1 2026:CGHC:13690 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2145 of 2021 1 - Chandrasekhar Rathore S/o Shri Tirithram Rathore, Aged About 39 Years R/o C/o Smt. Kalpana D/o Bhisam Prashad Rathore Village Kanhaiband District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh 490002, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector And Secretary, District Level Rehabilitation Committee Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa 495668 (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production Co. Ltd. Through Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production Co. Ltd., Shed No. 03 Dangniya Raipur District Raipur 492013 (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Engineer (Production) Atal Bihari Thermal Power House Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd Madwa, P.O. Vidyut Nagar, Lachanpur P.S. Naila Janjgir District Janjgir Champa 495669 Raipur 492013 (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Director (Human Resource) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Shed No. 03 Dangniya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - General Manager (Human Resource) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution NIRMALA RAO 2 Co. Ltd, Shed No. 03 Dangniya Raipur District Raipur 492013 Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Anupam Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L. For Respondents No.3 to 6 : Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23 .03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, issue an appropriate order or direction to respondents immediately in the light of order passed by Hon'ble High Court at Jabalpur and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding employment of petitioner. 10.2 That Issue an appropriate order or direction to respondents to prohibit fresh appointment orders, 10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land bearing Survey No.69/6 admeasuring 0.18 acres situated at Village Kanhaibandh, District Janjgir-Champa was acquired by respondents No.3 to 6 for construction of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Thermal Power Project. He would contend that the said land was purchased by the petitioner on 22.10.2008 in the names of his wife and brother-in-law. He would contend that according to Rehabilitation Policy, respondents No.3 to 6 should have offered employment to the petitioner. He would contend that representations were made before the respondent authorities but till date, no decision has been taken. He would contend 3 that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for employment. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 6 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner purchased the said land through a registered sale-deed on 22.10.2008 whereas, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act of 1894’) was issued on 19.6.2009. He would submit that a notification dated 15.5.2008 was issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Rehabilitation Department, Raipur and clause 7.1 of that notification deals with employment and other facilities. He would contend that according to clause 7.1 a displaced family will be eligible for employment who has been land owner or lease holder of acquired land independently or jointly three year prior to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He would contend that as the land was purchased in the year 2008, whereas, the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 in the year 2009 and thus, the petitioner or his near relatives are not owners of the land for three years prior to issuance of said notification, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 4. Learned State counsel would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No.3 to 6. 5. Clause 7.1 of the notification dated 15.5.2008, reads as under: “7. Employment and Other facilities: 7.1. Such displaced family will be eligible for employment who has been land 4 owner or lease holder of acquired land undependably or jointly three year prior to the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.” 6. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased Survey No.69/6, admeasuring 0.18 acres through a registered sale-deed in the names of his wife and brother-in-law on 22.10.2008 whereas, a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published on 19.6.2009. Thus, the petitioner or his relatives were not owners of the said land for three years prior to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. Accordingly, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi