1 2025:CGHC:9334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1059 of 2025 1 Raghav Singh S/o Sanyasi Singh Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Kudumkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 2 Radhe Shyam S/o Ghasiram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kudumkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 3 Joginder Prasad S/o Maheshwar Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kudumkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 4 Mangal Das S/o Mahettar Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kudumkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 5 Rajesh Chandra S/o Lala Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kudumkela, Tahsil Gharghoda, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur ( C.G. ). 2 Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.02.25 10:30:38 +0530 2 3 Land Acquisition Officer- Cum - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) Gharghoda, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). 4 S.E.C.L. Through- Cmd, Secl Head Quarter, Seepat Road Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, 5 S.C.E.L. Jampali Through- General Manager, Jampali, District- Raigarh ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Shri Santosh Bharat, P.L. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 24/02/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking compensation and employment towards the lands acquired by the respondent authority which were allotted to the petitioners on lease for a period of 10 years from the year 1976. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the SDO (Revenue) by its communication dated 13.06.2022 directed the respondent/ SECL for payment of compensation on the application submitted by the petitioners as they are entitled for compensation as the land allotted to them on lease has been acquired by the respondents/ SECL. 3 3. Learned State counsel along with counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5 submits that lease for the land in question on the basis of which the petitioners are claiming compensation and employment was for a period of 10 years from 1975-76 to 1985-86 and the lease has already been expired on the date of acquisition of the land in question and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for compensation and the employment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lease agreement annexed as Annexure P-1. 5. Perusal of the lease agreement, on the basis of which, the petitioners are seeking compensation and employment has already been expired. The lease was granted in the year 1976 and the period of lease was for a period of 10 years. The said fact has also been reiterated by the learned State counsel and counsel for SECL. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the lease period has already been expired the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation and employment, because of acquisition of the said land, the petition is without substance and deserve to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti