1 CGHC010195592021 2026:CGHC:31033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3179 of 2021 1 - Raj Kumar Prajapati S/o Itwari Lal Prajapati Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Matiya, Post Tekari , Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director (CMD) , SECL , Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Area (Gevra Extension Project), Gevra District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Coal India Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal Bhawan, Premise No 04 MAR, Plot No. AF - III, Action Area - 1A, New Town , Rajarhat, Kolkatta 700156 5 - Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Coal , Shastri Bhawan , New Delhi. 6 - District Collector Cum Officiating Dy. Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate , Korba , District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sub Divisional Officer - Land Acquisition Officer, Officiation as a Collector in the land acquisition matter , Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.07.31 10:43:56 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For respondent No.5/ Union of India : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, CGC For State/Respondents No.6 & 7 : Mr. Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the instant Land Acquisition Cases. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the compensation amount from passing of the award dated 28.03.2012 to till the present date. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @15% per annum from the date of determining the compensation i.e. 28.03.2012. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent SECL to provide suitable employment to the petitioner depending upon her educational qualification and other eligibility under the M.P. Punarwas Niti 1991. 10.5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled for minimum wages from the date of acquisition of land till the date of providing employment. 3 10.6. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may please deem fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has purchased the land measuring 0.11 acres of Khasra No.546/17 situated at P.H. No.36, Village Amgaon, Revenue Circle- Hardibazar, Tahsil-Katghora, District Korba from one Jagbandh Bali vide registered sale deed dated 02.03.1993. The name of petitioner was thereafter mutated in the revenue records on 16.08.1993. Respondents No.1 to 4 has shown the intent for acquisition of land situated at Village Amgaon along with other lands situated in nearby village. Government of India has initiated land acquisition proceedings under Section 13(5) of the Coal Bearing Act, 1957. After completion of proceedings, compensation is determined and award was passed by the respondents. He submits that in the said proceedings name of petitioner was not considered. The award was passed on 28.03.2012 after coming across that name of the petitioner is not forming part in the award, petitioner submitted representation before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) on many occasions i.e. 31.07.2013, 16.07.2015 & 07.08.2017, but it remained unconsidered. Petitioner thereafter filed writ petition bearing number WPC No.3370/2019, which was disposed on 30.09.2019 directing the Sub Divisional Officer (R) to conduct an enquiry and further directed that if it is found that petitioner 4 has been ousted without compensation being paid to him necessary proceedings shall be drawn. When copy of order is placed before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), he conducted an enquiry through Nayab Tahsildar and based on the report submitted by Nayad Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Officer (R) wrote letter to the respondents No.1 to 4 on 03.09.2020, directing them to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner for the reasons assigned therein. After receipt of letter dated 03.09.2020 of the Sub Divisional Officer (R), the respondents No. 1 to 4 issued a letter in favour of the petitioner on 18.11.2020 (Annexure P/9) mentioning that the petitioner was intimated through phone earlier and have asked the petitioner to attend the office for accepting the amount of compensation. In the said letter there is no mention of award of interest and employment in lieu of the acquisition of the land recorded in the name of petitioner and therefore, this writ petition is filed. 3. Respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submission, and would submit that in the revenue record which was submitted in the acquisition proceedings, name of petitioner was not mentioned and therefore, his name did not find place in the proceeding of the land acquisition initiated by Central Government and the award determining the compensation in favour of the land oustees. He submits that after the enquiry proceedings based on the direction issued by the High Court and the letter written by the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Korba, 5 the respondents have taken decision to pay suitable amount of compensation in accordance with law with regard to land of the petitioner. He submits that as for the first time the respondents were made aware that the land of the petitioner was also subject matter of land acquisition vide letter dated 03.09.2020, therefore in the letter written by the respondents to the petitioner there is no mention of interest because he would not be entitled for any interest. He next contended that in the writ petition the petitioner has not pleaded in specific terms with regard to employment but for in relief clause. 4. For land oustees in the land acquisition proceeding under Coal Bearing Act, 1957, State Government has formulated resettlement and rehabilitation policy. Entitlement of employment of the land oustees to be considered under the said policy. Petitioner without filing any application for employment in lieu of land has approached this Court seeking relief that he is also entitled for the employment in lieu of his land acquired by the respondents. If petitioner claims employment than he will first have to file appropriate application/representation before the appropriate authority and if such an application is filed it will be considered in accordance with law. 5. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notification under Section 4 is issued in the year 2001 and therefore policy applicable on the said date for grant of 6 employment to the land oustee has to be considered at the time of considering the claim of petitioner. He also submits that as respondents have already issued a letter, he will attend the office of respondents for accepting the amount of compensation and will also submit representation/application for grant of employment as per the policy applicable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents available on record. 7. From the documents placed on record along with writ petition and is relied upon by both the sides in particular Annexure P/8 would show that the petitioner is held to be entitled for grant of compensation in lieu of his land admeasuring 0.11 acers/0.045 hectares by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) and it is accordingly intimated to respondents No.1 to 4 vide letter dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P/8). 8. The respondents No 1 to 4 pursuant to the letter of Sub Divisional Officer (R) had issued a letter to the petitioner asking him to attend the office and to complete the formalities for the payment of compensation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner instead of appearing in the office of respondents No.1 to 4 pursuant to letter (Annexure P/9) dated 18.11.2020 has filed this writ petition. 9. In this petition, petitioner has not filed any document to show that the petitioner has submitted any representation/application 7 before the respondent authority that once his land is acquired and the respondents are granting him compensation, he is also entitled for employment, therefore, employment may also be provided to him. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the respondents have already written letter to the petitioner to appear and complete the formalities to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of the land and further considering that the petitioner has not submitted any representation/application before the respondent authority or any such other authority pleading that he is also entitled for employment in lieu of land under applicable policy, I find appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities as asked to him vide letter dated 18.11.2020 and to complete the formalities of the payment of compensation. In the event petitioner appears before the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities shall complete the proceedings of making payment of the compensation expeditiously, thereafter if there is no other hurdle, within further period of 3 weeks from the date of his appearance. Petitioner is also permitted to submit a representation/application for grant of employment before the respondent authorities and in the event petitioner submits such representation/application, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation/application to 8 be submitted by the petitioner for grant of employment expeditiously preferably within further period of 4 months from the date of receipt of such representation keeping in mind the decision of this Court in case of Pyarelal vs. South East Coalfeilds Ltd., in WPC No. 3076 of 2016 decided on 11.09.2017. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi