Partly allowed

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Oct 2018WA/492/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the lower court's direction granting employment under the 2005 Rehabilitation Policy. The Court held that while the policy applies, the private respondent must first provide evidence establishing he qualifies as an ordinary village resident under Clause 2.1(d) of the policy and meets the residency requirement for being a displaced person.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed to clarify that the Private Respondent must first establish eligibility under Clauses 2.1(d) and 2.1(k) of the 2005 Rehabilitation Policy before the employment direction can be enfo

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs State Of… — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Appeal No. 492 of 2016

¶4

(Arising out of Order dated 26.07.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1809 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge)

¶5

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon (C.G.)

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan (now Mahanadi Bhawan) Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

The Collector, Surguja (Ambikapur), District – Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

Naushad Ali, son of Abdul Rahman, aged about 22 years, resident of Ward No.3, West Chirmiri, District – Koriya (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

__________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

¶17

06.10.2018

¶18

Writ application of the private Respondent No.3 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order 26.07.2016. Direction was given upon the Appellant - Coal Company to consider the case of the private Respondent for rehabilitation and grant of employment under 2005 Rehabilitation Policy.

¶19

Such claim made by the private Respondent before SECL for providing employment on admitted acquisition of their land was rejected vide order dated 16/19.10.2009. The reason given by the Appellant-Company was that he was not a project affected person as his land which was taken over had to

¶20

¶21

be in his / his father's possession and they must be the title holder for a period of atleast 20 years prior to the date of acquisition as the Rehabilitation Policy stood in the year 1991 and as amended in the year 1995.

¶22

The matter was examined by the learned Single Judge who took note of the new Rehabilitation Policy which was notified in the year 2005. That Policy made certain significant changes, one of them being that the period of 20 years was reduced to the period of 3 years. In addition to that, it also provided that that period of 3 years will be calculated from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This is evident from the definition of Visthapit Vyakti i.e. Clause 2.1([k) which reads as under :-

¶23

2-1 ([k) foLFkkfir O;fDr %& foLFkkfir O;fDr ls vfHkizsr ,sls fdlh O;fDr ls gS tks ml {ks= esa] ftldh fdlh ;kstuk ds fy, vko';drk gS] Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls de ls de rhu o"kZ iwoZ ls lk/kkj.kr;k jgrk gS rFkk dksbZ O;kikj /ka/kk] ;k vkftfodk ds fy;s dk;Z djrk jgk gS] ;k de ls de rhu o"kZ iwoZ ls futh Hkwfe ij dk'r djrk jgk gS A

¶24

Argument made on behalf of the Appellant is that admittedly, in the present case, the father of the private Respondent had purchased the land in question in the year 2002, therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge for consideration is misplaced because this vital fact seems to be even missed out in the adjudication.

¶25

Such submission on behalf of the Appellant is not only a legal question but is a mixed question of law and fact because there is yet another

¶26

¶27

significant definition which is 2.1 (d) which reads as under :-

¶28

2-1 (d) xzke dk lk/kkj.kr;k fuoklh O;fDr %& xzke ds lk/kkj.kr;k fuoklh O;fDr ls rkRi;Z xzke esa fuokl djrs gq, df"k dk;Z Lo;a dh Hkwfe ij ;k vU; dh Hkwfe ij df"k ;k etnwjh djus okys ;k dksbZ O;kikj&O;olk; djus okys ;k dkjhxjh] f'kYidkjh ;k lsok dk;Z djus okys O;fDr ls gS A

¶29

If Clauses 2.1([k) and 2.1(d) are read together, then the ambit of Clause 2.1([k) is widened because the definition of ordinary resident of a village has been defined in Clause 2.1(d).

¶30

In the present case, since there is no specific pleading besides the fact that the land was purchased by the father of the private Respondent No.3, if it can be established by the private Respondent that he also comes within the ambit of the definition provided under Clause 2.1(d), he may have a case for consideration by the Respondent authorities.

¶31

The appeal is allowed to the extent that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge creating an obligation upon the Appellant – Company to provide employment will be required to be understood in the context of what we have stated above, meaning thereby that the evidence to bring the private Respondent within the definition of Clause 2.1(d) and 2.1([k) will have to be first discharged by the private Respondent.

¶32

Sd/Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge

¶33

Chandra

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damini Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jalaram Co-Operative Housing Soct.Ltd Vs the Secretary,Revenue Dept.andORS.

Alok Kumar Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

N. M. D. C. Iron And Steel Plant Vs Limbati

Ravi Kumar Fekar Vs The Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India

Prantadhyaksha Chhattisgarh Sahakari Dainik Vetan Bhogi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh