1 CGHC010353262026 2026:CGHC:42507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 341 of 2026 1 - Dev Prasad Verma S/o Ratan Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bundeli, Post Bandora, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh (Original Petitioner) ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Original Resp. No. 1) 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Original Resp. No. 2) 3 - Regional Executive Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Original Resp. No. 3) 4 - Incharge Officer (Land Acquisition) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhal Sub Area, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Original Resp. No. 4) 5 - Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Orginal Resp. No. 5) 6 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Original Resp. No. 6) ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. GA 2 For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 30.09.2026 1. Heard. 2. The review petitioner has filed the present modification/recall application seeking modification/recall of the order passed in WPS No. 620 of 2022 dated 19.08.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the review petitioner was not found to be in possession of the property for more than 20 years, as required under Clause (4) of the Notification dated 19.12.2003, and, therefore, his claim for employment was rejected by the SECL. 3. Mr. Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that on the date of acquisition of the land, the policy of the year 2005 was in existence and there was no such provision regarding continuous ownership of the property. He would contend that the writ petition was dismissed on the basis of the Notification issued on 19.12.2003, which was not relevant for disposal of the writ petition, whereas the Notification dated 25.09.1991 ought to have been considered. 4. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that the land of the review petitioner was acquired prior to the date of award, i.e., 13.04.2006, and the Policy dated 25.09.1991 was in existence, followed by the Notification dated 19.12.2003, and, therefore, the claim of the review petitioner for employment was rejected. He would further submit that a bi- party order was passed and this issue was not raised at that point of time. He would contend that the claim for employment was made for the brother-in-law (damad) of the review 3 petitioner, which was not permissible under the Policy. He would further contend that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Therefore, the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material/documents available on the record. 6. Having considered the fact that grounds raised in review petition were not raised in the writ petition; the claim for employment was sought for the brother-in-law (damad) of the review petitioner which is not permissible as per Policy; and the land was acquired prior to 13.04.2006, when the Policy dated 25.09.1991 was in existence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order under review. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha