1 2026:CGHC:25818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3055 of 2026 1 - Gopal Singh S/o Ramkaran Singh Aged About 26 Years Harijan Para Nareshpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.). 2 - Mukesh Singh S/o Ramkaran Singh Aged About 19 Years Harijan Para Nareshpur, 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 South Eastern Coalfield Limited Bishrampur, Area, District- Surajpur (C.G.). 3 - Project Office, South Eastern Coalfield Limited Bishrampur, Area, District- Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate along with Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners most respectfully pray 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 petitioners 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. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners are the recorded owners and bhumiswamis of the agricultural lands bearing Khasra Nos. 891/1, 930, 934, 1038, 1079, 1087, 1088, 1131 and 1170, situated at Village Mani, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.). The aforesaid lands were acquired by the respondent, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), for the purpose of mining operations. As per the official compensation statement prepared by the respondent authorities, the names of the petitioners have been duly recorded at Serial Nos. 358, 362, 383, 449, 464, 465, 530, 583 and 318, thereby unequivocally acknowledging and establishing their entitlement to receive compensation for the 3 acquired lands. However, despite the lapse of several years from the date of acquisition, the compensation amount has not been released or disbursed to the petitioners without any justifiable reason. That, on account of the acquisition of the aforesaid lands and the continuous expansion of mining activities, the petitioners have been deprived of their agricultural holdings, rendering the lands unfit for cultivation and completely affecting their livelihood and source of income. Despite such severe prejudice suffered by the petitioners, the respondent authorities have failed to take any effective steps for release of the compensation legally due and payable to them. That the petitioners have repeatedly submitted written representations before the respondent-SECL requesting release of the compensation amount, but no effective action has been taken till date. That, in a similarly situated matter, this Court has been pleased to pass appropriate directions in favour of the landowners. That the arbitrary and unexplained inaction on the part of the respondent-SECL in withholding the compensation amount, despite having officially acknowledged the petitioners' entitlement in its own records, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed to the petitioners under law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land has already been duly determined and reflected in the official compensation statement 4 prepared by the respondent authorities themselves. It is contended that the name of the petitioners is specifically recorded at Serial Nos. 358, 362, 383, 449, 464, 465, 583, 530 and 318 in Statement-VI, thereby clearly establishing the petitoners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners have been deprived of their 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 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 petitioners, submits that mere inclusion the name of the petitioners in the compensation statement does not automatically entitle the petitioners to immediate disbursement 5 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 petitioners in accordance with law. 5. Having 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 petitioners have been acquired by the respondent authorities for mining purposes and that, as per the official compensation statement placed on record, the name of the petitioners are duly reflected in the list of persons entitled to compensation. It further appears that the petitioners have 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 6 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 petitioners in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent authorities shall consider the representations already submitted by the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, while specifically taking into consideration the aspect that entitlement of compensation has already been reflected in the official statement pertaining to the acquired land. 8. It is further observed that the petitioners 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 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. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat