1 2026:CGHC:22685-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3859 of 2026 1 - Devkumar S/o. Shri Ramnihora Aged About 26 Years R/o. Village And Post Bhaistara, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The Union Of India Through The Chairman, Steel Authority Of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 2 - The Chief General Manager (Personnel) Steel Authority Of India Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Room No. 204, Bhilai, Sector-1, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Deputy General Manager (Estate) Bhilai Steel Plant, Office At Hirri Mines, Hirri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. T.S. Sahu, Central Government Counsel For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge ORDER ON BOARD Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 13/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the O.A. No. 203/1078/2022, passed in impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P/1). 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction directing the respondent authorities to provide the emplacement to the petitioner in lieu of land of petitioner. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality and sustainability of the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘CAT’) Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting : Bilaspur in OA No. 203/1078/2022 whereby, the original application submitted by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ancestors of the petitioner were having the land bearing Khasra No. 1116/1 and Khasra No. 1116/2 total admeasuring 1.15 acres situated at Village Chhatauna, District – Bilaspur. The said land was acquired in the year 1950. According to the scheme, there was provision to provide employment in lieu of the land acquired, however, no employment was offered to any of the family members. The family members of the petitioner submitted several representations including the petitioner’s, however, no decision was taken. 4. Petitioner thereafter preferred writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 3961/2021 which was dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to file original application before the CAT. Accordingly, the petitioner who is a disabled person has submitted an application before the CAT which is dismissed by impugned order without considering the facts of the case in an appropriate manner and therefore, this writ petition be admitted and allowed. 3 5. We have perused the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the CAT and the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 6. The order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the CAT is extracted below for ready reference:- “2. The applicant has stated in his Original Application that the ancestral land of the applicant bearing Khasra No.1116/1 & 1116/2 total admeasuring area 1.15 acre situated at Village Chhatauna, District Bilaspur was recorded in the name of great-grandfather of the applicant. The said land was acquired in the year 1950. The applicant submits that as per the scheme of the respondents, there was a provision to provide employment in place of acquired land. However, no family member of the applicant was offered appointment. The applicant further submits that several correspondences were made to the respondents by applicant's family members. However, nothing could be heard till date. 3. We have heard the applicant in person and learned proxy counsel for the respondents. 4. It is evident that earlier the applicant has preferred an Original Application No.203/33/2022 before this Tribunal, wherein some directions were issued on 06.01.2022 to consider the case of the applicant sympathetically. Page No.08 of the Paper Book is the order, which has been passed in compliance of the order passed in O.A. No.203/33/2022. Through the said order dated 02.03.2022, the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant for appointment stating as follows: "आपको पनः सू चित किकोया जात है किको भिलाई इቢኋत सूया्ቔ को ቝኋपनः को सूमया ቚኘजाक्ट को चिलाया  मिम अमि%्ቇहैण को एवजा म* परि,व, को एको सूदस्या को भिलाई इቢኋत सूया्ቔ म* नः/को,0 दिदया जानः को ቚኘव%नः था। व्ቧ5 1986 को द/,नः, उቕኘग म्ቔलाया को तहैत9 Bureau of Public Enterprises नः ቝኋनः0या रूप सू किवቝኋकिपत ्ቤሹኌक्त को पनःव5सू को दिदशा-किनःद>शा जा,0 किकोए है?, जिजासूम* याहै किवशा्ቧ रूप सू कोहै गया है किको "any understanding formal or informal, in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn" इቢኋत औ, खानः म्ቔलाया ቛኋ, दिदनःको 04/10/1989 को जा,0 प्ቔनःसू, नः0कितगत दिदशा-किनःद>शाD को किE, सू दहै,या गया किको इनः दिदशा-किनःद>शाD को सूख्त0 सू पलानः किकोया जाए। अत  मिम अमि%्ቇहैण को एवजा म* नः/को,0 दिदया जानः को ቚኘव%नः को ቚኘव0 हैनः तको जिजातनः 0 प्ቔ आवदनः आया था उनः प, किनःयामनःसू, किव, किकोया गया था। तदुप,त इसू हैत ቚኘप्त आवदनःD प, बी0.प0.ई. (Bureau of Public Enterprises) को दिदशा-किनःद>शाD को अनःसू, किव, नःहैJ किकोया गया है। 4 उप,क्तनःसू,  मिम अमि%्ቇहैण को एवजा म* भिलाई इቢኋत सूया्ቔ म* किनःयाሹኌक्त दिदया जानः को आवदनः प, वत5मनः ሹኌቝኋकित म* किव, नःहैJ किकोया जा सूकोत है।" 5. We observe that the angle of time bar was not deliberated as per the order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.203/33/2022. However, we observe that the present Original Application is time barred as this has been filed after a lapse of 72 years from the date when the land was acquired. It is also to be noted that when the land was acquired, the applicant was not even born. Moreover, in the light of the instructions prevailing post 1987, there is no provision to offer employment to any member of the dispossessed family. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the decision of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for employment assistance in lieu of the land acquired of his family is devoid of any merit. 6. Accordingly, this Original Application apart from being time bar, is also devoid of any merit. Hence, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 7. From the aforementioned extracted portion of the impugned order passed by the CAT, it is apparent that the Tribunal has taken note of the circulars and instructions issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises and have recorded that “any understanding formal or informal in regard to offer of employment to one member of every dispossessed family in the project will stand withdrawn” and it is reinstructed vide letter dated 04.10.1989 to follow the policy decision and directives strictly. Further, the Tribunal has considered delay and latches in filing fo the claim and taken note of the fact that claim was made after about 72 years from the date when the land is stated to have been acquired. At the time of acquisition, petitioner was not even born. Since 1987, there is no provision to offer employment. 8. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, the reasons assigned by the CAT for dismissing the original application, we do not find any error or infirmity in the decision dated 04.10.2024 passed by the CAT. 5 9. The writ petition being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY