1 / 9 2025:CGHC:56841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3774 of 2025 Pawan Kumar Jaiswal S/o Devkaranlal Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o 347, Bazar Chowk, Jaiswal Moholla, Village- Bhilai Bazar, Tehsil-Dipaka, District Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur C.G. 2 - The Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi- 110001, District New Delhi, Delhi. 3 - South Eastern Coal Limited, General Manager, Gevra Area, Gevra, District- Korba C.G. 4 - Collector Korba, District- Korba C.G. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District- Korba C.G. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.26 10:31:58 +0530 2 / 9 6 - Tehsildar, Dipka, District- Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate with Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate For Resp. No.1, 4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate with Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 21/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1.That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of petitioner. 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass orders for quashing the impugned order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4. 10.3. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass necessary orders for grant of permission to petitioner to sale his land situated at village- Bhilaibazar, Tahsil- Dipka, District-Korba (CG) bearing Khasra No.493 admeasuring 0.494 hectare/1.22 acre 10.4. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of land bearing kh. no.493 admeasuring 0.494 hectare/1.22 acres along with other lands recorded in his name situated at Village Bhilaibazar, 3 / 9 Tahsil-Dipka, District- Korba. Respondent No.2 has issued preliminary notification under Sections 4 and 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1957”) showing intention to prospect coal. During pendency of proceedings pursuant to notification issued under Sections 4 & 7 petitioner became in need of money and according to circular issued by the State Govt. to seek prior permission of the Collector once the notification showing intention to acquire the land under any of the provision is issued, petitioner submitted an application before the Collector cum District Magistrate Korba on 18.02.2025. He submits that petitioner has to re-pay the loan amount and further if loan amount is not paid it will cost interest upon it at the market rate. He also contended that mother of the petitioner is aged about 78 years and she is also suffering with old age diseases for which she is also taking treatment from Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Application submitted by the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected by respondent No.4/Collector observing that transfer of portion of land owned by petitioner will result in developing one other land account and will increase number of persons for rehabilitation and had made observation that if the petitioner wants to sell entire land recorded in his name then application for grant of permission can be considered which is arbitrary in nature. He submits that petitioner is owner of land and he is at liberty to liquidate his immovable property as per his need and requirement and, therefore, observation made by Collector which is in the nature of compulsion to sell entire land recorded in name of petitioner is not sustainable. He also submits that this Court in identical nature of writ petition bearing WPC No.764 of 2025 filed by similarly situated person 4 / 9 seeking direction to Sub-Registrar who refused to register sale deed executed by parties, has allowed writ petition and directed Sub Registrar to consider application submitted by petitioner therein for registration of sale deed of the land mentioned therein. Land subject matter of WPC No.764 of 2025 is less than the area which is intended to be sold by petitioner herein and therefore in this writ petition also similar relief may be granted to petitioner granting permission to transfer the land as mentioned in writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/SECL would oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that Collector has correctly made observation that transfer of part of property will further create new land account and persons purchasing the land will enforce his rights in accordance with the provision of the Act of 1957. He however submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sneh Prabha (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (1996) 7 SCC 426 has considered the similar situation and has observed that if for any reason, land which is subject matter of notification for acquisition is transferred during pendency of acquisition proceedings under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) then for all purposes owner of land would be treated as the registered owner on the date publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and therefore if the permission is to be granted to petitioner to transfer his land then permission can be granted in view of observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decision. 4. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order passed by the Collector. 5 / 9 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is owner of land bearing kh. No.493 admeasuring 0.494 hectare/1.22 acres is not disputed by learned counsel for respective respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that application seeking permission from Collector to dispose off entire land forming part of kh. No.493 recorded in his name is rejected. Need to sell the land as pleaded in the application submitted before the Collector is that petitioner wants to re-pay loan amount outstanding against him. It is also not in dispute that the notification under Sections 4 & 7 has already been published under the Act of 1957. Requirement of seeking permission is for the reason because the State Govt. has issued circular with regard to partition of holdings and transfer of land which is already subject matter of notification issued for acquisition of property and land forming part of said notification for the reasons as mentioned therein. Under the Act of 1957, there is no specific bar to transfer the land unless and until there is notification under Section 9 of the Act of 1957 and, therefore, competent authority i.e. concerned Collector in the State of Chhattisgarh in view of circular dated 14.10.2024 can grant permission after examining need and necessity as shown by the owner of land. 7. Land which the petitioner intended to transfer is not only a part of land recorded in his name in kh. no.493 but the petitioner intended to sell entire portion of land forming part of kh. no.493 recorded in his name admeasuring 0.494 hectares/ 1.22 acres which is big chunk of land. 6 / 9 8. Observation made by Collector in impugned order while rejecting application of petitioner seeking permission is that permission can be granted if the petitioner sells entire land recorded in his name, which, in the opinion of this Court is arbitrary. There may be occasion that the petitioner is having in his name more area of land and to meet out his urgent need, the buyer for all land may not be available and therefore owner of land who is having immovable property recorded in his name cannot be left to suffer, and the circular relied upon to object also does not say so specifically. Circular has to be read in an objective manner and is to be applied accordingly. 9. However, concern of respondent No.3 /SECL for whom land is to be acquired is that if after publication of intention to acquire land for coal prospecting permission is granted to transfer land then burden will lie upon respondent No.3/ beneficiary, to provide compensation in the nature of rehabilitation which also includes employment in lieu of land acquired. After division of land, land accounts will increase and according to provision under Section 1957 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, respondent No.3 will be burdened and therefore State Govt. after considering the entire facets of proceeding under different provisions of acquisition has issued the circular. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering identical facts of case in case of Sneh Prabha (supra) has observed thus: “5. Though at first blush, we were inclined to agree with the appellant but on deeper probe, we find that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the Land Policy. It is settled law that any person who purchases land after 7 / 9 publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the and is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired hereunder. It authorises the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, titles and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder. If any subsequent purchaser acquires land, his/her only right would be subject to the provisions of the Act and/or to receive compensation for the land. In a recent judgment, this Court in Union of India v. Shivkumar Bhargava considered the controversy and held that a person who purchases land subsequent to the notification is not entitled to alternative site. It is seen that the Land Policy expressly conferred that right only on that person whose land was acquired. In other words, the person must be the owner of the land on the date on which notification under Section 4(1) was published. By necessary implication, the subsequent purchaser was elbowed out from the policy and became disentitled to the benefit of the Land Policy. x x x x x x 8. It is next contended that having given the benefit to the persons mentioned in the impugned GOs denial thereof to the appellant is an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It is seen that the benefit was given only to three co-owners whose land formed part of a particular strip of land and the excess thereof 8 / 9 obviously was not capable of use or inconvenient to proper use by the owner of the leased land. As a special case, benefit was given to them. The consistent policy has been that a person who purchased the land, after Section 4(1) notification was published, becomes disentitled as she was not the owner as on the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) was published, as indicated in the Land Policy itself. It was reiterated in paragraph 2 of GO No. 342 dated 8-12-1971. It would thus be seen that no discrimination, much less invidious discrimination, was meted out to the appellant. Even if a benefit is wrongly given in favour of one or two, it does not clothe with a right to perpetuate the wrong and the court cannot give countenance to such actions though they are blameworthy and condemnable. Equality clause does not extend to perpetuate wrong nor can anyone equate a right to have the wrong repeated and benefit reaped thereunder.” 11. Purchaser of the land agreed to purchase the land knowing well that the land is already notified for acquisition. 12. In the aforementioned facts of case, that the petitioner complying with the clauses of Circular being owner of the land which is subject matter of notification published under Sections 4 & 7 of the Act of 1957 has submitted an application seeking permission to transfer the property, in the opinion of this Court, is to be allowed. However, to balance interest of both the sides i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3, it is observed that application of petitioner for grant of permission to transfer his land has to be allowed in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sneh Prabha (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with acquisition proceedings under the old Act of 1894 has observed 9 / 9 that owner of land means registered owner of land on the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1894 and therefore in the facts of case, for the purpose of grant of benefit of land acquisition proceeding already initiated by Central Govt. pursuant to notification issued under Sections 4 & 7 of the Act of 1957, for all purposes except for the monetary compensation will be the registered/recorded owner on the date of publication of notification under Sections 4 & 7, meaning thereby the purchaser of the land by registered sale deed will be entitled for monetary compensation only, based on title. 13. Accordingly, impugned order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4/Collector is set aside and the application submitted by petitioner seeking permission to transfer the land is allowed with the aforementioned conditions. 14. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen