1 2025:CGHC:50535-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 727 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, C.G. 495006 District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Sunil Das S/o Shri Puran Das Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dharampur, Gevra Basti, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba C.G. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Chandresh Shirvastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Chandresh Shirvastava, learned counsel for the respondent on I.A. No. 01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 233 days in preferring the appeal. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 2. For the grounds assigned in the application I.A. No.01, the same is allowed. Delay of 233 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.2084 of 2019 (Sunil Das vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and another), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. By way of this writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the may kindly allow this writ appeal and set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2084/2019 and further dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.” 5. The facts of the case according to the appellants is that the acquisition of land bearing Khasra No. 273/4 area 0.21 acre situated at village Bhaismakhar (Gevra Part), Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for SECL’s Kusmunda Project vide notification under Section 4 dated 12.04.2002 and final award dated 27.01.2004. The said land was recorded in the name of Puran Das S/o Prem Das, whose compensation was duly paid. As 3 per the applicable M.P. Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (as amended in 1995 and clarified in 1996, 1998 and 2000), employment to displaced persons was subject to specific conditions and priorities. The petitioner, claiming to be entitled to employment in lieu of acquisition of his father’s land, approached SECL, but his claim was rejected on the ground that only 0.21 acre of land was acquired and he did not satisfy the eligibility conditions under the policy. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/respondent herein filed WPS No. 2084/2019 before the Learned Single Judge and the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 27.11.2024 and vide order dated 27.11.2024, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed SECL to consider and provide him employment. Upon compliance proceedings, SECL found discrepancies and incomplete documents and, after scrutiny, concluded that the petitioner was not covered under any clause of the 1991 R&R Policy. SECL now challenges the impugned order, contending that the petitioner obtained it by suppressing material facts and that new evidence has since come to light. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “6. Perusal of the aforementioned revenue documents and further exclusive ownership as mentioned in the application and the description of the application would show that the land bearing khasra No. 273 was subsequently 4 partitioned between four brothers whose names were mentioned in the revenue records of the year 1979-80 and therefore the land bearing khasra No. 273 has been shown as 273/4 recorded in the name of father of petitioner. When the land which was acquired by the respondents is bearing khasra No. 273/4, from the revenue documents appears to be ancestral property. Partition of the property between the brothers is a naturalprocess which cannot be said that the partition of land bearing khasra No 273 was with any ulterior motive, after getting the knowledge that the respondents were going to acquire the land. On the date of partition of land between four brothers in the year 1994 or recording name of Purandas as exclusive owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 273/4 in the revenue records dated 16.05.1996, there was no intention of the respondents of acquiring the said piece of land by them neither it is in the pleadings of the reply submitted by the respondents. 8. In the aforementioned peculiar facts of the case when the land bearing khasra No. 273/4 which was acquired by the respondents is the ancestral property and was subsequently partitioned in 1994, the clause as mentioned in the Circular dated 21.12.1995 that the applicant should be owner of the land for last 20 years, would not apply with the same force as in the case of subsequent purchasers. When undisputedly father of petitioner along with his brothers has been shown to be owner and 5 possessor of the land since 1979 exclusively and therefore the family members of the petitioner were in joint ownership and possession of the land acquired by the respondents for more than 20 years, as per the entries made in the revenue records. 9. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for respondents that the claim of petitioner has not been outrightly rejected but the employment was not provided as the petitioner could not able to submit the consent of the other family members is concerned, it is not in dispute that the joint family property has been subsequently partitioned between the family members in the year 1994, the land which was acquired and subject matter of the writ petition bearing khasra No. 273/4 fallen in the share of father of petitioner. No material is placed by the respondent that the said partition and falling of the land, subject matter of the writ petition, in the share of father of petitioner in any manner disputed by the other family members. In absence of any specific pleadings in this regard by the respondents, it is to be consideredthat the land bearing Khasra No. 273/4 is fallen in the share of father u petitioner in the year 1994 and therefore it has been recorded in his name exclusively in the year 1996. When once the ancestral property is partitioned between the family members and the particular piece of land which was subject matter of the acquisition by the respondents has fallen in the share of father of petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, there is 6 no requirement of obtaining consent of other family members who are not the co-owners of the said property since 1996 and on the date of acquisition. The reason for not providing employment to the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner has not submitted consent of other family members is not sustainable and therefore it is hereby repelled. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the reasons assigned by the respondents in Annexure P-1 while deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner for not providing employment to the petitioner is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. 11. When the policy is formulated by the State Government to provide employment to the land oustees, and that too when they became landless, it has to be given appropriate effect so as to achieve the object for which the policy is formulated. 12. For the foregoing discussion, writ petition is allowed, respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner and provide employment in lieu of land acquired exclusively recorded in the name of father of petitioner bearing khasra No,. 273/4 in accordance with law.” 7. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the impugned order dated 28.11.2023 is liable to be set aside as it was obtained by the petitioner through suppression of material facts and submission of tampered documents, which 7 amounts to playing fraud on the Hon’ble Court and disentitles him from any equitable relief, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India and other cases. The petitioner’s claim suffers from an inordinate delay of over 17 years without any explanation, lacks the consent of the co-owners of the acquired land, and is not maintainable since employment in lieu of land acquisition is neither a vested right nor enforceable by writ but merely a concession under the policy. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appointment, which is impermissible under law as held in State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali and HRTC v. Dinesh Kumar, where courts have consistently held that, at best, the competent authority may be directed to consider the claim in accordance with the applicable rules. Moreover, the petitioner’s father has already accepted compensation, and the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility under the relevant rehabilitation policy, rendering the claim untenable and a clear attempt at backdoor entry into public employment, which is contrary to the constitutional principles of equality and merit. It is therefore urged that the impugned order, being illegal, void, and passed in disregard of due process, be quashed and set aside, and the present appeal be allowed. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents/appellants herein have acted strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy framed by the State Government, which clearly mandates that for entitlement to employment, the land must have been 8 recorded in the exclusive name of the applicant or his/her predecessor at least 20 years prior to the issuance of the land acquisition notification. In the present case, the acquisition notification was issued in 2002; therefore, the name of the petitioner or his father ought to have been recorded exclusively in the revenue records prior to 1982. However, the revenue records reveal that the land bearing Khasra No. 273 was jointly recorded as of 1979, and no exclusive ownership of the respondent’s father was found. Furthermore, the respondent has failed to produce the consent of the other co-owners, which is a mandatory requirement where land is jointly held. Accordingly, the conclusion drawn by the respondent authorities in denying employment is in accordance with the policy and is not liable to interference. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent herein opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which no interference is called for. Accordingly, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that once the ancestral property is partitioned between the family members and the 9 particular piece of land which was subject matter of the acquisition by the appellants has fallen in the share of father of respondent, therefore, there is no requirement of obtaining consent of other family members who are not the co-owners of the said property since 1996 and on the date of acquisition. The reason for not providing employment to the respondent only on the ground that respondent has not submitted consent of other family members is not sustainable and therefore it was repelled. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the appellants while deciding the representation submitted by the respondent for not providing employment to the respondent was not sustainable and accordingly, the said impugned order dated 05.02.2019 was set aside. 11. As per the Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (as amended in 1995) formulated by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, which was in force at the time of acquisition of the respondent’s land, the respondent is entitled to ownership rights over the land in question. This entitlement has been duly recognized and affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, after careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and a thorough perusal of the impugned order and the relevant records, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands dismissed. No 10 cost(s). 13. Interlocutory application(s), if any pending, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vishakha