1 2025:CGHC:15606-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 226 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Lakhan Lal S/o Budhwar Say, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Mahuadih, Bijlipara, Post Office Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Hardi Bazar, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.03 16:51:04 +0530 2 appellants as well as Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. I.A. No.01/2025, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 09.01.2025 (Lakhan Lal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3268 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was disposed of by learned Single Judge. 5. The facts of the case according the appellants is that the respondent is permanent resident of Village Gevra and he is the rightful owner of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 183/2, 184/4, 201/2, and 217/3, situated within Patwari Halka No. 53, RI Circle Hardi Bazar, Block Katghora. The aforementioned lands constitute the respondent’s ancestral property, which has been in joint possession of his predecessors. In the year 1994-95, the respondent acquired exclusive possession of the said lands and has since maintained uninterrupted title and possession. The respondent’s lands were subjected to acquisition proceedings, 3 and a notification under Section 4 was issued on April 12, 2002. Subsequently, the said lands were acquired for the benefit of South Eastern Coalfields Limited, culminating in the passing of an award on January 27, 2004. Pursuant to the acquisition, the respondent submitted his nomination form alongwith the requisite documents to the appellants company, seeking employment in lieu of the acquired lands, in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Scheme, 1991, and its amendment dated December 21, 1995. 6. Thereafter, the appellants authority have duly compensated the respondent as per the certified calculations provided by the state authorities concerning the acquired Khasra Nos. Furthermore, the respondent has nominated himself for employment as per the provisions governing land acquisition and rehabilitation. Notably, the respondent had previously given a consent/no objection letter in favor of his brother for grant of employment in lieu of the ancestral land acquired by the SECL, resulting in his brother Ghurau Ram being granted employment vide letter dated January 16, 2006. Despite the employment granted to the respondent’s brother and compensation paid to the respondent, the respondent made an application for grant of employment to the appellants authorities for himself in lieu of the acquisition of already compensated land. However, this application was not considered, as his brother had already received employment. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed writ petition, which was 4 disposed of by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence,this writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the ratio of Lakhan Lal Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, Writ Appeal No.435 of 2013 decided on 23.07.2013 in the present case, which is identical to the said case. Learned Single Judge stumbled while observing that when the property is ancestral, there is no need to prove possession over 20 years prior to the date of issuance of the notification and faultily treated two distinct units of land as one. In fact, as per the MP R&R policy 1991, the amendments specifically mentions that the benefit of employment in case of land acquisition after the death of the land owner would only be given to the inheritor (only the person who is included in definition of family) if he has possession of the said land for last continuous 20 years. As such in accordance of the policy, the owner ship on land for 20 years is a prerequisite for providing employment to the affected land oustees. He further submits that learned Single Judge also failed to take the judicial note of the fact that, in the additional patrak of village Bhaismakhar (Certified by Nayab tahsildar Dipka and Revenue Inspector Dipka) (ANNEXURTE R/3) that one employment can be provided to any member of the family in khasra number 183, 184/3, 217/2, 204/2 Rakba 0.95 acre, if other member of the family given consent in favor of the member to whom employment is to be given. And resultantly employment 5 was given to Ghurau Ram, brother of Lakhan Lal on the basis of consent letter given by the respondent/petitioner. Learned Single Judge speciously contemplated, while declaring that the respondent is in possession of the land for the past 20 years as it is their ancestral land, that after partition the said land cannot be held to be an ancestral land. The moment a land is partitioned, the divided shares become self-acquired property for each individual, meaning they lose their ancestral status and are treated as separate ownership within the family. He also submits that learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned order had erroneously observed that the consent letter was given by the respondent in favour of his brother and whereas, the respondent is claiming employment in lieu of the land recorded in his name, therefore, here the partitioned land is treated as two individual lands for the purpose of the claiming employment, however, for the purpose of calculation of the criteria of 20 years, separate land of both the brothers cannot be treated as one single unit. Furthermore, it may be appreciated that the abovementioned policy also mentions that only one member of the family would be given employment against the land acquisition and in the instant case Shri Ghaurau Ram (brother of Lakhan Lal) has already been given employment. As such, SECL has taken action in consonance with the Central and State laws while acquiring the land as well as while rehabilitating and resettling the land oustees. Learned Single Judge failed to observe that for fulfilling two 6 distinct conditions part of the same land cannot be treated as two individual entity for raising the separate claims and jointly for the purpose of the fulfilling the criteria of 20 years of possession. He contended that learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order neglected the fact that the land should be considered as two separate individual holdings for the purpose of determining employment eligibility. However, the said order contradicts itself by stating that for calculating the 20-year possession criteria, the lands of both brothers cannot be treated as a single unit. This inconsistency in legal reasoning results in an unfair determination of the respondent’s claim. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition holding that the property described in appeal is the ancestral property of the respondent. The respondent along with his brother are the owners 7 of the property. Admittedly, the land was acquired by the appellants/ SECL and in this regard, a notification was issued on 12.04.2002 and an award was passed on 27.01.2004. But till date, the claim of the respondent for employment in lieu of land acquisition has not been considered by the appellants/SECL. He further observed that the Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of Lakhan Lal Rathore (supra) in the categorical terms held that the names of the land oustees were recorded in the joint property in the year 1980 and it was 20 years before the date of acquisition which establishes that the land oustees were the owners of the property for the last 20 years. It is also held that the person should be the exclusive owner of the property in dispute is not mentioned in the clear words in the Policy of the appellants/SECL. He also observed that in the present case, the suit property was recorded in the name of the respondent in the year 1996 and earlier it was recorded in the name of his father. Therefore, it can safely be held that it is an ancestral property and it remained in possession of the respondent and his forefathers for decades. With regard to the consent given by the respondent in favour of his brother for employment, the consent letter was given for the land recorded in the name of his brother whereas the respondent is claiming employment in lieu of land recorded in his name and directed the appellants authorities to consider the claim of the respondent for appointment in lieu of the land acquisition expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of 8 that order. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents attached with writ petition, also perusing the documents attached with writ appeal and the findings recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu