1 2025:CGHC:52000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5484 of 2025 1 - Akash Kumar Shandilya S/o Girivar Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Maina Para Nariyara, Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Giriwar Kumar S/o Late Ramkhilawan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Maina Para Nariyara, Tahsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Collector District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional O4cer (Revenue) Janjgir, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Ksk Mahanadi Power Co. Ltd. Through - It Managing Director, Village- Nariyara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - The Director Ksk Mahanadi Power Co. Ltd. Nariyara, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) …Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The present writ petition has been 9led by the petitioner seeking following relief:- 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.28 11:30:19 +0530 2 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to allow make new nomiee to the petitioner No. 1 and grant service or pay minimum wages to the petitioners. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted, in the interest of justice. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner No.02 was owner land bearing khasra no. 1408/1, admeasuring area 05140 Hector situated Village amora P.H. 20 Tahsil Akaltara District been Janjgir Champa, the aforesaid land has acquired/purchased by the respondent no. 4 for purpose of constructions of power plant, prior to acquirement of the petitioner's land meeting was held on dated 05.02.2011 wherein, respondent no. 4 agreed to provide service to one member of the family whom land was acquired by the said company, on compliance of decision of meeting dated 05.02.2011, the respondent/company issued Bene9ciary Card bearing No. 1456 (0018L/A-Amora) for purpose of grant of service or wages to the petitioner No. 02, for purpose of getting minimum wages the petitioner No. 2 made Nominee to wife Namely Chandrakala Devi, respondent company granted wages to petitioner, in this regard Joint bank account open in the name of petitioner and wife Smt. Chandrakala in Panjab National Bank, the respondent Company send wages in above Joint Name Bank account regularly. 3. It is respectfully submitted by the petitioner that, the wife of petitioner No. 02 Chandrakala (Nominee) died on dated 25.04.2021 and after death of wife of petitioner No.02/Nominee the respondent company stop the pay wages to petitioner No.02. The lands of the of petitioner No.02 acquired/used by the company therefore as per rehabilitation policy and Tri-Party Meeting the respondent No.02 is entitled to gate wages, the late Chandrakala was being a nominee only custodian of 3 bene9t granted by the respondent company. she was not owner, after death of the nominee the owner of the land is entitled to get bene9t as per rehabilitation policy, if nominee has died the owner of the land/petitioner No. 2 is entitled to get wages. Since wife of the petitioner No. 2 / nominee has been died on dated 25.04.2021 the petitioner No. 2 submitted application before the respondent company for grant of wages or employment to him, further submitted in application that he want to appoint new nominee to the his son namely Akash Kumar Shandilya (petitioner No. 1). 4. It is respectfully further submitted by the petitioner that, a new nominee can be appointed under a rehabilitation policy after the death of the original nominee, the process and requirement for making this change will depend on the speci9c rule or policy, if the respondent company not allowed to appoint nev nominee then original owner of the land petitioner No. 2 is entitled to wages as per rehabilitation policy. A nominee is often a trustee, not the owner, in landmark case of Sabati Devi Vs Usha Devi, it was held that, the nominee is not the 9nal owner of the assets but an authorized person to receive the bene9t, a nominee can act as a trustee on behalf of the land owner and hold such property until sweet will of land owner. The petitioner No. 01 made representation for grant of employment or minimum wages, but the petitioners have not received any response. The petitioners made every endeavor for grant employment or minimum wages but respondents authority have not granted same. The land of the petitioner No. 2 acquired by the respondent no. 4 after death of the wife / nominee the respondent company stop the pay minimum wages to the petitioner No. 2, the petitioners are no alternative income only 4 depend of minimum wages granted by the respondent company to the nominee, after death of nominee it is di4cult for the petitioner to maintained themselves, due to inaction of part of respondents authorities the petitioners deprived for bene9t of rehabilitation policy hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider the pending representation, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. His pending representation will be considered in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I 9nd it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the concerned respondent No. 2 to consider/decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/6) in accordance with law/rules/regulations and in an objective manner as expeditiously as possible within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti