[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Devashish vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 17 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12629
NAFR
Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY
KUMAR DWIVEDI,
ou=HIGH COURT,
o=HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
st=Chhattisgarh,
c=IN
Date: 2026.03.17
17:05:28 +0530 WPC No. 946 of 2026
1. Devashish S/o Late Madhosay Aged About 26 Years Caste - Bhariya
Occupation Unemployed R/o Gopalpur Jamnipali Korba, P.S. And Tahsil
Darri District Korba Chhattisgarh
2. Ahilya Bai Wd/o Late Madhosay Aged About 55 Years Caste - Bhariya
Occupation Housewife R/o Gopalpur Jamnipali Korba, P.S. And Tahsil Darri
District Korba Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners.
Versus
1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum, Managing
Director Seepat Road District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2. The Chief General Manager Secl, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh
3. The Sub Area Manager Saraipali Open Cast Mining Project, Secl, Korba
Chhattisgarh
4. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh
... Respondents.
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For Res/SECL : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
17/03/2026
1. Heard
2. The State Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings in the year
2005 for the 'Saraipali Open Cast Project' of the respondent/Sub Area
Manager, Saraipali, Open Cast Mining Project, SECL, Korba. The award of
said acquisition proceedings was passed on 06.09.2007 in Land Acquisition
Proceeding Case No.10A/82/2004-05. There were a total of 856 land
oustees. It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the
family members of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991
issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. After the passing of the
award, compensation was paid to the land oustees by SECL, but employment
was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal
India Limited, 2012 and not according to the Policy of 1991, which was
prevalent at the time of land acquisition. According to the Policy of 2012, the
land oustees having land less than 2 acres would not be entitled to get
employment. The applications/representations of some of the petitioners
have been rejected by the SECL authorities. The petitioner has filed this
petition seeking a direction to the respondent Authorities to provide
employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in
existence at the time of land acquisition. A prayer has also been made by the
petitioners to quash the order passed by the SECL authorities, whereby their
claims have been rejected.
3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that submits that petitioner's father namely late Madhosy was
recorded owner Survey No.77/2, Area 0.22 (0.089 Hectares) situated at
Village Gopalpur, Tahsil Darri, District Korba, thereafter same has been held
by the petitioner in his account and subsequently, acquired the respondent
Authorities. However, counsel submits that the issue involved in the present
case is no more res integra. He would contend that a similar issue was raised
in the matter of Pyarelal vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others and
connected matters passed in WPC No 3076 of 2016, dated 11- 09-2017, and
the coordinate bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to
consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation/employment strictly in
accordance with the Policy on the date of acquisition of their lands within 45
days.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the SECL would oppose.
He would submit that the petitioners have no right to claim employment
according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. He would further submit at
the relevant time it was found many persons of the said village are not
original land oustees. He would also submit that the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, provides that if any of the
land oustee has less than 2 acres of land, he would not be entitled to get
employment. He would further contend that it would not be possible for the
SECL to provide employment to each and every affected family. He would
also contend that the full and final compensation has already been paid to
the land oustees. Hence, this petitions deserve to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
6. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), a similar issue was raised and the
coordinate bench in Para-65 of its judgment directed the SECL to provide
employment strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy applicable
on the date of acquisitions of land within 45 days.
7. In the present case, the proceedings with regard to land acquisition were
initiated in the year 2005 and the award was passed on 06.09.2007 and at
that time, the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 was in force. The Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was floated in the year
2012 and certainly, it would not attract the cases of the petitioners.
8. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court in Para-
65 held as under:-
"65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per the
rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that
has to be considered in accordance with law and in
accordance with the policy in force on the date of
acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy
will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has
accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the
benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is
logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and
15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioners for rehabilitation / employment
strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the
date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition
and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45
days from the date of production of a copy of this order."
9. A specific query was made from the counsel appearing for SECL as to
whether the order passed in the matter of Pyarelal (supra) has been assailed
before the Superior Court or not. The counsel fairly submitted that as per his
knowledge the order dated 11.09.2017 has not been challenged and thus, it
attained finality.
10. In the matter of Pyarelal (supra), it is categorically observed that the benefit
of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article
21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21 and the
Policy applicable on the date of acquisition of the land would be applicable,
therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities should
consider the claim of the petitioners strictly in light of the observations made
in the matter of Pyarelal (supra). The orders, if any, passed against any of the
petitioners by the SECL are hereby quashed. The SECL/respondents are
directed to consider the claims of the petitioners within a period of 45 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. No Cost(s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ajay
