-1- 2025:CGHC:3370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6470 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar S/o Basant Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Budbud, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through The Chairman Cum, Managing Director Seepat Road, District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief General Manager SECL, Korba Area, District Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mining Project, SECL, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawywer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.01.2025 1) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide him with employment in lieu of the acquisition of his lands as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in force at the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- time when his land was acquired. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the State Government initiated a process of land acquisition in 2005 for the ‘Saraipali Open Cast Project’ of Respondent No. 3. He would further submit that the award for the said acquisition was passed on 06.09.2007, and a total of 856 persons were displaced from their lands for the project. He would also submit that during the acquisition proceedings, respondent authorities had agreed to provide employment to one member of each displaced family as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh. He would contend that respondent authorities took possession of the land and later on, did not offer employment to the petitioner for the reason that his landholding is less than 2 acres, and the claim of the petitioner is not covered under the 2012 Policy; thus, he prays that this petition may be allowed, and the respondent authorities may be directed to provide employment to the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- SECL submits that the original land owner has already been paid compensation. It is also submitted that according to the rehabilitation and resettlement policy, there was an assurance to provide employment to one of the family members of the land oustees. He would contend that the writ petitioner moved application along with affidavit for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of employment and the application was accepted by the SECL. He would contend that the petitioner has not disclosed this fact in his representation, therefore, this -3- writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the return filed by the SECL and also perused the application along with affidavit filed by the petitioner for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of employment and the amount paid to the petitioner/land oustee. 5) A perusal of the application would show that the petitioner moved application along with affidavit before the SECL authorities for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of the employment and that application was accepted by the SECL authorities. The petitioner/land oustee was paid additional compensation in lieu of the employment. The chart as per the return filed by the SECL authorities is as follows:- Petition Name of the original land oustee Land Survey Number Total land acquired (in acres) Compensation amount Date of payment Mode of payment WPC/ 6470/2024 Taras Bai Binjhwar 260/2, 266/2 0.05 acre ₹1,55,000/- 26.12.2024 Bank Transfer 6) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already accepted the additional compensation in lieu of employment, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court if the cause of action still survives. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim