1 2026:CGHC:19813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2052 of 2026 1 - Shyam Sai S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 51 Years Village Pondi, Tahsil Surajpur District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Patel Ram S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 56 Years Village Pondi, Tahsil Surajpur District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Limited Head Quarter Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through General Manage S.C.E.L. Bishrampur, Area District- Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Project Office South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Bishrampur, Area District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate assisted by Ms. Neela Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (ii) Direct Dir Respondent SECL to forthwith release and pay the compensation amount as per Statement-1A pertaining to the Petitioners land, along with interest for delayed payment; (iii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to ensure compliance of compensation disbursement within a time-bound period; (iv) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, including costs of this petition.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are the recorded owners of land bearing Khasra No. 447, admeasuring 0.09 hectare (0.222 acres), situated at Village Pondi, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.). The said land was 3 acquired by the respondent South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) for mining purposes. The ownership of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest is duly reflected in the revenue records (B- 1), establishing their lawful entitlement over the acquired land. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the official compensation statement prepared by the respondent authorities, the name of the petitioners’ father, namely Ram Prasad, is recorded at Serial No. 77 in respect of the aforesaid land. The said statement clearly indicates that compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,31,001.28/- has been calculated and is payable against the acquired land. Despite such determination and acknowledgment of entitlement in official records, the said amount has not been disbursed to the petitioners till date. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioners expired on 12.11.2024, and thereafter the names of the petitioners have been duly mutated in the revenue records. Due to acquisition and mining activities, the land in question has become unfit for cultivation, thereby adversely affecting the livelihood of the petitioners. The petitioners have made several representations before the respondent authorities seeking release of compensation; however, no effective steps have been taken. The continued inaction on the part of the respondents, despite admitted liability reflected in official records, has compelled the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount of compensation has already been duly calculated by the respondent authorities, which is evident from the official chart/statement placed on record by the petitioners. In the said chart, the name of the petitioners’ father, Ram Prasad, is clearly reflected at Serial No. 77 with respect to land bearing Khasra No. 447, admeasuring 0.09 hectare (0.222 acres), and the compensation payable has been quantified at Rs. 3,31,001.28/-. It is contended that despite the aforesaid admitted position and clear determination of compensation by the competent authorities themselves, the petitioners have not been paid the said amount till date for reasons best known to the respondents. Such inaction, according to learned counsel, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the constitutional and statutory rights of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that once the entitlement of the petitioners stands acknowledged in official records, there remains no justification for withholding the compensation. The failure of the respondents to release the amount, despite repeated representations, amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law and is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, submits that mere reflection of the name of the petitioners’ predecessor in the compensation statement does not confer an automatic or indefeasible right to 5 receive payment. It is contended that disbursement of compensation is subject to verification of title, completion of necessary formalities, and compliance with procedural requirements under the applicable laws. It is further submitted that if the compensation has not yet been released, the same may be on account of pending verification or administrative processes, and therefore, no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the respondents. Hence, the petition is stated to be premature and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired by the respondent authorities and that, as per the official statement placed on record, compensation in respect of the said land has already been calculated. It is also evident that the petitioners have submitted representations before the competent authorities seeking release of the said compensation amount, which are stated to be pending consideration. At the same time, the stand of the respondents reflects that disbursement of compensation is subject to verification of title and completion of necessary formalities. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the 6 competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent authorities shall consider the representation already submitted by the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, while specifically taking into consideration the aspect that compensation has already been calculated in respect of the land in question. 8. It is further observed that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the competent authority, if so advised, and in the event such representation is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the same along with the pending representation, strictly in accordance with law, within a reasonable period. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge