Sunil Das Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2024:CGHC:46533

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2084 of 20 19

¶6

Sunil Das S/o Shri Puran Das Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Dharampur, Gevra Basti, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chaiman - Cum - Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495006, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶14

27/11/2024

¶15

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

¶16

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶17

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondents.

¶18

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land as per the nomination.

¶19

PAWAN KUMAR 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court JHA Digitally deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the signed by PAWAN petitioner including the cost of the petition.” KUMAR JHA

¶20

2 / 6

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have acquired the land owned by petitioner bearing khasra no. 273/4 along with others and thereafter he became landless. Petitioner was paid monetary compensation of the land but has not provided employment in lieu of the land acquired as per the Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 (amended in 1995) formulated by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, which was in existence on the date of acquisition of the land owned by petitioner. He submits that petitioner has submitted multiple applications for grant of employment in lieu of land as per Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, however they were not considered by the respondents. Petitioner thereafter filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 6411/2018 which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the claim of petitioner. He also pointed out that prior to filing of writ petition and submission of application by the petitioner before the respondentauthorities, he has approached the Collector as per the Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 and the Collector has recommended the name of petitioner for grant of employment in lieu of land acquired. Pursuant to the order passed in writ petition, respondents though have considered his claim, however, have not issued any order of giving employment only for technical reasons. They have taken two grounds to not provide employment to petitioner, one that the petitioner is not an exclusive owner and in exclusive possession of the land since 20 years since publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and further that the petitioner has not obtained consent from the other co-owners.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both the grounds are not sustainable. The land which was acquired by the respondents bearing khasra No. 273/4 is an ancestral property of the father of petitioner, name of father of petitioner is recorded jointly along with his other brothers after partition from other branch of his family as early as in the year 1979. Copy of Namantaran panji as also Adhikar Abhilekh are placed on record in this regard. In the said

¶23

3 / 6

¶24

documents, the land which is mentioned in the Namantaran Panji is shown to be ancestral property. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that as the name of four brothers have been jointly recorded in the ancestral property, further partition was taken place between them in the year 1994 and the land bearing khasra no. 273/4 fallen in the share of father of petitioner, accordingly his name was exclusively recorded in the revenue record in the year 1996. On the date of partition or entering of the name of father of petitioner exclusively as owner of the land bearing khasra no. 273/4, no proceedings of land acquisition was in process. He contended that once the land which was acquired by the respondents has been exclusively recorded in the name of petitioner, there was no requirement for obtaining consent of other family members and therefore both the reasons assigned by the respondents for not providing employment to petitioner are arbitrary and contrary to the Rehabilitation Policy of the year 1991. He also submits that in the identical facts of the case, Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 435/2013 has considered the issue and has allowed the appeal filed by the appellant therein and directed to consider the claim of appellant therein.

¶25

Learned counsel for Respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that respondents are bound by the Rehabilitation Policy formulated by the State Government. In the said policy, there is specific clause that the ownership of the land should be 20 years prior to issuance of notification. The notification was issued in the year 2002 and therefore prior to 1982 name of petitioner or his father ought to have been recorded exclusively in the revenue records which is not there and therefore there is no error on the part of respondents in observing that the 20 years’ exclusive ownership of the father of petitioner was not found. He contended that on the said date the land bearing khasra No. 273 was recorded jointly and therefore the respondents-authorities have rightly concluded that one person is entitled for the employment but the petitioner

¶26

4 / 6

¶27

has not submitted consent of other co-owners of the land recorded in the year 1979.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition.

¶29

Perusal of the documents would show that the land which is acquired bearing khasra No. 273/4 is shown to be ancestral property of the petitioner in the year 1979. In the year 1979, there was partition between the two branches of the family, one branch of Premdas and other of Laxman. The land which was fallen in the share of sons of Premdas also includes the land bearing khasra No. 273. The said entry is of the year 1979-80 (Annexure P-2, Namantaran Panji). Annexure P-3 is the copy of Adhikar Abhilekh Panji, wherein also the land bearing khasra No. 273 is mentioned to be recorded jointly in the name of Chaindas, Baindas, Dayaldas, Purandas, all sons of Premdas and further it is mentioned that the entries are made based on the mutual partition, the nature of land is mentioned as Ancestral. Petitioner has also enclosed the documents submitted before the respondents in the form of declaration letter mentioning that the exclusive recording of the name of Purandas is dated 16.05.1996 and further in the description of the application submitted for grant of employment in lieu of land, it is mentioned the date as 16.05.1996 of exclusive ownership of the land bearing khasra No. 273/4.

¶30

Perusal of the aforementioned revenue documents and further exclusive ownership as mentioned in the application and the description of the application would show that the land bearing khasra No. 273 was subsequently partitioned between four brothers whose names were mentioned in the revenue records of the year 1979-80 and therefore the land bearing khasra No. 273 has been shown as 273/4 recorded in the name of father of petitioner. When the land which was acquired by the respondents is bearing khasra No. 273/4, from the revenue documents appears to be ancestral property. Partition of the property between the brothers is a natural

¶31

5 / 6

¶32

process which cannot be said that the partition of land bearing khasra No. 273 was with any ulterior motive, after getting the knowledge that the respondents were going to acquire the land. On the date of partition of land between four brothers in the year 1994 or recording name of Purandas as exclusive owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 273/4 in the revenue records dated 16.05.1996, there was no intention of the respondents of acquiring the said piece of land by them neither it is in the pleadings of the reply submitted by the respondents.

¶33

In the aforementioned peculiar facts of the case when the land bearing khasra No. 273/4 which was acquired by the respondents is the ancestral property and was subsequently partitioned in 1994, the clause as mentioned in the Circular dated 21.12.1995 that the applicant should be owner of the land for last 20 years, would not apply with the same force as in the case of subsequent purchasers. When undisputedly father of petitioner along with his brothers has been shown to be owner and possessor of the land since 1979 exclusively and therefore the family members of the petitioner were in joint ownership and possession of the land acquired by the respondents for more than 20 years, as per the entries made in the revenue records.

¶34

Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for respondents that the claim of petitioner has not been outrightly rejected but the employment was not provided as the petitioner could not able to submit the consent of the other family members is concerned, it is not in dispute that the joint family property has been subsequently partitioned between the family members in the year 1994, the land which was acquired and subject matter of the writ petition bearing khasra No. 273/4 fallen in the share of father of petitioner. No material is placed by the respondent that the said partition and falling of the land, subject matter of the writ petition, in the share of father of petitioner in any manner disputed by the other family members. In absence of any specific pleadings in this regard by the respondents, it is to be considered

¶35

6 / 6

¶36

that the land bearing Khasra No. 273/4 is fallen in the share of father of petitioner in the year 1994 and therefore it has been recorded in his name exclusively in the year 1996. When once the ancestral property is partitioned between the family members and the particular piece of land which was subject matter of the acquisition by the respondents has fallen in the share of father of petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, there is no requirement of obtaining consent of other family members who are not the co-owners of the said property since 1996 and on the date of acquisition. The reason for not providing employment to the petitioner only on the ground that petitioner has not submitted consent of other family members is not sustainable and therefore it is hereby repelled.

¶37

In the aforementioned facts of the case, the reasons assigned by the respondents in Annexure P-1 while deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner for not providing employment to the petitioner is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside.

¶38

When the policy is formulated by the State Government to provide employment to the land oustees, and that too when they became landless, it has to be given appropriate effect so as to achieve the object for which the policy is formulated.

¶39

For the foregoing discussion, writ petition is allowed, respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner and provide employment in lieu of land acquired exclusively recorded in the name of father of petitioner bearing khasra No,. 273/4 in accordance with law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶42

pwn

Sunil Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purshottam Vs Mohanlal

Dhan Bai Soni Vs Union of India

Uday Krishna Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deleted (Amilal Chauhan) (Died) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pramod Naidu Vs M/S Indusind Bank Ltd.

Ambika Prasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh