1 2025:CGHC:1534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3268 of 2018 1 - Lakhan Lal S/o Budhwar Say, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Mahuadih, Bijlipara, Post Office Bhilai Bazar, Police Station Hardi Bazar, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Company to consider the case of the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy of the State and grant employment. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent Company to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land of the petitioner. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2) Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land bearing Survey Nos.183/2, 184/4, 204/2 & 217/3 situated at Village Gevra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) is the ancestral property of the petitioner. He would further submit that the lands stated-above were subjected to acquisition vide Notification dated 12.04.2002 and later on, the lands were acquired by the respondent/SECL and an award was passed on 27.01.2004. He would further submit that in lieu of the land acquisition as per the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (for short the ‘Policy of 1991’) as amended on 21.12.1995, the petitioner nominated himself for employment. He would contend that the respondent authorities have not considered the claim of the petitioner on the ground that according to the Policy of 1991, the petitioner was not found in possession of the land for 20 years prior to the date of the issuance of the notification. He would further contend that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of 3 Lakhan Lal Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, Writ Appeal No.435 of 2013 decided on 23.07.2013 has held that when the property is ancestral, there is no need to prove possession for 20 years prior to the date of the issuance of the notification. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/SECL would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. He would submit that according to the Policy of 1991, the land oustees who were in possession of their respective lands for 20 years prior to the date of the issuance of the notification, would be entitled to get employment with the respondent/SECL. He would further submit that the petitioner could not demonstrate placing relevant documents that he was in possession for more than 20 years, therefore, his case has not been considered for employment. Mr. Shukla would contend that a consent letter was given by the petitioner in favour of his brother for employment, therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim employment in lieu of land acquisition. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Lakhan Ram Rathore (supra). 5) The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Lakhan Lal Rathore (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paras 14 and 15 held as under:- -4- “14. The name of the Appellant was recorded in the joint property (including Khasara No.262/10 (area of 0.02 acre)} in the year 1980. It is 20 years before the date of acquisition. This establishes that the Appellant was owner of the property for the last 20 years. 15. There is no stipulation in the Policy that the person should be exclusive owner of the property in dispute. The counsel for the SECL is reading certain words that are not there in the Policy. The claim of the Appellant cannot be negated on the ground that his name was not exclusively recorded over the property in dispute.” 6) In the present case, the property described in para 8.1 of the petition is the ancestral property of the petitioner. The petitioner along with his brother are the owners of the property. Admittedly, the land was acquired by the respondent/ 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 petitioner for employment in lieu of land acquisition has not been considered by the respondent/SECL. 7) 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 respondent/SECL. 8) In the present case, the suit property was recorded in the name of the petitioner 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 5 and it remained in possession of the petitioner and his forefathers for decades. 9) With regard to the consent given by the petitioner in favour of his brother for employment, the consent letter was given for the land recorded in the name of his brother whereas the petitioner is claiming employment in lieu of land recorded in his name, therefore, the objection raised by Mr. Shukla is not acceptable. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Lakhan Lal Rathore (supra), the objection, if any, raised by the respondent/SECL authorities with regard to possession of the petitioner over the lands mentioned in para 8.1 of the petition is hereby overruled. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner 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 this order. 11) With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha