1 2026:CGHC:22262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3786 of 2022 * - Krishna Kumar S/o Pyare Lal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Gevra Basti, Kusmunda, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Mining) Dipka Extension Project, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of employment in lieu of his land acquired by the respondents as per nomination. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.13 18:58:35 +0530 2 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. The Central Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings in the year 2004 for extension of Dipka Project of the respondent/SECL. The lands of village Malgaon Tehsil- Katghora District Korba was acquired by the Central Government under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (in short CBA Act) for the Dipka Expansion Coal Mines Project of Dipka Area SECL. In this regard for the said acquisition a notification u/s 4 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 12.02.2001 and notification u/s 7 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 17.02.2004 and notification u/s 9 of the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 24.11.2004 by the Central Government and those notifications were published in the official gazette. Upon publication of the notification in the official gazette u/s 9 of the said Act, the land and right over the land vested absolutely with the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. In terms of Section 11 of the above Act, the above referred land and right vested with the company i.e. S.E.C.L. It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the family members of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. However, subsequently employment was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 and authorities failed to consider claims of land oustees according to Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was prevalent at the time of land acquisition. 3 According to the Policy of 2012, the land oustees having land less than 2 acres would not be entitled to get employment. The petitioner as such preferred WPS No. 6359/2021 which was disposed of by the High Court directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with rules, regulations and policy governing the field. The application/representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the SECL authorities. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in existence at the time of land acquisition. The petitioner has also sought relief to quash the order passed by the SECL authorities, whereby his claim has been rejected. 3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. He would contend that a similar issue was raised in the matter of Pyarelal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others and connected matters passed in WPC No 3076 of 2016, dated 11- 09-2017, and the coordinate bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of land oustees for rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance with the Policy prevailing on the date of acquisition, within 45 days. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the SECL would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. He would submit that the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, would apply in the 4 instant case, which provides that if any of the land oustee has less than 2 acres of land, he would not be entitled to get employment. He would submit that the petitioner does not qualify for employment as the quantum of land is less than the quantum upto which employment is being provided. The employment was to be offered in descending order, wherein employment is to be provided to the land owners having quantum of land upto 0.52 acre at Village Malgaon and the petitioner’s acquired land is less than the same i.e. 0.05 acre. He would further contend that it would not be possible for the SECL to provide employment to each and every affected family. He would also contend that the full and final compensation has already been paid to the land oustees. He would argue that this petition deserved to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), a similar issue was raised and the coordinate bench in Para-65 of its judgment directed the SECL to provide employment strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy applicable on the date of acquisitions of land within 45 days. 7. In the present case, the proceedings with regard to land acquisition were initiated in the year 2004 and the notification under Section 9 of C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 24.11.2004 and at that time, the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 was in force. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was floated in the year 2012 and certainly, it would not attract in the instant case. 8. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court in Para-65 held as under:- 5 “65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.” 9. A specific query was made from the counsel appearing for SECL as to whether the order passed in the matter of Pyarelal (supra) has been assailed before the Superior Court or not. The counsel fairly submitted that the order dated 11.09.2017 has not been challenged and thus, it attained finality. 10. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), it is categorically observed that the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21 and the Policy applicable on the date of acquisition of the land would be applicable, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities should consider the claim of the petitioners strictly in light of the observations made in the matter of Pyarelal (supra). The order dated 16.02.2022 passed against the petitioner by the SECL is hereby quashed. The SECL/respondents are 6 directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Consequently, the petition is disposed of. No Cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti