1 2025:CGHC:46626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1391 of 2022  Pradeep Kumar S/o Ramawatar Gurudwan Aged About 36 Years Presently R/o Village And Post- Jardi Bazaar, Block- Hardi Bazaar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh Pin 495446, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Raod, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495006, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Area, Post- Gevra Project, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 495452, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Staff Officer ( Land Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Area, Post- Gevra Project, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh Pin 495452, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector Korba, Collectorate Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 11-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide him with employment in lieu of the acquisition of his land as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, which was in force at the time when his land was acquired. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Central Government initiated a process of land acquisition in 2004 for the ‘SECL Gevra Area Project’ of Respondents No. 2 & 3 at Village–Podi for coal mining. She would contend that Respondent No. 2 & 3 took possession of the land and later on, did not offer employment to the petitioner for the reason that his landholding is less than 2 acres, and the claim of the petitioner is not covered under the 2012 Policy; thus, she prays that this petition may be allowed, and the respondent authorities may be directed to provide employment to the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-SECL submits that the petitioner has already been paid compensation. It is also submitted that according to the rehabilitation and resettlement policy, there was an assurance to provide employment to one of the family members of the land oustees. He would contend that the writ petitioner moved an affidavit for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of employment and same was accepted by the SECL. He would 3 contend that the petitioner has not disclosed this facts in this petition, therefore, this writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the return filed by the SECL and also perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner for grant of additional compensation in lieu of employment and the amount paid to the petitioner. 5) A perusal of the affidavit (Annexure R/1) would show that the petitioner moved affidavit before the SECL authorities for the grant of additional compensation in lieu of the employment and same was accepted by the SECL authorities. The petitioner was paid additional compensation in lieu of the employment. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already accepted the additional compensation in lieu of employment, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court if the cause of action subsists. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y aDigitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.12 18:34:25 +0530