-1- 2025:CGHC:36288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1639 of 2021 1 - Ramayan Das Mahant S/o Late Gyan Das, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Naraibodh, Post Gevra Basti, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tribhuvan Das Mahant S/o Late Gyan Das, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Naraibodh, Post Gevra Basti, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S E C L), Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60, Head Office Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S E C L) Sub Area Manager Gevra Project, Post Office Gevra District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Staff Officer (Land Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S E C L), Gevra Project, Post Office - Gevra, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Pili Das S/o Late Gyan Das, Aged About 50 Years Working As Kotwar, Village Naraibodh, R/o Village Naraibodh, Post Gevra Basti, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tahsildar, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : None For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Vinod K. Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P. L. -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.07.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s): “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direction /order regarding not to give the employment to the son and daughter of the respondent no.4 till the pendency of the present petition. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.5 Tahsildar to register a case with regard to the equal distribution of the land in the name of the present petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2) The petitioners have sought a direction restraining the respondent authorities from providing employment to the son and daughter of respondent No.4, alleging that the lands bearing survey numbers 329, 330, 331, 332, 89, and 8/1J were jointly recorded in the names of the petitioners and respondent No.4. It is stated that respondent No.4, who is the brother of the petitioners, by playing fraud, got partitioned only 29 decimal of land to each of the brothers and wrongfully got 1.10 acres in his own name. The said land was acquired by the respondent South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for short, SECL), and compensation in respect thereof has already been received by respondent No.4. It is further alleged that respondent No.4 is now trying to secure employment for his son and daughter on the strength of the said land acquisition, against which the -3- petitioners had filed an objection before respondent No.1 on 12.11.2020. 3) It is also pleaded that the aforesaid lands were acquired by SECL under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and a notification under Section 9(1) of the said Act was issued on 03.06.2010. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities not to grant employment to the son and daughter of respondent No.4 during the pendency of the present petition and to direct respondent No.5 to resolve the issue of equal partition of the subject land. 4) Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the notification under Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, was issued way back on 03.06.2010, and this writ petition has been filed after 11 years without explaining the delay. It is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.4 is a family dispute over partition of land. The claim of respondent No.4 regarding the employment on account of the land acquisition is under process. It is contended by Mr. Deshmukh that compensation has already been paid to respondent No.4; thus, the present petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6) From a perusal of the documents placed on the file, it is evident that the -4- petitioners have not claimed relief for themselves rather they have merely sought a direction to restrain the respondent authorities from providing employment to the son and daughter of respondent No.4. In my considered view, such a petition is not maintainable in the absence of any enforceable right in favour of the petitioners. 7) With regard to the grievance of the petitioners pertaining to the partition of land, they would be at liberty to approach the competent revenue authorities or a civil court for appropriate relief in accordance with the law. Further, the notification under Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued on 03.06.2010, and compensation has already been paid, whereas the petitioners have filed instant petition in the year 2021 without explaining the delay part; therefore, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction at this belated stage. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim