Dismissed

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Ashok Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jun 2024WA/294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by SECL against the single judge's order granting employment to the petitioner as a land oustee. The appeal argued the petitioner falsely claimed lineage. The High Court held the review petition was not maintainable for fresh arguments and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal and review petition are dismissed. The single judge's order directing the respondents to provide employment to petitioner Ashok Kumar is reinstated.

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Ashok Kumar — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 294 of 2024

¶5

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limtied, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2. Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,

¶7

3. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh,

¶8

---- Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Ashok Kumar S/o Mithu Lal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Churakhachar, Bhaktu Dafai, Ward No. 48, Tahsil Katghora, Thana Bakimogra, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh,

¶11

2. State of Chhattisgarh Throuth The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Mantralaya, Civil and Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3. Collector, Korba, Civil and Revenue District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Appellants	:	Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	:	Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	:	Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶17

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Judgment on Board

¶19

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

25.06.2024

¶21

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6. Also heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4/State.

¶22

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 against the orders dated 28.11.2023 & 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1266 of 2017 ( Ashok Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ) & REVP No. 37 of 2024 ( South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Others vs. Ashok Kumar ), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and dismissed the review petition filed by the SECL.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that the lands bearing Khasra No. 22/7 area admeasuring 0.10 acres/0.040 hectares situated at village Jarhajail, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba recorded in the name of Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad was acquired in the year 1983 for the purpose of Kusmunda project of SECL. The copy of land acquisition record showing the name of land owner Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad is filed as Annexure R/4-6/1 in the writ petition. He also submits that the compensation in lieu acquisition of said land has been duly paid to the recorded owner Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad by the SECL authority. The

¶24

¶25

copy of document regarding payment of compensation of land is filed here with as Annexure A/3.

¶26

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 that the said land owner Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad died on 02.08.2002. Thereafter, one Ramautin Bai claimed to be daughter of Manohar and submitted an application dated 03.01.2006 (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition) before SDO (R) Katghora for mutation of her name in the revenue record of the said acquired land, being legal heir of the land owner Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad. In fact, the said land is already been acquired way back in the year 1983 and no any right, title and interest over the said land remains in favor of Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad. He also submits that the SDO (R) Katghora vide letter dated 03.02.2006 (Annexure R/4-6/2 in the writ petition) intimated to Chief General Manager (Kusmunda Area, SECL) that land owner Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad had died and his only legal heir is D/O Ramautin Bai.

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 states that after about 25 years of land acquisition, on 30.01.2006, the said Ramautin Bai submitted nomination form (Annexure P/2 in the writ petition) before the SECL Kusmunda Area for grant of employment to her son Ashok Kumar, s/ o Mithhu Lal in lieu acquisition of lands of Manohar, son of Shiv Prasad. He also states that during consideration of the said claim on 26.03.2007 (Annexure P/4 at Page 18 in the writ petition), the Staff Officer (Project and Planning) Kusmunda Area SECL has sent a letter to the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner and requested to submit land registry document of title and voter list. He also states that further on 21.10.2012 (Annexure P/5 at page 19 in the writ petition) again the Staff Officer (L & R) Kusmunda Area SECL sent a letter to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner for submitting the

¶28

¶29

required necessary documents enlisted in the said letter.

¶30

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 further contended that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submitted an application before the office of Collector, Korba for grant of employment in lieu acquisition of land of Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad. The same was forwarded by the Deputy Collector, Korba vide letter dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure P/6 in the writ petition) to the Chief General Manager, Kusmunda Area for taking necessary action. Thereafter, the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was duly processed by the office of Kusmunda Area SECL and after examination of the record it was found that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner being a son of the daughter of the original land owner Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad (as he claimed), therefore, is not covered under the definition of linear dependent of the land owner. Therefore, it was found that as per prevailing norms for providing employment to the land oustee, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, is not entitled for grant of employment. The same was duly communicated to the Ramautin Bai vide letter dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P/7 in the writ petition). The same was challenged by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner before this Court in WPS No. 1266 of 2017.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that the brief facts of the case as projected by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in the writ petition are that, he was the owner of land of Khasra No. 22/7 of Village Jarhajail area 0.040 hectare which was registered in the name of his grand mother Ramautin Bai, the said land was acquired by the SECL(in fact said land was recorded in the name of Manohar). As per MP R & R Policy, 1991 and its amendment dated 21.12.1995, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was nominated for employment. The respondent No. 1/

¶32

¶33

writ petitioner's Grand Mother also moved an application for correction of land record before the SDO and after inquiry, the SDO (R) Katghora recommended the name of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner for granting him employment in lieu acquisition of his land. However, vide impugned order dated 06.01.2014 of SECL his claim was rejected on the ground that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner does not fall in the category of direct linear dependent of the land owner. He also submits that the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 has submitted their reply to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and contradicted the averments made in the petition and submitted all the documents of the case before this Court.

¶34

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that after hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge passed an order dated 28.11.2023 in WPS No. 1266 of 2017 and allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 to provide employment to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is humbly and respectfully submitted that, in the present case, the land was acquired in the year 1983. At that time no any rehabilitation policy of the State was in vogue. Employment and other rehabilitation facilities were being provided to the land oustees, as per the Uniform Guideline dated 07.11.1984 issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, New Delhi. According to which employment can be provided only to the land oustees or their linear dependents. Since as per the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, he is the son of the daughter of the original land owner, hence he does not comes under the definition of linear dependent of the land owner. Therefore, he is not eligible for grant of employment as per the policy. Even

¶35

¶36

after this, in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was examined by the office of SECL. While scrutiny of documents submitted by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, it is found that as per the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner his grandmother Ramautin Bai is the daughter of original land owner Manohar, s/o Shivprasad. Whereas as per nomination form submitted by the said Ramautin Bai, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is her son. This fact create doubt to the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.

¶37

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that during examination of the case of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, the office of SECL found that the original land owner Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad purchased the acquired land bearing Khasra No.22/7 of village Jarhajail through registered sale deed dated 14.12.1979 and his name was recorded in the revenue record by the order of Naib Tehsildar Kathghora dated 27.12.1979. The copy of mutation register is already filed as Annexure R/4-6/3 at page 41 of the reply in the writ petition. It is submitted that before issuing the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P/7 in the writ petition), the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had submitted the photocopy of sale deed dated 14.12.1979 before the office of SECL. The copy of photocopy of sale deed date 14.12.1979 is filed herewith as Annexure A/3. During examination of the case of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner it was found that some overwriting made in the said sale deed, therefore, the office of SECL sent a letter date 14.12.2023 to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and requested to produce copy of original sale deed, but respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had not submitted the same before the office of SECL. The copy of letter dated 14.12.2023 is filed herewith as Annexure A/4.

¶38

¶39

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 also submits that the office of SECL had obtained the certified copy of sale deed dated 14.12.1979 from the office of Sub Registrar (Stamp), Katghora which shows that, caste/surname of original land owner Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad is 'Sahu' whereas in the copy of sale deed submitted by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, the caste/surname of original land owner Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad mentioned as ‘Kewat'. The copy of certified copy of sale deed dated 14.12.1979 is filed herewith as Annexure A/5. Thereafter, the Staff Officer (L&R) SECL Kusmunda Area, again sent a letter dated 08.01.2024 to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner to submit original sale deed, but same was not submitted by him. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner also failed to submit any other document which establishes his relationship with the original land owner Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad. The copy of letter dated 08.01.2024 is filed herewith as Annexure A/6. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the copy of sale deed submitted by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, the age of original land owner Manohar, s/ o Shiv Prasad mentioned as 34 years in the year 1979. Accordingly his age in the year 2006 would be 61 years. However in support of claim for employment, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner has submitted an affidavit dated 14.02.2006 of Ramautin Bai who claimed to be daughter of original land owner and mentioned her age as 55 years. Both the above documents reflect that the difference of age between the Father Manohar and his daughter Ramautin Bai is only 6 years, which is unnatural and prima facie creates doubt to the claim of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. That, on the above backgrounds of the facts of the case, the office of SECL Kusmunda Area has made a complaint dated 19.12.2023 before the Police Station Kusmunda Dist. Korba against the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, regarding submission of forge and fabricated documents for getting

¶40

¶41

employment in SECL in lieu acquisition of lands of original land owner Manohar, s/o Shiv Prasad. The copy of complaint dated 19.12.2023 is filed herewith as Annexure A/7.

¶42

11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 that from the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner has obtained the favorable order from the Hon'ble Court without disclosing the correct facts of the case and on the basis of false and misleading statements has obtained order from the Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that from the facts of the case as explained above and the documents annexed herewith, it is clear that, same was not within the knowledge and possession of the appellant at the time of hearing of the case. The same is new and important matter of evidence, which has emerged after passing of the order dated 28.11.2023 by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, same could not be produced by it when the order dated 28.11.2023 was passed. Therefore, the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 preferred a Review Petition No. 37 of 2024, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.02.2024, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition. The relevant part of the order is reproduced herein for convenience:

¶43

“ This review petition has been filed seeking review and recall of order dated 28.11.2023 passed in WPS No. 1266 of 2017. In review petition, various grounds have been raised assailing the correctness of the finding recorded by this Court.

¶44

The grounds raised in the review petition do not make out any case for review and the review petition appears

¶45

¶46

to be more in nature of an appeal in disguise. The review petition is misconceived and is therefore, dismissed in Chamber. ”

¶47

12. Hence, the aforesaid impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed in WPS No. 1266 of 2017 and order dated 13.02.2024 passed in REVP No. 37 of 2024 is untenable in the eyes of law.

¶48

13. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.

¶49

14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submits that the action of the appellants/respondent authorities is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 acquired the land of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner without granting him employment in contravention of the provisions of the Rehabilitation Scheme as the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 and its amendment in the year 1995 specifically provide for employment of the land losers having title over the acquired land for more than 20 years. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents along with his nomination form before the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6. The Collector in its enquiry report has specifically confirmed the title and ownership of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner over the land acquired by the SECL and held him eligible for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land, but the appellants/respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 06.01.2024 rejected the claim of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matters of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Prabhat Kumar Mishra , reported in

¶50

¶51

(2017) 2 CGLJ 193 .

¶52

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

¶53

16. It is not in dispute that Ramotin Bai, who was declared legal heir of original land owner Manohar, nominated the petitioner for employment in lieu of acquisition of land by SECL and his case was considered by the Committee and finally his claim was rejected by the Dy. General Manager (Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area vide Annexure R/4-6/5 on the following ground:

¶54

“(03) Director (T)/(P&P) Bilaspur ds i= dzekad No. SECL/ DTPP/A 24¼3½@181 dated ds vuqlkj½ ,lbZlh,y cksMZ ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij dsoy izR;{k jSf[kd vkfJr iq:"k mEehn~okj gh jktxkj ikus okys dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA

¶55

vr% vkids }kjk jkstxkj gsrq fn;s x;s vkosnu dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA”

¶56

17. This Court in the matter of SECL vs. Prabhat Kumar Mishra (supra) held in paras 16, 17 & 18 of its order as under:

¶57

“ 16. We have no quarrel with the proposition that normally it would be the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which will decide what is the relevant rehabilitation policy applicable to the case. However, each case has to be decided on its own facts. This is a case where it stands proved on the admission of the S.E.C.L. contained in letter dated 31st May, 1994 that it took over the possession of the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra prior to 31st May, 1994. As observed by us earlier, this was a

¶58

¶59

totally illegal entry by the S.E.C.L. into the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra. Even if notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, no person can enter into the land of any person unless the award is announced or urgent proceedings under Section 17 are simultaneously started. Under Section 17, a percentage of the compensation as assessed has to be paid immediately before entering into the land of the land owners.

¶60

17. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of law in such a manner that it gives premium to dishonesty. We also cannot interpret any provision in such a manner that the person, who violates the rule of law, who breaks the specific provisions of the Act, who commits criminal offence of trespass can later claim that because of his illegal activities, he is not liable to give benefit to the displaced person because the acquisition of land is done later. It may be true that the S.E.C.L. had asked the State for acquiring the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra and the mistake may be on the part of the State in not including the land of the petitioner in the acquisition notice. However, whether the fault was on the part of the S.E.C.L. or on the part of the State, the petitioner – Prabhat Kumar Mishra should not suffer. Possession of his land could not have been taken over without following the due process of law. Though the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is

¶61

¶62

still Constitutional right under Section 300A of the Constitution of India. No man can be deprived of his property without payment of adequate compensation. Here, we are dealing with a case where a huge company entered into the land, sets up an industry does not pay compensation to the land holders and continues to remain in possession of the land and acquisition proceedings are started 12 years later in the year 2006. In such a situation, the normal date of issuance of notification may not apply. This is an exceptional case where the possession was taken over prior to the amendment of rehabilitation scheme in the year 1995, and therefore, the case of the petitioner was governed by the unamended scheme of 1991.

¶63

18. In addition thereto, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that the S.E.C.L. cannot have two different parameters in this regard; one in the case of Manoga Thakur and second in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra. Although both their cases were identical, employment was offered to one of the relatives of Manoga Thakur but denied to Prabhat Kumar Mishra. ”

¶64

18. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has held that In the present case also, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is son of nominee Ramotin Bai who is legal heir of original land owner Manohar and Ramotin Bai nominated her son for employment. However, the appellants/respondent authorities without

¶65

¶66

considering all these facts denied employment to the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Prabhat Kumar Mishra (supra), the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P/7 in the writ petition) is set aside. The respondents are directed to provide employment to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶67

19. Thereafter, the appellants/respondent No. 4 to 6 has filed the review petition bearing REVP No. 37 of 2024 before the learned Single Judge for seeking review of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in WPS No. 1266 of 2017 by filing a new documents in the review petition, but it is well settled principle of law that under the grab of review petition, the appellants/respondents No. 4 to 6 should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal, which is no sustainable in law, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the order dated 13.02.2024 passed in REVP No. 37 of 2024.

¶68

20. Accordingly, the present writ appeal as well as order dated 13.02.2024 passed in REVP No. 37 of 2024 being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed .

¶69

Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶70

Brijmohan/Abhishek

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kannoje Vs Smt. Punabai @ Puniya

Amit Anand Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kartikram and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanesh Dehari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Hotwani Vs Saurabh Bakshi