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 26.06.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.3-Regional Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.07.02 10:37:29 +0530 2 Limited, Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the SECL”), whereby, the claim of the Petitioner for her appointment in SECL Institution in lieu of the land acquired, has been refused. 2. Perusal of the record would show that a part of the land bearing Khasra No.38/1 admeasuring 0.161 hectare, situated at village Bijari, Patwari Halka No.10, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh was shown to be purchased by Petitioner’s brother, namely, Lakhanlal Sahu s/o Mahendra Kumar under the registered deed of sale dated 12.04.2004 (Annexure P-2) when he was a minor. The part of the alleged land, i.e. 0.141 hectare was acquired for the SECL by virtue of the notification issued on 24.04.2010 by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas, Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1957”) and by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act, the alleged land was vested in the Institution, i.e. SECL. 3. It appears further that much after the acquisition of the aforesaid land, i.e. 0.141 hectare of said Khasra number recorded in the name of Petitioner’s brother- Lakhanlal Sahu, a suit being Civil Suit No.15-A/2019 was instituted by the Petitioner on 26.03.2019 seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession with regard to the alleged land purchased under the registered deed of sale dated 12.04.2004 and also for the declaration to the effect that in lieu of the acquisition of the alleged land held by her brother, the appointment in SECL, be provided to her. The said suit was ended on the basis of compromise and the judgment and decree was, accordingly, drawn on 16.05.2019 (Annexure P-3), wherein, the Petitioner was held to be the owner of half of the rest of the land purchased under the said sale, i.e. half of 0.02 3 hectare, except the land, i.e. 0.141 hectare of the said Khasra number acquired already and vested in SECL under the Act, 1957. 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 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. 5. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner 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 4 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 Petitioner, 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 definition of “family” provided under sub-clause (b) of Clause 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. 6. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned refusing the claim of the Petitioner for her appointment in the Respondents/SECL Institution, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 7. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita