1 CGHC010361892023 2026:CGHC:36983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8785 of 2023 Ajay Kumar Behra S/o Laxmi Behra, Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village Teram, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Through Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Incharge Officer (Revenue) South Eastern Colfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Res No.1 to 3 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Res No.4 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 18/08/2026 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the followings reliefs:- "10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant service to the petitioner in lieu of land acquired by the respondent Company under the Rehabilitation Scheme. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company to reconsider claim of petitioner and decide the representation dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure-P-5) in a stipulated period of time. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, order, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-P-7)." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 0.02 decimal (0.002 acres) of land bearing Khasra No. 358/1, situated at Village Baraud and owned by the petitioner's grandmother, was acquired by Respondent SECL for the Baraud Expansion Open Cast Coal Mines Project, Raigarh. However, despite the existence of a clubbing concept for granting employment in lieu of acquired land, the petitioner was denied employment on the ground that the minimum cut-off area was fixed at 0.10 acres pursuant to a decision taken by the District Level Resettlement and Rehabilitation Committee on 15.12.2015, consequent to which, the petitioner's claim was rejected via the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-P/7). Counsel further submits that under the clarification schedule of the Coal India Limited (CIL) Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2012 ("Policy 2012"), a clubbing policy was adopted. Under this policy, even if a landholder owns less than 2 acres, the land area 3 can be combined with the consent of another affected land oustee to reach the prescribed land of 0.10 acres to grant employment. Therefore, counsel prays for a direction to SECL to provide employment under this clubbing concept. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3 (SECL) vehemently opposes the petitioner’s prayer. Referring to the reply filed by SECL, counsel submits that a total of 2,213.242 hectares of land across 7 villages including Village Baraud was acquired for the project under the Coal Bearing Areas Act. As per Policy 2012, affected landowners with at least 2 acres of acquired land are entitled to employment, distributed in descending order of land area. This criteria was discussed during a meeting held on 15.12.2015 (Annexure-R/3) between SECL authorities and village representatives. He further points out that only 0.02 decimal of land belonging jointly to land oustees Draupadi, Kamla Bai, and Rajkumari was acquired. Even after combining their shares, the total area falls far short of the minimum land required for employment under the decision dated 15.12.2015. Thus, the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected by the order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-P/7), and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 has not filed a separate reply, submitting that since the core dispute lies between the petitioner and SECL, the State is a formal party in this case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4 6. Undisputedly, 0.02 decimal of land from a joint holding belonging to the petitioner's grandmother was acquired by SECL for the Baraud Expansion Open Cast Coal Mines Project, Raigarh. According to the document (Page No. 25) attached to the Writ Petition, the framework adopted to grant employment to land oustees under the CIL R&R Policy 2012 reads as follows: " बरौद तार परयोजना कोल इंया पुनास एं पुनापना नीत , 2012 के अंतत अजत भू" के अरोही ( घटते ) &" के अनुसार '(येक खाते "* सृ,जत नौकरी कोल इंया पुनास एं पुनबसाहट नीत, 2012 के अरोही &" के तहत -ा" बरौद की कु ल अजत भू" 977.39 एक पर 2 एक/ पर एक रोजार के "ानदं अनुसार -488 रोजार सृ,जत है। कोल इंया पुनास एं पुनापना नीत, 2012 के अंतत -ा" बरौद की अजत भू" के अरोही (घटते) &" के अनुसार '(येक खाते "* सृ,जत नौकरय2 की सूची अनुसं4ल5 - ब "* संल5 है। भू" की अरोही &" की सूची के स.&. 220 से 236 तक 0.10 एक/ अजत भू" पर 17 नौकरी के 6लए 79 भू- ा"ी है, ,जनकी पा7ता हेतु 'ा"कता कोल इ89या पुनास एं पुनापना नीत 2012 के 'ाधान अनुसार नधारत की जाेी, जो न;नानुसार होी - 1. ऐसे भू- ा"ी ,जसके "कान का अध-हण कया या हो 2. ऐसे भू- ा"ी ,जनकी भू" >सचत हो 3. ऐसे भू- ा"ी ,जनकी भू" खनन काय के सबसे स"ीप हो या ,जसपर पहले खनन कया जाना हो 4. यद उपरो@ Aबदु &० 1, 2 और 3 के 'ाधान अनुसार अजत भू" के भू-ा"ी स"ान पाए जाते हD तो ,जला तरीय पुनास स"त Eारा 'भात2 की सा"ा,जक- आGक 8त का अलोकन करते हुए नौकरी की 'ा"कता का नधारण कया जायेा। टीप - ,जला तरीय पुनास स"त Eारा नौकरी के कHप एं नौकरी की 'ा"कता सूची का स(यापन एं अनुशंसा करने पJात एस०ई०सी०एल० "ुLयालय के "ाMय" से एस०ई०सी०एल० बो "* अनु"ोदन हेतु भेजा जाएा। बो के अनु"ोदनोपरांत ही नौकरी देने की '&या चालू की जाेी।" 7. The policy referenced above makes it clear that out of 977.39 acres of acquired land in Village Baraud, a total of 488 employment were generated 5 based on the policy of providing one employment per 2 acres of land. Further, applying the descending order framework, 0.10 acres was fixed as the absolute minimum cut-off area to qualify for employment consideration. Since the petitioner's landholding was minimal (only 0.02 decimal), the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for employment. 8. Apart from that, even if the Clarification issued under the Coal India Rehabilitation and Resttlement Policy (Page No.32 attached with writ petition) regarding the clubbing concept is considered, the petitioner has nowhere pleaded or demonstrated in the petition that another affected land oustee whose acquired land of 0.08 dismal could cover the required shortfall i.e. 0.02 dismal, has consented to club his land with that of the petitioner's grandmother viz. petitioner's land plus land of said person. 9. In the absence of fulfilling the mandatory land criteria as per prevailing Policy and looking to area of land of grandmother of petitioner i.e. only 0.02 dismal, and without any consent or specific pleading to substantiate a valid claim under the clubbing policy, this Court finds no illegality or procedural infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Respondents/Authorities. 10. Thus, the Writ Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. 11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay