1 CGHC010243402026 2026:CGHC:37496-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 680 of 2026 Om Kishore Patel S/o Late Ganpat Lal Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pandaripani, Post Gorhi, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through-The Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Nava Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.,492001 2 - The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Hasdeo Thermal Power Station Korba, West, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Nandjharokha S/o Gaurilal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Pandripani, Post Gorhi, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.08.22 12:20:32 +0530 2 21.08.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2026, application seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 55 days in filing the instant writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ writ petitioner against the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.2588/2019 (Om Kishore Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner had preferred the aforesaid writ petition contending that the land bearing Khasra No. 434/4, admeasuring 2.03 acres, was acquired by respondent No.2- CSPGCL and stood recorded in the name of Makhanlal Patel in the revenue records. It was further contended that Makhanlal Patel, vide his Will dated 21.04.1997, had bequeathed the said land in favour of his son Gaurilal Patel, who, being the father of respondent No.4, had nominated respondent No.4 for appointment against the acquisition of the said land. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 was granted appointment under the applicable rehabilitation policy and had joined service on 07.08.2012. The writ petition was, however, filed by the appellant only on 31.03.2019, after a delay of about seven years. 3 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order observing as follows :- “6. A careful perusal of the record would show that the land in question was acquired by the respondent No. 2 CSPGCL and employment in lieu of that was to be given under the rehabilitation policy. The land is said to have been registered in the name of Makhanlal Patel, who by his will dated 21/04/1997, bequeathed the said land in favour of his son Gaurilal Patel and Gaurilal Patel, being the father of respondent No. 4, has nominated respondent No. 4 for employment against the acquisition of land by the CSPGCL and thereafter, respondent No. 4 was granted appointment on 31/07/2012 and he had joined on the post of Assistant Grade – III on 07/08/2012. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed on 31/03/2019 i.e. with a delay of 7 years, as such, it suffers from delay and latches and even apart from that, the Collector, Korba, in his order dated 09/09/2011 has rightly concluded that respondent No. 4 is the person nominated for appointment by the landholder, as such, petitioner has no subsisting legal right to seek mandamus of removal of respondent No. 4 from service. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of merits.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.4 obtained appointment under the rehabilitation policy on the basis of a nomination allegedly made by his father, relying upon a Will dated 21.04.1997, which was subsequently held to be 4 forged and fabricated by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2022 rendered in civil appeal No.05-A/2019 (Om Kishore Patel & Ors. Gauri Lal & Ors.). It is submitted that the appellant had been continuously raising objections before the competent authorities and was also pursuing civil remedies against the said fraudulent claim; therefore, the delay in approaching this Court cannot be treated as laches. It is, accordingly, submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and in holding that respondent No.4 had a valid right to continue in service. The impugned order suffers from serious vices of facts and law and cannot be allowed to sustain and deserves to be interfered with. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order and the same is warranting no interference of this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended herein. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The admitted position is 5 that respondent No.4 was appointed under the rehabilitation policy in the year 2012 and joined service on 07.08.2012, whereas the writ petition questioning his appointment was filed only on 31.03.2019, after an unexplained delay of about seven years. 10. From the bare perusal of the material placed before us, it is apparent that the appellant had instituted Civil Suit No. 08-A/2014, which came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.12.2018. Against the said judgment, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 05-A/2019, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2022, wherein the alleged Will executed by Makhanlal was held to be forged. However, despite the aforesaid proceedings and the subsequent judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellant failed to place the relevant facts and documents before the learned Single Judge while prosecuting WPS No. 2588/2019. The copies of the judgments of the Civil Court and the First Appellate Court have been produced for the first time in the present appeal. In an intra-court appeal, this Court is primarily concerned with examining the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the material which was before him. The appellant cannot, therefore, seek to fault the order of the learned Single Judge on the basis of documents which were not placed before the learned Single Judge. 6 11. The contention of the appellant regarding the alleged Will dated 21.04.1997 and the subsequent judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 29.01.2022 also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The appointment of respondent No.4 was made in the year 2012 pursuant to the nomination accepted by the competent authority, and the appellant had approached this Court much thereafter. Moreover, the issue regarding the validity of the nomination and the documents relied upon for such appointment involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present writ appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to issue a writ of mandamus for removal of respondent No.4 from service after such considerable lapse of time. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/ S.Bhilwar