1 / 9 2026:CGHC:16868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5277 of 2024 1 - Lalan Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Ghasi Prasad, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village - Batara, Police Station - Bishampur, Tahsil- Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ayush Jaiswal S/o Lalan Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Batara, Police Station - Bishampur, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfilelds Limited Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Secl Headquarter, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Regional Personnel Manager, Secl Bhatgaon Area, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Medical Superintendent, Bhatgaon Dispensary, Secl, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.21 11:03:49 +0530 2 / 9 For Petitioners : Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.12.2015 (Annexure P/6) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide employment to the petitioner no. 2 in SECL for acquisition of land of petitioner no. 1, forthwith. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to provide land compensation to the petitioner no. 1 with interest @ 12% from the date of taking possession to its actual payment. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing kh. no.1951 of 2016 admeasuring 0.016 hectare situated at Village – Batara, District- Surajpur. Land of petitioner along with land of other residents of Village – Batara was subject matter of acquisition by respondents for the purpose of railway siding in the year 1981-82. Revenue Inspector vide its report dated 3 / 9 24.07.1995 intimated that land of the villagers of Village Batara was acquired in the year 1981-82 vide Annexure P-1. According to policy, petitioner No.1 along with others were also entitled for benefit of re- settlement along with compensation to be paid to land owners. Proceeding in this regard has been processed through the concerned Collector and respondents were directed to consider the claim of land- losers for granting employment in lieu of land under the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy, 1991. Name of petitioner along with other villagers were also proposed to be considered by Collector to respondent authority. However, name of petitioner No.1 was considered and rejected on the ground that he was not fit as petitioner No.1 has crossed age of 35 years. Petitioner at that time was not intimated that name of any other person of family can be proposed for grant of benefit of employment under the Rehabilitation Policy and therefore petitioner could not able to propose the name of his son i.e. petitioner No.2. After coming to know that family member other than the land owners have been considered for employment in case of other land owners, petitioner had submitted representation before the authority in the year 2013 which was rejected arbitrarily and therefore respondents be directed to consider the claim of petitioner No.2 for employment under the Rehabilitation Policy 1991. He also contended that in Rehabilitation Policy, there is no mention of the maximum age of person to be employed and therefore even if petitioner was more than 35 years of age on the date of consideration i.e. in year 2000, name of petitioner No.1 ought to have been considered by respondents for grant of employment in lieu of land or else respondents were under obligation to intimate petitioner No.1 that he can suggest or propose 4 / 9 the name of other family members in which they have utterly failed and in the aforementioned facts of case, respondent cannot take the plea that writ petition has been filed with delay. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that upon acquisition of land of village Batara of the land owners including petitioner, name of land owners for grant of employment in lieu of land under Rehabilitation Policy was considered based on list of land-losers as provided by concerned Collector. He contended that name of land-losers for employment in lieu of land is to be considered based on guidelines formulated by respondents which mentions that applicant should be physically fit to work in underground mines, he or she should not be more than 35 years of age and further that the ownership of land should be 20 years prior to date of acquisition which is one of the consideration under the Rehabilitation Policy 1991. He contended that Policy of 1991 came to be amended in the year 1995 wherein by way of proviso appended, ownership of land should be prior to 20 years from the date of acquisition with certain other conditions. Petitioners have not placed any document to fulfill the requisite conditions as mentioned in the amended portion of Rehabilitation Policy 1991 (amendment dated 21.12.1995). He also contended that name of petitioner is rejected in the year 2000. For the first time petitioner had submitted representation in the year 2013 with delay and laches and therefore name of petitioner is to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. He next contended that claim of petitioner and subsequent letter dated 16.02.2015 was considered and 5 / 9 rejected on 25.12.2015. Writ petition though was filed however letter rejecting claim dated 25.12.2015 was not put to challenge and said writ petition was withdrawn after about 9 years of its filing. In this petition also petitioners have not submitted relevant documents with respect to ownership of land of about 20 years prior to date of acquisition and other documents and therefore writ petition is to be dismissed on delay and laches as also on merit. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar and Ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India and Ors. (1995 AIR SCW 2388), Pramod Kumar Kanwar (Paikara) Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. (Writ Appeal No.931 o 2025, decided on 14.01.2026) and Hira Lal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Writ Appeal No.160 of 2021, decided on 08.02.2023). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with writ petition would show that petitioners are claiming the employment in lieu of land pursuant to acquisition of land from petitioner No.1 in the year 1981-82. Rehabilitation Policy formulated by State of Madhya Pradesh is of the year 1991. Upon representation made by villagers, State authority considered their claim after discussing the issue along with respondent authority and the list of land-losers along with other relevant documents were forwarded on 02.12.1999 (as is reflecting from page No.19 of writ petition). 6 / 9 6. Name of land-losers for dependent employment was to be considered in accordance with policy formulated by State Govt. in this regard along with amendment made thereafter on 21.12.1995. Relevant portion of Rehabilitation Policy 1991 is extracted below for ready reference:] “(03) jkstxkj lqfo/kk x x x x x x x x x (?k) ,sls ifjokj ftldh 2/3 d`f"k Hkwfe vftZr dh xbZ gks] ,sls ifjokj ds fdfl ,d lnL; dks miyC/krk ds vk/kkj ij ,l-bZ-lh-,y- }kjk jkstxkj miyC/k djk;k tk;sxkA” 7. Proviso is appended to aforementioned Clause 3 (?k) vide circular dated 21.12.1995. Proviso to clause 3 (?k) which is brought in by amendment, is extracted below for ready reference: “ijUrq mifcUnqvksa (d) ([k) (x) ,oa (?k) esa mYysf[kr jkstxkj lqfo/kk laca/kh ykHk dsoy ,sls O;fDr;ksa dks gh izkIr djus dh ik=rk gks] ftudk tUe LFkku ml {ks«k esa gks ,oa ftUgksus f’{kk ogha ij izkIr dh gks ,oa de ls de 20 o"kZ yxkrkj Hkwfe ds /kkjd (Hkwfe Lokeh) jgs gksa A ” 8. In the aforementioned clause under the Rehabilitation Policy it is appearing that on the date of acquisition, name of petitioner is recorded as owner of land. However, further condition which is required to be fulfilled is that claimant should have born within that area, his education should be within that area and further that he should be owner of land for not less than 20 years. 7 / 9 9. From documents and submission of learned counsel for petitioners it is also appearing that petitioner No.1 submitted representation before respondent authority on 23.08.2013 mentioning that name of petitioner No.1 was rejected holding him to be unfit and on the date of holding him to be unfit, no other major person was available to recommend name for employment and on the date of submission of application petitioner No.2 became major and therefore he be considered for employment. Another letter was submitted by petitioner No.1 on 16.02.2015. Representation/letter submitted by petitioner No.1 was considered and decided on 25.12.2015 Anexure P- 6 which is under challenge. Perusal of Annexure P-6 would show that claim of petitioner No.1 was rejected and apart from other grounds of rejection, one of the ground is that petitioner was not in possession of ownership land prior to 20 years from the date of acquisition. 10. In writ petition though order (Annexure P-6) dated 25.12.2015 is put to challenge however petitioner has not enclosed any relevant documents to show that petitioner was owner of land about 20 yeas prior to date of acquisition. 11. The proviso which is brought in and appended to Clause 3 (?k) of Rehabilitation Policy 1991 by virtue of amendment dated 21.12.1995 is with some purpose. From the contents of proviso, it is appearing that State Govt. has taken steps to protect the interest of poor illiterate villagers and residents of that area, and to check upon the act of a person not resident of village to take undue advantage of the Policy of 1991 of the State Govt. of providing a job in lieu of land. There may be occasions that the person(s) after getting knowledge that some project 8 / 9 is coming in particular area, he/she or they may make all attempts to purchase small piece of land or house not for their agriculture purpose or their residence but only to get undue advantage of the policy and to grab employment in place of poor villagers. 12. In the case at hand, on the date of acquisition of land in the year 1981-1982 there was no policy of rehabilitation. After about 10 years, a State Policy of Rehabilitation was framed. The case of petitioners were considered under Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 in the year 1998-1999 and therefore the amended policy existing on the date of consideration will be relevant. 13. In the case at hand, as discussed above, no document is placed before this Court to show that petitioner became owner of the land since last more than 20 years of the date of acquisition even though that is one of the ground taken by respondent in Annexure P-6 rejecting their application. In absence of document to show that petitioner No.1 being owner of land prior to 20 years of the date of acquisition and considering the proviso under Clause 3 (?k) of the Rehabilitation Policy 1991, I am of the considered view that petitioners could able to fulfill the clause under the Rehabilitation Policy of the State Govt. 1991 to claim employment in lieu of land. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by respondent vide Annexure P-6 dated 25.12.2015. 9 / 9 15. Writ petition being sense merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen