1 2025:CGHC:20009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 264 of 2022 1 - Shanti Bai W/o Amrit Lal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Budbud, Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Pankhajur, District- North Bastar, Kanker (C,.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Pankhajur, District- North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 5 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through- The Director, Secl Headquarter, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - General Manager (Operation) South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Korba Area, District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Mine Manager Saraipali, Korba Area, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 8 - Staff Officer (Revenue) Korba Area, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 5 to 7 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities particularly respondent No.5 (SECL) for the re- measurement of the land (in which house is situated) bearing khasra No.213/1 and Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 add the name of the petitioner in the House Measurement Bill/ Bill of House (Annexure P-4). 10.2 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner inherited a house at Khasra No. 213/1, village Budbud, Pali, District Korba, from her father, along with her siblings. She got married and moved to her maternal house but continued to possess and reside in the inherited house. In the year 2013–2014, SECL (respondent No.5) issued a notification for land acquisition in the village for an open-cast mine project. The name of petitioner was initially recorded as a co-owner in all relevant documents. In the year 2015, the petitioner’s house and land were acquired by SECL, and compensation was paid. In the year 2020, the petitioner discovered her name was omitted from the House Measurement Bill, thereafter, she applied to SECL to correct the omission, but they refused to re-conduct the survey. Despite repeated requests, her name was not added, impacting her eligibility for employment benefits. The list of beneficiaries prioritized those whose land and house were acquired; the petitioner was unfairly placed at serial no. 21 with incorrect spouse details. The petitioner claims absolute ownership, possession, and residence in the acquired house. She cites her rights under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 12 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act and alleges the omission in the House Measurement Bill was deliberate and deprived her of rightful benefits 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18- 01-2020 (Annexure P-1) is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of law. The refusal by respondent No.5 to rectify the omission of the name of petitioner in the House Measurement Bill is in direct violation of legal and constitutional principles of fairness and justice. Due to the wrongful and negligent acts of respondent No.5, the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of several entitlements, most significantly the opportunity of employment arising from the land acquisition and resettlement scheme. The petitioner is the lawful co-owner of the property situated at Khasra No.213/1, as inherited from her father. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner retains absolute ownership rights in her father's property, even post-marriage, and continues to hold possession of the said house. The acquisition process conducted by the respondents is flawed and in violation of Section 12 of "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013," as no proper documentation or justification has been provided for the exclusion of the petitioner’s name from the final records. Despite acknowledging the petitioner’s entitlement by awarding her compensation, the respondent authorities failed to include her name in the House Measurement Bill, which indicates a deliberate act of exclusion and malafide intent. Prior to issuance of the House Measurement Bill, the petitioner’s name was consistently recorded in all government documents as a co-owner, and the sudden omission suggests a targeted effort to deprive the petitioner of her lawful benefits and to favor another person. The petitioner has made repeated representations and personal requests for re-survey and rectification of the records to include her name, but the respondent authorities have unjustifiably refused to act, showing clear administrative apathy and bias. The house in question is situated on land recorded under Khasra No.213/1, where the petitioner’s name is officially registered as a co-owner in the land records, yet this legal ownership has been blatantly ignored by the respondents in their 4 final documents. The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 18-01-2020 and direct the respondent authorities to re-measure the property, rectify the records, and include the petitioner’s name in the House Measurement Bill to restore her lawful entitlements. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 7 / SECL, at the very outset, submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine as it involves several disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not availed the appropriate remedy of a civil suit, which is efficacious for adjudicating such factual disputes. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to establish that her name was ever recorded in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land either prior to or on the date of acquisition of the said land. The entire basis of the petition rests on unsubstantiated claims and lacks any documentary proof of ownership. The compensation towards house measurement and related entitlements has already been disbursed to the rightful landowners and family members whose names were duly recorded in the revenue records, as per Annexure P/3. The name of petitioner does not find mention in these records. Hence, she is not entitled to any such compensation. The writ petition also suffers from non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The actual landowners and other family members, whose names are recorded in the revenue records and who have received compensation and employment, have not been impleaded. No direction can be passed affecting their rights without affording them an opportunity of hearing. As per the land records of Khasra Nos. 325, 361, 362/2, 363/1, 372/1, 524, 527, 71 (2/2ka, 2/3, 3, 522, 1/1ka, 182/1, 213/1), measuring a total of 4.30 acres, the names of Shri Dhaniram, Shri Maniram (both sons of Shri Ramsingh), and Shri Laxmibari are recorded as landowners. Accordingly, two employments have already been provided to 5 the legal heirs of those recorded landowners, including Shri Rajesh Kumar (S/o Dhaniram) and Shri Shive Kumar (S/o Amrit Lal, who is the son of the petitioner). Although Khasra No. 2/2kh measuring 0.50 acres belonging to the petitioner was acquired, it is categorically submitted that her residential house was not situated thereon. Hence, she is not entitled to any house measurement-based compensation. It is pertinent to state that the state authorities had requested the inclusion of the name of petitioner in the house measurement bill. However, SECL vide letter dated 18.01.2020 and again on 25.10.2022 clearly informed the authorities that the name of petitioner is not reflected in the revenue records of the subject land, and therefore, her claim was untenable. It is further contention of learned counsel for SECL that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available in law by way of a civil suit to adjudicate disputed facts and ownership, which she has failed to avail. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for such relief. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as being devoid of merit, involving disputed questions of fact, suffering from non-joinder of necessary parties, and for want of evidence of ownership. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 6. From perusal of the pleadings as also the documents, it is apparent that the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the co- owners or legal heirs whose names are recorded in the revenue records and who have already received compensation and employment benefits. Directions sought in the writ petition, if granted, would directly affect their rights without affording them a hearing. 7. Having considered the submissions of both parties and perused the pleadings and documents on record, this Court finds merit in the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. The claim of petitioner of co-ownership and possession over the house situated on Khasra No. 213/1 is not 6 supported by conclusive documentary evidence such as contemporaneous revenue records. Moreover, the assertion that her name was deliberately omitted from the House Measurement Bill also requires resolution of factual disputes which are not amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that where the matter involves complex and disputed questions of fact, and where an alternative efficacious remedy is available, the High Court should be circumspect in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, reported in AIR 1958 SC 86; State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1428). 9. In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, including the competent Civil Court, for redressal of her grievances in accordance with law. 11. No order as to costs Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE