1 2026:CGHC:17568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1234 of 2021 1 - Malti Bai Sahu D/o Bhajram Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Bijari, Post Parda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Rukmani Sahu D/o Bhajram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bijari, Post Parda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Devki Sahu D/o Bhajram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Bijari, Post Parda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Ambika Sahu D/o Bhajram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bijari, Post Parda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Sipat Road, Dist. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raigarh Area, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Collector Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bijari Sub Area, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Jitendra Pali and Shri Anuroop Panda, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Shweta Rai appears on behalf of Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI. For Respondent-SECL : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For State/Res : Shri Arpit Agrawal, PL. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.21 11:32:37 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to include the word 'family member along with 'eligible land owners' and to grant benefit of employment to the petitioners, who are daughters of Bhajram. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners who are actual owner of the land in question and they should be extended the benefits under the RAP 2012-in lieu of the land acquired by the SECL. (iii) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners. (iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioners are the daughters of Bhajram Sahu who is the resident of village Bijari, Post Parda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh. The petitioners are having land bearing khasra No. 19/2, 55/4, 133/6, 135/3 & 135/14 area of 0.817, 0.1016, 0.134, 0.537 & 1.505 hectares, respectively (in total 3.009 hectares). The lands were acquired by the SECL for the mining purpose of Bijari Sub Area. It is necessary to mention here that 68.17 acres of land situated in village Bijari, PH No.10, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh was registered in the name of the father of the petitioners and his name was recorded in the concerned revenue records on 25/11/1967. The aforesaid lands are ancestral lands of Bhajram, which was received by him on partition from his ancestors. Bhajram Sahu became owner after death of Nandram Sahu and as the land in question is the ancestral property the petitioners herein who are daughters of Bhajram became title holder of the land since from their birth. Out of 68.17 acres of land of Bhajram Sahu, his three sons 3 namely; Bharatlal Sahu, Bholaram Sahu & Bodhram Sahu got their stake of 22 acres, 19 acres and 19.50 acres of land in partition in the year 1994 and rest of the land bearing area of 3.009 hectares is divided between the present petitioners, who are daughters of Bhajram. Though the lands were partitioned and divided, but the land cannot be mutated in the name of the petitioners. On 31/3/2012 by order of Naib Tahsildar the names of petitioners were recorded jointly along with the name of Bhajram. The land in question was acquired by the SECL for Bijari Coal Mines, but in the award the name of Bhajram was mentioned as owner of the land and compensation sheet was prepared in his name though the petitioners are also owner of the land in question. The land bearing khasra No. 19/2, 55/4, 133/6, 135/3 & 135/14 area of 0.817, 0.1016, 0.134, 0.537 & 1.505 hectares, respectively (in total 3.009 hectares) is the ancestral property of the petitioners. As the petitioners are joint owners of the land in question their name should be included in the award as well as in the compensation sheet and they are also entitled for employment as per the provisions of the Rehabilitation Action Plan 2012 of SECL. From the said provision, it is very clear that the Coal India Limited provides the provision of employment, which provides employment for the eligible land owners by inserting the word 'eligible land owners'. The Scheme of 2012 deprived the petitioners who are also the land owner of the land which was acquired by the SECL. The clause should include the family members of land owner because if the land owner crosses the age limit and if he will not be in a position to get employment or to work, such land owner should nominate one of the family members of the said family. In the instant case, the petitioners are the owner of the land, as they got the same from their father because the land is ancestral 4 property, they are having right over the property since their birth. By not providing employment and by not making provision for family members, the respondents have committed illegality by depriving the petitioners of employment in lieu of land acquired by the SECL. The impugned action is against the well settled law constitutional provision. Thus, the respondents deserve a direction from this Hon'ble Court to include the word 'family member of eligible land owner and to grant benefit of promotion to the petitioners also. The daughters having a right over the ancestral property of father since their birth but they have been deprived of grant of employment stating that their name is included in the descending order prepared by the Collector after publication of notification under Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition And Development) Act, 1957. The petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent authority and thereafter by letter dated 26/11/2019 of the Incharge Officer (Bhu-Raj), SECL Raigarh Area and it has been intimated to one of the petitioners Smt. Rukmani Sahu that a meeting of Rehabilitation Committee presided over by the Collector was held on 20/7/2016 and 9/8/2017 and in which the committee decided that as per the RAP 2012 on the basis of descending order concept, employment will be provided and descending order prepared and certified by the State Government. According to the respondent authorities as far as the name of present petitioners is concerned, the same is included in the descending order after publication of notification under Section 9(1) and hence the petitioners are not entitled for employment because the land owners prior to publication of Section 9(1) notification are only entitled for employment. The names of the petitioners is included and mutated by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 31/3/2012 and notification under Section 9(1) issued on 15/4/2010 and the 5 same was published on 24/4/2010. Mere mutation made after publication of Section 9(1) notification cannot deprive the petitioners/daughters to avail the benefit of employment in lieu of land acquired by the SECL because the daughters are having right over ancestral property since their birth. In the present case also, the petitioners are daughters of Bhajram and they are the actual owner of the land in question and as per the RAP, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of employment in SECL. The representation submitted by the petitioners before the Collector in the month of November, 2020 has been forwarded by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, to the Chief General Manager, SECL, Raigarh Area, by letter dated 16/11/2020, which is still pending consideration. Hence this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for grant of employment in lieu of land acquired from their father namely Bhajram Sahu who is the original owner of the land bearing Khasra No.19/2, 55/4, 133/6, 135/3 & 135/14 area of 0.817, 0.1016, 0.134, 0.537 & 1.505 hectares respectively (in total 3,009 hectares). During his lifetime, Bhajram Sahu partitioned the said property in favour of the petitioners thereby making them coparceners of the property. He submits that the Bhajram Sahu also gave his consent for providing employment to the petitioners vide consent letter dated 27.09.2019. Total 7.50 acres has been acquired by the respondent authorities from the petitioners. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is very much evident from the consent letter dated 27.09.2019 that at the relevant point of time, in the revenue records, name of Bhajram Sahu stood in respect of the said land and since Bhajram Sahu has given his consent for giving employment to the petitioners they are nominated by the original owner for grant of 6 employment. Further, he also draws attention of this Court towards the Policy of 2012 wherein it has been stated that for every 2 acres of land acquired, one employment will be provided and as such, the respondent authorities shall consider that aspect and give benefit of rehabilitation scheme to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for respondents - SECL submits that according to their policy of 2012, employment will be provided to the land owner himself or to the eligible dependent nominated by the land owner. In case, the land owner does want the employment he shall give his consent for providing the employment to his dependent. As such, if the nomination will be filed by the petitioners, the respondent authorities will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the land belongs to Bhajram Sahu as at the time of acquisition of land, his name was recorded in the revenue records. However, Bhajram Sahu during his lifetime also partitioned the said land in favour his daughters/petitioners and also gave his consent vide consent letter dated 27.09.2019 stating inter alia that name of the petitioners were subsequently recorded in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question vide survey by Revenue Department dated 27.03.2018. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition including consent letter dated 27.09.2019 carefully. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the land in question was originally recorded in the name of Bhajram Sahu and that the same was acquired for mining purposes by the SECL Department. It is also not in dispute that Bhajram Sahu executed a consent letter dated 27.09.2019 nominating the petitioners, who are his daughters, for grant of employment under the Rehabilitation Action 7 Plan, 2012. 8. Since the Rehabilitation Policy provides for employment either to the land owner or to an eligible dependent nominated by the land owner, and in the present case, as the original recorded owner has executed a consent letter nominating the petitioners, the said aspect deserves consideration by the competent authority. 9. Moreover, in the consent letter dated 27.09.2019 executed by Bhajram Sahu- original owner of the acquired land and the petitioners, it has been stated that earlier, the names of the petitioners were not recorded in the revenue records in respect of the acquired land but subsequently, it has been recorded in the name of the petitioners as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, this Court directs the Collector concerned as well as the respondents– SECL to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of employment in lieu of acquired land, in light of the consent letter dated 27.09.2019 and in accordance with the applicable Rehabilitation Action Plan, 2012. Appropriate reasoned orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The petitioners are at liberty to annex a copy of this petition along with a copy of this order with an application before the competent authority for necessary consideration. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash