1 2026:CGHC:2673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 189 of 2026 1 - Ramsuresh S/o Late Shri Thakur Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Laxmanpur (Kamlapur), Post Gangikot, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Babi Bai W/o Late Shri Thakur Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Laxmanpur (Kamlapur), Post Gangikot, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Chief General Manager, Bishrampur Area, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Regional Personnel Manager Secl Bishrampur Area, Distt. Surajpur, AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.01.19 14:52:50 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh. 7 - Gajanand Tiwari S/o Jagdeesh Aged About 55 Years Occupation Services (Posted As Mechanical Fitter In Fitter Plant, Bishrampur Area), R/o Minus Colony, Bishrampur, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 191 of 2026 1 - Ramsuresh S/o. Late Shri Thakur Ram, Aged About 29 Years R/o. Village- Laxmanpur (Kamlapur), Post- Gangikot, Police Station- Bishrampur, District Surajpur C.G. 2 - Babi Bai, W/o. Late Shri Thakur Ram, Aged About 60 Years R/o. Village- Laxmanpur (Kamlapur), Post- Gangikot, Police Station- Bishrampur, District Surajpur C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur C.G.. 2 - Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 4 - Tehsildar Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 5 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Chief General Manager, Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur C.G. 3 6 - Regional Personnel Manager, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur C.G. 7 - Jitendra Kumar Mishra, S/o. Bechan, Aged About 52 Years Occupation- Service (Posted As M.T.K. Amgaon Open Cast, Bishrampur Area), R/o. Staff Colony, Bishrampur, Police Station Bishrampur, Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For State/Res. : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 16/01/2026 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is common, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that private Respondent No.7 namely Gajanand Tiwari (WPC/189/2026) and Jitendra Kumar Mishra (WPC/191/2026) are claiming to be family of petitioners whose land has been acquired bearing Khasra No.810/93, Rakba-1.820 hectare situated at village Kamlapur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. Out of above Khasra No.810/93 च , 0.505 hectare land has been acquired in WPC/189/2026 and out of above Khasra No.810/93 च, 0.405 hectare land has been acquired in WPC/191/2026 in lieu of 4 employment. He submits that private Respondent No.7 namely Gajanand Tiwari impersonated himself to be the nephew of one Rajmati and the alleged Rajmati is said to be the daughter of Petitioner No.2 and private Respondent No.7 namely Jitendra Kumar Mishra impersonated himself to be the nephew of one Raimun and the alleged Raimun is said to be the daughter of Petitioner No.2 and on such impersonification, Respondent No.7 gained employment and as such, fraudulent act has been committed by them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent- SECL without doing any enquiry, has granted employment to the private respondent No.7 under the Coal Bearing Act in lieu of acquired land which belongs to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent- SECL would submit that the proceedings were done strictly in accordance with the rules and guidelines applicable at the relevant time and therefore, there is no ambiguity. However, the allegations made by the petitioners against the Respondent No.7 is required to be ascertained on the basis of evidence and material which cannot be adjudicated in these writ petitions. 4. Learned State counsel would support the submission made by counsel for SECL. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and the fact that petitioners’ entitlement is required to be ascertained by 5 conducting proper proceedings before the Civil Court and unless and until the act committed by Respondent No.7 is held to be fraud, no relief can be considered by this Court. 7. In this aspect of the matter, the Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to take recourse available to them under the civil law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Avinash