1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4009 of 2022 1 - Prahlad S/o Pyarilal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil - Dabhra - Sakti - (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) 4 - General Manager District Industry And Trade Centre, Collectorate Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4083 of 2022 1 - Bhojmati W/o Phulsingh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil - Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager District Industry And Trade Center Collectorate Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4121 of 2022 1 - Shushila D/o Puniram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil - Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 3 4 - General Manager District Industry And Trade Centre Collectorate Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4118 of 2022 1 - Dev Kumar S/o Narayan Prasad Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil - Dabhra District Sakti (C.G.) (In The Compensation Chat Name Of The Mother Of Petitioner Kuntila Is Mentioned Who Is Died Hence The Legal Heir Son Dev Kumar Is Filing Instant Petition) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager District Industry And Trade Center, Collectorate Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4089 of 2022 1 - Chabilal S/o Ratan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - General Manager District Industry And Trade Centre Collectorate Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate For State :- Ms. Anuja Sharma, P.L., ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 06.05.2025 1. Heard Ms. Apurva Nigam, Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Anuja Sharma, P.L. appearing for the State. 2. Since similar and identical issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as such, they are being clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. This order will adjudicate the entire bunch of the writ petitions. 5 3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in all the writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, however, in order to adjudicate these petitions, WPC No. 4009/2022 (Prahlad vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) has been taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases. The reliefs sought in the said petition are quoted hereinbelow:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for taking decision on petitioners representation as per rehabilitation policy 2007. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have approached this Court while seeking interference under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Facts of the cases are in WPC No. 4009/2022, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 131/5, 132/5, 133/5, and 136/5, measuring 0.082 hectares, In WPC No. 4083/2022, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 131/5, 132/5, 133/5, and 136/5, measuring 0.082 hectares, In WPC No. 4089/2022, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 2/3, 3/1, 5/1 measuring 0.352 hectares, In WPC No. 4118/2022, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 131/12, 132/12, 133/12, and 134/12, measuring 0.078 6 hectares and In WPC No. 4121/2022, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 131/11, 132/11, 133/11, and 134/115, measuring 0.078 hectares. The said lands are located in Village Bilaigarh, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti, which were acquired by the respondents authorities through an award dated 28.01.2021 in land acquisition case no. 01/A-82/2017-18. Since 01.04.2016, private industries have been utilizing water from the acquired land, as confirmed by information obtained under the Right to Information Act. The petitioners are entitled to benefits under Paragraph 11.2.3 of the Industrial Policy, which have not been provided despite several representations to the authorities. The petitioners seek a direction from the court for the respondent to decide on the pending representations filed by the petitioners within a specified time frame. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been illegally deprived of the benefits under the Rehabilitation Policy of the State of Chhattisgarh, 2007, despite fulfilling all the necessary conditions stipulated therein. It is submitted that the petitioners’ lands were acquired for industrial purposes, and the possession was taken by the respondents. However, till date, no employment has been provided to the petitioners or any of their family members, which is a clear violation of Para 11.2.3 of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. As per the said provision, the respondents were duty-bound to provide employment within two years from the date of possession. It is 7 submitted that despite repeated representations made by the petitioners, the competent authority has failed to decide the same, thereby causing grave injustice and hardship to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the industrial establishments have been utilizing natural resources such as water since 01.04.2016, indicating the commencement of their operations. However, the petitioners have not been compensated or rehabilitated in accordance with the policy framework. The inaction of the respondents in implementing the mandatory provisions of the policy is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioners pray for appropriate directions to the respondents for compliance with the provisions of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, including the grant of employment and other eligible benefits, and for disposal of the pending representations. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petitions, as the conditions prescribed under the Rehabilitation Policy of the State of Chhattisgarh, 2007, have not been fully satisfied in the present case. It is submitted that the process of identifying eligible beneficiaries for employment under Para 11.2.3 of the said policy involves verification and scrutiny by the competent authorities, and mere possession of land does not automatically entitle the petitioners to employment unless all 8 procedural and eligibility requirements are met. Furthermore, the petitioners’ representation are under active consideration, and delay, if any, is neither deliberate nor malicious but due to administrative processes. It is also submitted that the policy does not confer an absolute or enforceable right in every case, and the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court without exhausting available administrative remedies. The respondents are willing to consider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law and policy, but the present petitions are premature and liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended to the writ petitions. 9. Upon perusal of the record, pleadings in the petition, and the policy documents appended by the petitioners, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is that, following the acquisition of their land, the respondent authorities have failed to comply with the applicable rehabilitation policy, which they are obligated to consider. According to the State’s rehabilitation policy, namely Chhattisgarh Rajya Ki Aadarsh Punarvas Neeti, 2007, Paragraph 11.2.3 specifically provides as follows:- " औद्योगिक तथा खनन परियोजन क गियो न्वयोन कन व ले संस्था न द्वा योगि गिनज भूगि क कब्ज लेन क 2 वर्ष! क" क ले वधि$ क भूत ( पहले परियोजन क गिन !ण क यो' ( तथा परियोजन क चा ले ह ज न क बा परियोजन () ज उपलेब्$ नह, क यो ज त ह-, त संस्था न द्वा ज क धिलेए 9 प त्र प्रत्योक परिव क एक व्योगि3 क अह!त क अन5रूप गियो ज न व ले ज सं प्र प्त हन व ले गि8 क संत5ल्यो गि8, यो ज टी योजन क तहत यो गि8, ज भू अधि$क ह, बा- क क तबा तक भू5त न क" ज ए, चाबा तक गिक गिनयोगित ज क" व्योवस्था न ह ज ए।' 10. Since the lands of the petitioners have been acquired, they have been granted monetary compensation; however, no rehabilitation measures have been provided to them so far. Specifically, neither employment to one member of each affected family has been granted, nor any interim monetary compensation has been provided in lieu of such employment until regular employment is secured. The objective of the rehabilitation policy is to ensure that displaced persons do not face severe livelihood issues following land acquisition. The petitioners have already submitted representations outlining their grievances, including their inability to continue agricultural operations due to the submergence of the acquired land, making farming activities impossible. Therefore, in accordance with the rehabilitation policy, the respondent authorities are duty-bound to provide rehabilitation assistance to the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, all the petitioners are directed to submit fresh individual representations/applications before the concerned authorities, clearly stating all relevant facts. The respondent authorities are directed to consider each petitioner's case in accordance with Clause 11.2.3 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Ki 10 Aadarsh Punarvas Neeti, 2007. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha