1 2025:CGHC:17942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1279 of 2019 1 - Nagendra Pratap S/o Nityanand Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Baraoud, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Incharge Officer (Revenue) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respective Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate & Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has claimed compensation of land acquisition as per market value under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2 “the Act, 2013”) and has sought quashing of the order dated 21.02.2019. 3. The facts of the present case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1957”) was issued by the respondents on 29.12.2006 for the acquisition of 7.49 acres of tenancy land of Village Baroud, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. A notification under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 was issued on 16.12.2010 and it was published on 25.12.2010. The award was passed in the year 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. There were two schemes for the acquisition: first, the clubbing concept and second; the descending order. According to the clubbing concept, for every two acres of land acquired, one member of the land oustee would get employment. It was also provided that for more than two acres of land, the land oustees could either apply for employment or accept compensation of 5 lakhs per acre. ₹ 5. Under the descending order scheme, a cut off point was set and the land oustees or their dependents were entitled to get employment accordingly. An example was provided in the circular: if 13.75 acres of land is acquired, six persons may get employment. The land oustee would not claim compensation for the remaining 1.75 acres. In alternative, he may claim two employments and for the remaining four employments, he/she may either claim compensation of 5 lakhs per ₹ 3 acre or claim compensation in lieu of employment at the same rate. 6. It appears that a tripartite meeting was convened between SECL, the District Collector, and the land oustees on 15.12.2015, where the village Sarpanch and villagers accepted the descending order scheme. The petitioner accepted compensation against the land acquisition in 2017, and the amount of compensation was deposited in 2017–18. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been offered employment in lieu of land acquisition. He argued that just and proper compensation has not been paid and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation under the Act, 2013. He referred to the clubbing concept scheme issued by the district-level rehabilitation committee and submitted that for land exceeding two acres, the petitioner has not been paid compensation at the rate of 5 ₹ lakhs per acre. He further contended that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compensation under the Act, 2013 was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of law. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for SECL submitted that the entire land was acquired under the Act, 1957. He further stated that a notification was published by the Central Government on 28.08.2015 clarifying that the Act, 2013 would not apply in cases where the award has already been passed prior to 01.09.2015. A further clarification was issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India on 04.08.2017. He also argued that 4 compensation was paid to the petitioner and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State supported the contentions made by Mr. Bajpai. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 11. From a perusal of the documents and the return filed by the respondents, it is apparent that compensation was paid to the petitioner and he accepted it in the year 2017. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner in the tripartite meeting accepted the descending order policy. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, he is not entitled to any additional compensation. 12. The respondent/SECL has placed a document to demonstrate that the petitioner accepted three employments against the acquisition of land according to the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. Another document would show that two members of the family have already been provided employment and for the third member, WPS No.6311 of 2019 is pending before this High Court. 13. The status of compensation in lieu of employment according to the document filed by SECL is as under:- Sl. No. Petitioner Total Area Status 1. Nagendra Pratap 3.032 Ha/7.49 acres Employment to be provided – 03 Employment provided – 02 5 (1) Nagendra Pratap, S/o Nityanand Mehar (2) Phool Kumar, W/o Nityanand 14. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has already accepted compensation and employment, he has no right to claim any additional compensation or employment. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has accepted the descending order policy; therefore, he has no right to claim additional compensation for excess land. 15. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim