1 2025:CGHC:14255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4099 of 2022 Ajay Kumar Kasturia S/o Shri Tikaram Kasturia, Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. A-70 Road No. 2, Shiv Shakti Mandir, Harit Vihar, Buradi, Delhi, 110084 Permanent R/o Sr.No. 756, Main Road, Ram Mandir Chowk, Ward No. 12 Seepat, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Rehabilitation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - National Thermal Power Corporation Through Its General Manager (Hr), NTPC Super Thermal Power Plant, Seepat Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Thermal Power Corporation Through Its Managing Director, NTPC Super Thermal Power Plant, Seepat Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 and 3 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.26 10:22:09 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.03.2025 1 Heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 4 to 5 as well as Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the instant case. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time in the interest of Justice. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide employment to one family member of Petitioners family member as guaranteed in the provisions of the rehabilitation policies. 10.4. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give into effect the provisions of Rehabilitation Policy in its letter and spirit and further comply strictly with the terms of the Rehabilitation Scheme. 3 10.5. Any appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions or order may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order, but challenging the action and irregularity on the part of the respondent authorities, whereby the authorities have declined to provide employment and other benefits under the rehabilitation policy issued by respondents, particularly, respondents No.2 and 3 including alternative vacant sites and facilities to the petitioner in National Thermal Power Corporation (‘NTPC’) as per the scheme of Rehabilitation issued by the NTPC in the year 2010 as well as the Scheme of the State Government. He further submits that the petitioner is a land oustee, whose land has been acquired by the NTPC in accordance with the scheme, but they have not provided the benefits regarding job opportunities to the petitioner or one of the family member. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 920 to submit that the benefits should be provided to the oustees after acquisition of the land from the date of the publication of the acquisition of land, as such, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of employment and other benefits, be considered and decided in a specific time frame. 4 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has fairly submits that the land of the petitioner has been acquired in the year 2000, however, it has not been disputed that the there is rehabilitation policy, according to which, land oustees can be granted employment subject to entitlement. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the land of the petitioner has been taken by the NTPC, as such, without interfering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to file a representation along with relevant documents before the authorities of the NTPC, in turn, the authorities of the NTPC shall consider and decided the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order within a period of 60 days from the date of presentation of the application by the petitioner before the authorities concerned along with this order. 7 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh