Sanjay Das Mahant, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:54922

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 6048 of 2024

¶6

1 - Ajay Das Mahant S/o Mangal Das Mahant, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Laat, Post Chandrashekharpur (Adu), Tahsil Dharmajaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Rehabilitation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

2 - Union Of India, Acting Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶11

3 - Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Dharmajaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶15

7 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, P.O. Secl, Police Station Sarkanda Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Respondent(s)

¶17

WPC No. 6064 of 2024

¶18

1 - Sanjay Das Mahant, S/o Mangal Das Mahant, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Laat, Post - Chandrashekharpur (Adu), Tahsil - Dharmajaigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶19

--- Petitioner(s)

¶20

Digitally signed byBALRAM BALRAM PRASAD PRASAD DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.14 10:41:44 +0530

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Rehabilitation Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶23

2

¶24

2 - Union Of India, Acting Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, New Delhi.

¶25

3 - Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶26

4 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶27

5 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶28

6 - Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) Tahsil - Dharmajaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶29

7 - South Easter Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Seepat Road, Post Office S E C L, Police Station Sarkanda Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶30

	---Respondent(s)
__________________________ For Petitioners	__________________________________ : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate
For State/Res. No.1, 5 & 6	: Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.
For Respondent No.3 & 4 & (In WPC No.6048 of 2024)	: Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 & 4 (In WPC No.6064 of 2024)	: Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶32

Order On Board

¶33

11/11/2025

¶34

Both the petitioners have filed the above petitions seeking following relief (s) :-

¶35

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities for provide the employment to the petitioner.

¶36

3

¶37

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the monetary benefit to the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy.

¶38

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant other ancillary relief (s), as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶39

10.4 Cost of the petition.”

¶40

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that land recorded in name of father of petitioners was acquired by State Government in favour of respondents No.3, 4 & 7, however, at the time of first phase of acquisition, along with monetary compensation, employment was also provided to one of brother of petitioners namely Umesh Das Mahant. As respondents/SECL has granted employment along with compensation against the acquisition of land recorded in the name of father of petitioners, they were satisfied. Subsequently again, the land on which the house of petitioners’ father was constructed was acquired along with other land of village. Though the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been disbursed in their favour, however, since 2009, till date claim of petitioners for grant of employment is not considered and therefore, writ petitions are filed.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondents/SECL opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that it is the claim of petitioners that against acquisition of ownership land recorded in the name of their father bearing Kh. No.622 along with monetary compensation, as per scheme, employment is also granted to Umesh Das Mahant, brother of petitioners. In second phase, the land recorded in the name of State Government bearing Kh. No.627 was acquired

¶42

4

¶43

and taken possession of, however, the persons who were in possession of the land by way of constructing house, compensation was computed considering the area of super structure and accordingly compensation is paid to those persons. They also submits that petitioners have already admitted that Rs.50,000/- has been paid as compensation in lieu of superstructure constructed and possessed by petitioners and against the land recorded in the name of government measuring 97.964 hectare including the Khasra No. 627, total compensation of Rs.23,96,73,493/- is computed and deposited with the State Government. He placed relevant file along with the letter dated 30.05.2016 to the Collector mentioning the deposit of amount against the acquisition of land recorded in the name of State Government. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent/SECL that respondents No.3 and 4 is giving training to the landless persons/persons, who were in possession of government land and also making an attempt to provide them alternate employment with contractors working under respondent No.3 and 4. Petitioners are not entitled for the relief of employment as claimed in Relief Clause No.10.1. So far as the relief as prayed for in Relief Clause No. 10.2 of monetary compensation is concerned, petitioner is also not entitled for monetary compensation as under rehabilitation Policy, respondents/ SECL have provided alternate place to petitioners with minimum amenities like road, drain and water supply.

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

¶45

5

¶46

It is not in dispute that private ownership land recorded in name of father of petitioners bearing Kh. No.622 was acquired by respondents/SECL in the year 2006. It is also not in dispute along with monetary compensation, Umesh Das Mahant, brother of petitioners was granted employment by respondents/SECL. Petitioners are not disputing the status of land to be government land over which the residential accommodation is stated to have been erected prior to 2009 and its Kh. No.627.

¶47

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that area of accommodation might be 300 to 400 sq.ft. and upon putting query he also admitted that alternate area is provided to the persons residing on Kh.No.627 by constructing house under rehabilitation policy along with the amenities like road, drain and water. The only grievance which is projected in these petitions is with regard to grant of regular employment with respondents/SECL.

¶48

Learned counsel for respondents/SECL has placed before this Court the letter dated 15.03.2010 addressed to the Collector while considering reply to the letter forwarded by Collector to consider the claim of land looser for grant of employment. In this letter respondents/SECL has mentioned that persons loosing their ownership land are entitled for regular employment and the landless persons like petitioners who are in possession of the government land are entitled for monetary compensation for the super-structure and they were being provided training in different field and also to provide alternate employment under the contractors working with respondents/SECL.

¶49

6

¶50

Petitioners have not submitted any documents to show that petitioners have ever approached respondents/SECL with a prayer that he be also provided training or making request to provide him alternate employment.

¶51

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were hopeful that their prayer may be considered for regular employment, therefore, they have not submitted any application for training or alternate employment.

¶52

In the aforementioned facts of the case, where undisputely petitioners are not having ownership rights over the land part of the land bearing Kh. No.627 on which the house is stated to have been constructed and further respondent had paid the compensation against superstructure erected/constructed over the government land which was also accepted by petitioners during period of acquisition i.e. prior to 2009, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioners are not entitled for regular employment with respondents/SECL or further monetary compensation as prayed for in relief No.10.2. However, petitioners would definitely be entitled for training and alternate employment according to the scheme as formulated by respondents/SECL, therefore, these petitions are disposed of at this stage permitting petitioners to submit application according to the policy of respondents/SECL to provide them training in as per their option based on the categories available with respondents/SECL and also make an application for providing alternate employment within a period of three weeks from today and if such application is submitted by petitioners, respondents/SECL shall consider the same strictly in

¶53

7

¶54

accordance with policy as formulated by them for considering the claim of like persons, within further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of application.

¶55

With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the petitions stand disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶57

Balram

Sanjay Das Mahant, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Das Mahant, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fareeduddin Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prateek Nagesh Jayant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdayal Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Robert Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Singhania Vs Union of India

Ajay Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh