1 2026:CGHC:19810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2049 of 2026 1 - Rajendra Singh S/o Late Nanku Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Putidih, Post- Churaghata, Tahsil- Dabhra, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Through Its Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through - The General Manager, Gevra Area, Gevra, District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 5 - Dukhi Ram S/o Late Paras Ram Aged About 90 Years R/o Village- Naraiboth, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 1 and 2: Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to 4 to grant compensation/award in lieu of land acquired (details of land as mentioned above) by them. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to decide the pending representation dated 23.03.2026 made by petitioner to the respondent SECL authority by speaking order deciding the claim of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in not granting compensation for land acquired by the SECL authority. The case of the petitioner is that his brother, Late Baleshwar Singh, had purchased certain parcels of land through a registered sale deed dated 23.03.2009. After his death on 3 23.04.2020, the said land devolved upon the family members, including the present petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that although the land was validly purchased, the name of his brother was not mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, the said land was acquired by the SECL authority for coal mining purposes. Neither the petitioner nor his deceased brother was ever informed about the acquisition proceedings, nor were they paid any compensation. Upon inquiry, the petitioner came to know that an award amounting to approximately Rs. 5 lakhs had already been passed; however, the same was not disbursed on the ground that the revenue records still reflected the name of the original seller, Dukhi Ram. The petitioner further submits that the land now stands recorded in the name of the SECL authority, making it practically impossible to rectify past revenue entries. It is also stated that even the original seller has not received any compensation, thereby establishing that the rightful entitlement lies with the petitioner’s family. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 13.03.2026 before the competent SECL authorities along with relevant documents, requesting release of compensation; however, no decision has been taken thereon till date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already approached the competent authority by way of a detailed representation along with all necessary documents substantiating 4 his claim for compensation. It is contended that despite lapse of considerable time, the said representation has not been decided by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, at this stage, if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 13.03.2026 in a time-bound manner, in accordance with law. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that this Court may be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authority to decide the petitioner’s pending representation expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submits that the respondents have no objection if the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the representation shall be examined in accordance with law and appropriate decision shall be taken within a reasonable time. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respective respondents, and taking into account the limited prayer now pressed by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to 5 dispose of the present petition without entering into the merits of the case. 7. Accordingly, the concerned respondent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 13.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a reasonable period from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law on its own merits. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge