1 2026:CGHC:22472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2401 of 2026 1 - Lalta S/o Mani Ram Aged About 56 Years Village Pondi, Kekta, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Limited Head Quarter, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through General Manager Secl Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Project Office South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Bishrampur Area, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate along with Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (ii) Direct Respondent SECL to forthwith release and pay the compensation amount as per Statement-1A pertaining to the petitioner's land, along with interest for delayed payment; (iii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure compliance of compensation disbursement within a time-bound period; (iv) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, including costs of this petition.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 1038 3 and 1126, admeasuring 0.28 hectare and 0.24 hectare respectively, situated at Village Jobga, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.). The said land has been acquired by the respondent South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) for mining purposes. The ownership and possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid land is duly reflected in the revenue records and Rin Pustika filed along with the petition as Annexure P/1. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the official compensation statement prepared by the respondent authorities, the name of the petitioner is duly reflected at Serial No. 107, thereby acknowledging the petitioner’s entitlement for compensation in respect of the acquired land. Despite such determination and recognition in official records, the compensation amount has not been disbursed to the petitioner till date, though several years have elapsed. The petitioner has further stated that due to acquisition of the land and expansion of mining activities, the agricultural land has become unfit for cultivation, seriously affecting the petitioner’s livelihood and source of income. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner made several written representations before the respondent authorities and SECL requesting release of the compensation amount, however, no effective action has been taken till date. According to the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not releasing the compensation despite admitted liability reflected in official records is arbitrary, 4 unreasonable and violative of constitutional and statutory rights, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land has already been duly determined and reflected in the official compensation statement prepared by the respondent authorities themselves. It is contended that the petitioner’s name is specifically recorded at Serial No. 107 in Statement-1A, thereby clearly establishing the petitioner’s entitlement for compensation. Learned counsel further submits that despite such admitted position and acknowledgment in official records, the compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioner for reasons best known to the respondents. It is argued that due to acquisition and mining activities, the land in question has become unfit for agricultural purposes and the petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood without payment of lawful compensation. Learned counsel also submits that several representations have already been submitted before the authorities seeking release of compensation, but no effective steps have been taken till date. It is further argued that the action of the respondents in withholding compensation despite admitted entitlement is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed upon an order passed by this Court in a similar matter 5 wherein the respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation of the landowners in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that mere inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the compensation statement does not automatically entitle the petitioner to immediate disbursement of compensation unless all necessary formalities, verification proceedings and statutory requirements are duly completed. It is further submitted that disbursement of compensation is subject to verification of title, revenue records and other procedural compliances as required under the applicable law. Learned counsel submits that if the compensation has not yet been released, the same may be due to pending administrative or procedural formalities and, therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the respondents. It is submitted that the respondents shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the facts of the case, it appears that the land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired by the respondent authorities for mining purposes and that, as per the official compensation statement placed on record, the petitioner’s name is duly reflected 6 in the list of persons entitled to compensation. It further appears that the petitioner has already submitted representations before the competent authorities seeking release of the compensation amount, which are stated to be pending consideration. At the same time, the stand of the respondents reflects that disbursement of compensation is subject to verification of title and compliance of necessary procedural formalities. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent authorities shall consider the representations already submitted by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, while specifically taking into consideration the aspect that compensation has already been reflected and calculated in the official statement pertaining to the acquired land. 8. It is further observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the competent authority, if so advised, and in the event such representation is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider 7 and decide the same along with the pending representations, strictly in accordance with law, within a reasonable period. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge