1 / 8 2025:CGHC:12591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2872 of 2018 1 - Sangeeta Shrivastava W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o New Life Hospital, Shanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, Tahsil Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.. 3 - The Staff Officer (Land Revenue) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Gevra Area, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents And WPS No. 4362 of 2018 1 - Narendra Dixena S/o Late Habbu Chand Dixena Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kerajhariya, Post Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 2 / 8 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L. Gevra Project, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Tahsildar Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nodal Officer Land Revenue, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector Korba District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Prateek Sharma and Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocates For Respondents/SECL : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kesharwani and Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocates, and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. D.G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By way of aforesaid petitions, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents/SECL authorities to provide them with employment in lieu of the acquisition of their land as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in force at the time when their respective land was acquired. 2. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :- 3 / 8 In WP(S) No.2872/2018 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant her employment in the respondent SECL with all consequential benefits from the date of her entitlement in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. ” In WP(S) No.4362/2018 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner’s case. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 04.07.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 and to upheld the letter dated 29.04.2016. 10.3 That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to immediately give employment to the petitioner in lieu of acquiring the land of the petitioner as per the policy. 10.4 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(S) No.2872/2018 submits that the land of the petitioner bearing Kh. No.120/3, P.H. NO.48, admeasuring .040 hectare situated at village Bhejinara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba has been acquired by the respondents/SECL authorities in the year 1990 for 4 / 8 extension of their Gevra Project and final award has been passed in the year 2013 but her claim for employment has been rejected on the ground that the acquired land was less than 2 acres and she is not entitled for employee in SECL. Learned counsel further submits that as per para 3 (ga) of the Rehabilitation Policy of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh issued on 25.09.1991, such families whose entire agriculture land or residential land has been acquired, one candidate of such family shall be entitled for employment as third preference category. Thus, the said rehabilitation policy nowhere states that for seeking employment a minimum two acres of land has to be acquired. Learned counsel also submits that the policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002 makes such provision, however, a reading of the policy would indicate that the said policy does not have any statutory force, whereas the rehabilitating policy issued by the State Government has been issued for and on behalf of Governor. Since there is no legislation covering the said field, the policy has statutory backing in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the rehabilitation policy issued by the State Government would prevail upon the policy of the SECL. Learned counsel also submits that the identical issue has also been adjudicated and decided in the case of Rattho Bai and Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 432/2011 on 23.07.2015, wherein the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court settled the issue at para 6 and 7 holding that he rehabilitation policy of the State Govt./Central Govt. would prevail upon the policy of the SECL as well as Coal India Limited, but the respondents/SECL authorities have not 5 / 8 given employment to the petitioner till date. Therefore, respondent/SECL authorities may be directed to provide employment to the petitioner in view of Rehabilitation Policy of the year 1991. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No.4362/2018 submits that the land of the petitioner bearing Kh. No.642/1, 44/1, 45/1 and 178/2 admeasuring 0.54 acres, P.H. No.19 situated at village Budbud, Tahsil Pali, District Korba has been acquired by the respondents/SECL authorities in lieu of the Rehabilitation Policy of the year 1991 for Saraipali Project and final award has been passed in the year 2013 but his claim for employment has been rejected on the ground that his land has been divided in two parts and he is not entitled for employee in SECL. Learned counsel also submits that as per para 3 (ga) of the Rehabilitation Policy of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh issued on 25.09.1991, such families whose entire agriculture land or residential land has been acquired, one candidate of such family shall be entitled for employment as third preference category. Thus, the said rehabilitation policy nowhere states that for seeking employment a minimum two acres of land has to be acquired. Learned counsel also submits that the policy issued by the SECL in the year 2002 makes such provision, however, a reading of the policy would indicate that the said policy does not have any statutory force, whereas the rehabilitating policy issued by the State Government has been issued for and on behalf of Governor. Since there is no legislation covering the said field, the policy has statutory backing in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 6 / 8 Thus, the rehabilitation policy issued by the State Government would prevail upon the policy of the SECL. Learned counsel further submits that the identical issue has also been adjudicated and decided in the case of Rattho Bai and Anr. Vs. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 432/2011 on 23.07.2015, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court settled the issue at para 6 and 7 holding that he rehabilitation policy of the State Govt./Central Govt. would prevail upon the policy of the SECL as well as Coal India Limited, but the respondents/SECL authorities have not given employment to the petitioner till date. Therefore, respondent/SECL authorities may be directed to provide employment to the kin of the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for respondent/SECL in WP(S) No.2872/2018 submits that the land of the petitioner has been acquired in the year 1990 and at the time of acquisition of land, no any state rehabilitation policy was existed. Learned counsel further submits that the MP Rehabilitation Policy 1991 came into force on 25.09.1991, as such, the policy of 1991 would not be applicable in the instant case. 6. Mr. V.R. Tiwari, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondents/SECL in WP(S) No. 4362/2018 submits that the land at village Budbud for Saraipali Project was acquired on 18.02.2011 in the second phase by the respondent/SECL as per Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal under Sub-Section 9(1) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. Learned counsel further submits that the award in the present case was 7 / 8 passed on 06.09.2007 and at that time C.G. Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 was effective, therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim relief under MP Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (Amended 1995). Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner for employment was rejected on the ground that the land account has been divided in two parts. The respondent/SECL had written a letter to Collector/Korba to treat one khata tenant to those land owners who were separate tenant prior to land acquisition, but the Collector replied that it is not possible to reunite these separate name/tenants now, as such, the petitioner was not held entitled for employment. 7. Learned counsel for respondents/SECL jointly submits that the aforesaid petitions may be disposed off directing the petitioners to file a fresh representation raising all grounds before the respondents/SECL authorities, which may be considered and decided in accordance with the policy and law which was existed at the time of acquisition of land of the petitioners. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the land compensation has been paid to the petitioners, the aforesaid petitions are disposed off with direction to the petitioners to file a fresh representation with regard to the employment before the respondents/SECL authorities within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. The respondents/SECL authorities are also directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners with regard to 8 / 8 employment as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months, in accordance with policy and law which was existed at the time of acquisition of land of the petitioners. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the aforesaid petitions stand disposed off. No cost(s) Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE