-1- 2025:CGHC:20678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 792 of 2017 Bhupendra Kumar Manikpuri S/o Mahettar Das Manikpuri, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Kusmul, P. S. Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa 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. 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh, Area, District Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.05.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post in lieu of land of the mother of petitioner namely Tulsi Bai and uncle of the petitioner namely Laxman Das acquired on 25-12-2010 by the respondent company bearing Khasra No.190/1 (A) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- situated at village Barod, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to take decision on the application of the petitioner dated 23-12-2016 and 30-12-2016 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment in lieu of the land acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the son of Mahettar Das Manikpuri and Smt. Tulsi Bai Manikpuri. The petitioner’s maternal uncle is Laxman Das. It is submitted that the land bearing Survey No.190/1(A), situated at Village Barod, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, was recorded in the name of Laxman Das. He would contend that the mother of the petitioner had the right over the said property. The aforesaid land was acquired by the respondents and the name of Laxman Das appears at Serial No.198 in the notification prepared by the respondents. 4) Mr. Chandra would also submit that an affidavit was executed by Laxman Das in favour of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was declared to claim employment in lieu of the acquired land. It is further argued that the petitioner is eligible and qualified, but despite repeated representations, he has not been provided employment; thus, he would pray for a direction to the respondents to -3- provide employment to the petitioner. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that 3.46 acres of land belonging to Laxman Das was acquired by SECL. He would further submit that monetary compensation and employment have already been provided to Laxman Das as per the prevailing rehabilitation and resettlement policy. It is submitted that as per the policy, one employment was granted to Laxman Das against the acquisition of two acres of land. Further, the compensation amount of Rs. 21,72,142.00 was paid to Laxman Das through Cheque No. 216896 dated 19.12.2014. It is contended that the acquired land was never recorded in the name of the petitioner or his mother, and therefore, he has no legal entitlement to any benefit under the policy. The respondents thus pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7) It is an admitted fact that the land bearing Survey No.190/1(A), admeasuring 1.400 hectares (3.46 acres), situated at Village Barod, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, was recorded in the name of Laxman Das and was acquired by SECL. The said land was included in the acquisition notification dated 25.12.2010. As per the records submitted by SECL, compensation was paid to Laxman Das and employment was also provided in accordance with the policy. 8) It is also not disputed that the acquired land was never recorded in the name of the petitioner or his mother. Though an affidavit was executed by Laxman Das in favour of the petitioner but such an affidavit does not confer any enforceable -4- legal right in favor of the petitioner, particularly in the absence of any title and ownership. Employment under the rehabilitation and resettlement policy is attached to the ownership of the acquired land, and since compensation and employment have already been granted to the recorded landowner, i.e., Laxman Das, no further claim can be entertained. 9) In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal right for the relief claimed. 10) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim