-1- 2025:CGHC:16228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6490 of 2017 Tribhuvan Prasad S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chainpur, Police Station Deepka, District Korba Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief General Manager, S. E. C. L. Dipka Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Staff Officer Mining, S. E. C. L., Dipka Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Tahsildar Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. SP Sannat, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 to 6/ State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2025 1) Mr. S.P. Sannat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land bearing Survey Nos. 27/6, 27/7, and 713/3, admeasuring 1.63 acres, situated at Village Chainpur, Tehsil Pali, District Korba, belong to the petitioner and were acquired by the respondent authorities in the year 1986 in lieu of providing employment. However, till date, neither the petitioner nor his family members has been provided employment. He further submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondents No. 1 to 3, and the said respondents may be directed to consider and decide the same in an objective and fair manner. 2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the subject land was acquired in the year 1986, and the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of more than 30 years without any justification or explanation for the delay. He further contends that the petitioner was born on 27.12.1998, i.e., after the land acquisition, and therefore, no case is made out for grant of any relief in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 3) Heard. 4) Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, the present writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondents -3- No. 1 to 3, and in turn, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the said representation in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim