[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Biju Gupta vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13473
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1240 of 2026
Biju Gupta S/o Rakesh Babu Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o EWS- 64, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Phase I, Thana- Rampur, Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba
(C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, Tehsil-
Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)
3 - Sub Area Manager Dhelwadih-Singhali-Bagdeva Sub-Area, Korba Area, Tehsil-
Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)
4 - Area Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Korba Area, Tehsil-
Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Mahi Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
20/03/2026
1. Heard.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the
entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to provide employment to the petitioner
Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.03.23
17:34:36
+0530
in lieu of the acquired land as per the rehabilitation and
resettlement policy issued by the State.
10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to fill the
required Nomination form in order to get employment.
10.4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim
for employment in terms of the State's Rehabilitation Policy.
10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit
and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the
cost of the petition."
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, the land admeasuring 0.036
hectare bearing Khasra No.160/7/5, originally belonged to the father of the
petitioner, was acquired by the competent Government for the benefit of
South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (SECL) for their Singhali Project under
Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 vide Notification dated 26.5.1990. 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, but employment was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner
has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to
provide employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy. She would further
submits that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra.
She would further submit 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 applicable on the date of acquisition of their lands, within a
period of 45 days.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/SECL would oppose. He submits that the petitioner has no right
to claim employment according to the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991. He next
submits that the petitioner is not original land oustee. He would further
contend that it would not possible for the SECL to provide employment to
each and every affected family. He lastly submitted that the full and final
compensation has already been paid to the land oustee. Hence, the present
petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on records.
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 acquisition of land within 45 days.
7. In the present case, the proceedings with regard to land acquisition
were initiated in the year 1990 and award was passed and thereafter, the
Rehabilitation Policy 1991 was came into force. The Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was floated in the year 2012
and certainly, it would not attract the case of the petitioner.
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 to 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 learned counsel fairly submitted
that the order dated 11.09.2017 has not been challenged and thus, it attained
finality.
10. In the case 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 petitioner strictly in light of the observations made in
the matter of Pyarelal (supra). The SECL/respondents are directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order by verifying whether the petitioner has received
the compensation amount in lieu of employment or not.
11. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of.
12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Bini
