Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8894 (CHH)

UMESH RATHORE v. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

WPS/3121/2019 · 2026-01-26

Shri Sanjay K Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:4511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3121 of 2019 1 - Umesh Rathore S/o Shri Badri Prasad Rathore Aged About 49 Years R/o Hardi Bazar, Post- Hardi Bazar, Police Station Hardi Bazar (Chowki) District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman- Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., 2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., 3 Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 Tehsildar Sub- Tehsil, Hardi Bazar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondents 3 to 5 : Shri Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.01.28 11:11:42 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 27/01/2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that land of the petitioner has been acquired but the compensation in lieu of the acquired land has not been granted. In this regard, an application has been preferred by the petitioner vide Annexure-P/2 before the respondents which is pending consideration. 2. Be that as it may, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the application preferred by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file additional/relevant documents, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authority would be at liberty to decide the said application in accordance with law. 3. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve