1 2025:CGHC:41013-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 597 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum Man- aging Director, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief General Manager, Secl, Korba Area, District Korba Chhat- tisgarh. 3 - Sub Area Manager, Saraipali, Open Cast Mining Project, Secl, Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Dhansay S/o Chhotelal Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Budbud, P. S. And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Ad- vocate General with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2025 1 I.A. No.02, an application has been filed by the appellant for condoning the delay of 123 days in preferring the appeal. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.14 17:26:30 +0530 2 2 For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 123 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3 As the present matter is identical to WA No.424/2025, we proceed to decide the matter finally. 4 Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.2. 5 The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.6289 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. 6 It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.424 of 2025 vide order dated 29.07.2025 observing as follows : “19. In the first batch of writ appeals, the petitions filed by the writ petitioners were disposed of by the learned Single Judge observing that when the land acquisition proceedings were initiated, the Policy of 1991 was in force and as such, in light of the order passed by a Single Bench in Pyarelal (supra), the appellant-SECL was directed to 3 consider the case of the writ petitioners strictly in accordance with the observations made in Pyarelal (supra), within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Identical orders have been passed in the second and third batch of writ petitions. 20. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Lahre v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others {WA No. 254/2023}, wherein a learned Division Bench has taken note of the fact that a writ petition being WP No. 13561/2005 which was a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Sarpanch of the affected Gram Panchayat where acquisition was to take place and various grounds were taken to challenge the acquisition inter alia the ground that no acquisition could take place in a Scheduled Tribal Area. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had passed a detailed order dated 12.11.2008 deciding the said petition being WP No.13561/2005 and batch and ultimately held in paragraph 24 that the State Government and SECL would ensure that the persons who are eligible to the rehabilitation facility indicated in the MP R&R Policy of 1991 will receive the said facility of rehabilitation and resettlement. The Central Government was also directed to issue Notification under the 1957 Act for acquisition of land and take possession of the land in question in the manner detailed in para 22 of 4 the said judgment. In para 22, the Division Bench had held that instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings, it is immaterial under which Act the acquisition has been made, but the land owner should be given higher compensation applicable to avoid discrimination. Therefore, the Division Bench directed that compensation be determined under the 1957 Act and any compensation already received by owners of the land will be adjusted by the compensation to be determined under the Act of 1957. The aforesaid order was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP © No. 2915/2009 and initially the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment on 18.02.2009 subject to compliance of rehabilitation as directed in the said judgment. Subsequently, agreement for opening of mines were arrived at between the villagers on 20.02.2009 and 23.02.2009. Subsequently, the interim order was also modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition came to be finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 observing as under: “It has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would follow the policy set up by the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard to giving employment to the persons whose lands have been acquired. In addition thereto, it has been submitted 5 by him that even as per the policy laid down in the Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Policy of Coal India Ltd., 2012, all the 899 persons will be given employment. It has been further submitted by him that no land owner has filed any appeal which is to be decided in accordance with Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and, therefore, the Tribunal has not been constituted. In view of the above facts stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The impugned order stands modified to the extent as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.” 21. Ultimately, at paragraph 38 of the judgment, the learned Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as under: “38. However, at the same time, since the appointments granted by way of mutual agreement to various land losers in terms of CIL R & R Policy, 2008 have not been interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court nor such agreements by mutual consent 6 has been held illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we hold that after extending appointments to all the eligible persons under M.P. R & R Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R Policy, 2012, the persons appointed under CIL R & R Policy, 2008 by way of mutual agreement shall be adjusted subject to maximum limit of 899 employments, which have been undertaken to be granted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the SECL. These persons appointed under CIL R&R Policy 2008 have put in almost 16 years of service till date and subject to ceiling of maximum 899 employments, employments to these persons appointed by mutual agreements between SECL and land losers will stand validated because the undertaking of SECL before the Supreme Court to grant 899 employments in total, impliedly saves the remaining appointees subject to maximum limit of 899 after all persons are considered and given employment under the M.P. R&R Policy, 1991 and CIL R&R Policy, 2012 (in descending order), because it will not affect rights of any of the residents/land losers of these villages who are entitled to be appointed in terms of Govt. of M.P. R&R Policy 1991 as also CIL R & R Policy, 2012. 39. Therefore, first the respondents SECL and DRRC of the State Government shall 7 examine the claims of remaining eligible persons under State of MP R&R Policy 1991 and CIL R&R Policy 2012 and all the remaining eligible persons under these two policies be given employment. This exercise be completed within one month of this order.” 22. A learned Single Bench of this High Court, in Pyarelal (supra), while dealing with similar issue, had framed various issues among which one was as to whether the petitioners therein were entitled to be rehabilitated as per the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, which has been answered in paragraph 66.3 that the petitioners therein were entitled for consideration or rehabilitation as per the policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of the order. It was also observed that the policy in force on the date of acquisition will be the relevant date for grant of rehabilitation, and subsequent change in policy would not affect the claim of rehabilitation. At paragraph 65 of the judgment, it has been observed as under: “65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and 8 subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.” 23. A query was made to the learned counsel appearing for the parties as to whether the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Pyarelal (supra) was challenged before any higher forum, it has been stated that no appeal has either been preferred before this Court or before the Apex Court till date. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge holds good. 24. The orders sought to be impugned in these appeals are also based on the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Pyarelal (supra). The learned Single Judge, in Pyarelal (supra) has held that the petitioners therein were entitled for 9 consideration of rehabilitation as per the policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of the order. 25. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-SECL have utterly failed to persuade us to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 26. We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which are impugned herein and as such, these appeals stand dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue in- volved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.424 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same terms. 7 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.424 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.424 of 2025. 8 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.424 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu