Devli Bai Vs National Thermal Power Corporation

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:52731

¶3

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR RUKHSAR BANO BANO Date: 2025.11.04 10:46:21 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9957 of 2019

¶7

1 - Vijay Laxmi @ Fekan Bai W/o M.L. Sanehi Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No.16, Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Ramfal Sooryavanshi Ganpatram Sooryavanshi Aged About 53 Years R/o Sooryavanshi Muhalla, Nougai, South Eastern Coal Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Kedarnath Darve S/o Kripat Darve Aged About 62 Years R/o 205, Jaiswal Mohalla, Purani Basti, Ward No.3, Korba Town, Korba Town Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Hemlata W/o Pop Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Gram Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Anil Patel S/o Ramcharan Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

6 - Anuradha W/o Rajaram Aged About 45 Years R/o Gram Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

7 - Kunwar Das Manikpuri S/o Raghuvar Das Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Hardivishal Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

8 - Avinash Dubey S/o Vyas Narayan Dubey Aged About 36 Years R/o Shree Ram Sadan, Mandir Ke Pass Chantidih, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

9 - Rajkumar S/o Buddhu Aged About 60 Years Village Hardivishal, Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

10 - Shital Sahu S/o Ramdulari Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Mandai, Police Station Seepat, Madai Khamhariya, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

11 - Tularam Sapre S/o Nankun Sapre Aged About 53 Years Ward No.14, Awas Para Khamtarai, Gram Khamtrai, Baimanagoi, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

12 - Dev Singh S/o Kanhiya Aged About 63 Years Village Janjgi, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

13 - Maniram S/o Shakharam Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Tank, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

14 - Ramsharan Dewangan S/o Narendra Kumar Aged About 62 Years Gram Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

15 - Nathu S/o Deeman Aged About 55 Years Village Devri, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

16 - Gokul Prasad S/o Bhagirathi Aged About 50 Years R/o Janji, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

17 - Santosh Dewangan S/o Ramalal Aged About 48 Years R/o Janji, Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

2

¶25

18 - Guharam S/o Rambharos Aged About 63 Years Gram Seepat, Police Station Seepat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

--- Petitioners

¶27

versus

¶28

1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Through Its Assistant Manager, Human Resources Department, Ntpc, Post Ujjwal Nagar, Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶29

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

3 - Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶31

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

--- Respondents

¶33

WPS No. 2268 of 2020

¶34

1 - Devli Bai W/o Late Pop Singh, Aged About 75 Years R/o Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶35

2 - Ramcharan S/o Late Ravir Ram, Aged About 80 Years R/o Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶36

3 - Gopal Singh, S/o Late Horil Singh, Aged About 38 Years Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶37

4 - Kartik Kanvat S/o Late Shivnandan S/o Umega Rank, Aged About 32 Years Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶38

--- Petitioners

¶39

Versus

¶40

1 - National Thermal Power Corporation Through Its Assistant Manager, Human Resources Department, N T P C, Post Ujjwal Nagar, Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶41

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶42

3 - Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶44

--- Respondents

¶45

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶46

For Petitioners	: Ms.	Renu Kochar, Advocate
For Respondents No.1/NTPC	: Mr.	Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. adv. With
	Mr.	Anuroop Panda, Advocate
For RespondentsNo.2to4/State	: Mr.	Dilman Rati Minj, G.A.,Mrs.

¶47

3

¶48

Mukta Tripathi, P.L. and Ms. Anuradha Jain, P.L.

¶49

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶50

Order on Board 29/10/2025

¶51

Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the above writ petitions, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order.

¶52

The petitioners are land oustees. Their lands have been acquired by the State of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of respondent No.1 National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Seepat, Bilaspur (for short, ‘the NTPC’). It is the case of the petitioners that they have been provided compensation against the acquisition of their lands, but they have not been granted employment as per the scheme of Resettlement & Rehabilitation Policy promulgated by the NTPC in the year 2000 as also Rehabilitation Policy of the year 2007, and therefore, they are entitled for employment and rehabilitation. It is the further case of the petitioners that non-grant of employment and not granting rehabilitation is totally arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 920 .

¶53

In the returns filed, the respondents have disputed the correctness of the averments made in the writ petitions and stated that compensation has already been paid to the petitioners and the amount of rehabilitation has also been given to them and the petitioners / land

¶54

4

¶55

oustees have also executed affidavits to the effect in favour of the NTPC that after taking the amount of rehabilitation, they will not claim anything from NTPC. Copies of agreements have also been said to have been filed on record.

¶56

Ms. Renu Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that though the petitioners’ lands have been acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of respondent No.1 NTPC and though the compensation in lieu of acquisition of land has been granted, but rehabilitation and employment has not been granted to the petitioners as per the applicable Rehabilitation Policy, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the respondents in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Banwasi Seva Ashram (supra). She further submits that a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956/2013 (Tirithram vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and other connected matters, which was also pertaining to similar relief, has been disposed of by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 21.09.2021, directing respondents to decide the representations filed by the petitioners within stipulated period. She next submits that petitioners are ready to file representation for redressal of their grievance. Hence, she prays that these petitions may be disposed of directing respondents to decide the representations to be filed by petitioners within stipulated period as per terms of order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the coordinate bench in a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956/2013 and other connected matters.

¶57

Per contra , Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/

¶58

5

¶59

NTPC, would submit that, in both the writ petitions, there are total 22 petitioners. However, their land acquisition proceedings, dates of award as well as quantum and amount of compensation are totally different, as such, the cause of action in respect of each individual petitioner is different, but by clubbing the issue of all petitioners, instant petitions have been filed, hence, both the petitions are not maintainable in the manner in which they have been filed, and also on the grounds of delay and latches. He further submits that a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956/2013 was decided on a different footing, as in that batchh of petitions, respondent No.1 / NTPC had conceded that they would decide the representations filed by the petitioners of those cases, who had filed separate petitions as per the Rehabilitation Policy. However, in instant cases, no such representation has been filed by the petitioners, nor any pleading has been made in this regard. Learned Sr. Advocate further submitted that there were agreements executed between the NTPC and land oustees, wherein the land oustees had conceded that after getting rehabilitation amount in lieu of rehabilitation claims, they would not raise any further claim in future against NTPC. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment in Sundarlal & Others vs. NTPC & Others and other connected cases bearing WP(S) No.5531 of 2017, decided on 20.06.2025, as well as on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. vs. Malkiat Singh reported in (2005) 9 SCC 22 .

¶60

Learned State counsel extended his support to the contention made by learned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/ NTPC.

¶61

6

¶62

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record along with judgments relied upon by both the learned counsel.

¶63

Undisputedly, in both writ petitions, the petitioners are land oustees and their lands have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of NTPC. Though they have been granted compensation and also rehabilitation amount against the land acquisition as stated by learned Sr. counsel, but relief sought for by petitioners in both the writ petitions is employment as per the Rehabilitation Policy issued from time to time.

¶64

When specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners have filed representations before the respondent authorities/competent authorities for redressal of their grievance of getting employment in NTPC in light of said Rehabilitation Policy, she submits that no representation has been filed.

¶65

In a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956/2013 (Tirithram vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters), similar issue was involved, which has been disposed of by the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 21.09.2021, observing therein in para 8 to 12 as under:-

¶66

“8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are land oustees and their lands have been said to have been acquired by the State at the instance of respondent No.2 NTPC for public purpose. It is also not disputed that payment of compensation against acquisition of land has already been granted to the petitioners / land oustees.

¶67

7

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioners clearly submits that there is no dispute with regard to payment of compensation to the land oustees / petitioners. As such, there is no issue with regard to payment of compensation to the petitioners / land oustees.

¶69

The main dispute which has been brought before the Court is though the applicable rehabilitation policy against acquisition of land provides for grant of employment to one of the family members of the land oustee and also provides for rehabilitation also against acquisition of land, but that has not been provided to the petitioners / land oustees, as such, that be granted to them. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have made representations for employment and rehabilitation and same have not been considered and no order on the said representations has been passed either granting the same or otherwise, qua employment and rehabilitation claimed by them in lieu of acquisition of land, as the rehabilitation policy provides for the same.

¶70

A careful perusal of the record would show that except the stand taken by respondent No.2 NTPC, no order has been brought on record that cases of the petitioners / land oustees have been considered for grant of employment and rehabilitation and order has been passed this way or that way. It is not in dispute that rehabilitation policy provides for grant of employment and also for rehabilitation, but since no express order has been passed by respondent No.2 either way, after due consideration, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to a two- member body consisting of the Collector, Bilaspur or any other Additional Collector duly nominated by the Collector and the General Manager (Human Resources), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur to consider the issue of employment / rehabilitation in the following manner: -

¶71

8

¶72

Each of the petitioners will make claim separately supported by documents within 30 days from today to the office of the General Manager (HR), NTPC, Seepat, Bilaspur and the NTPC will also submit its respective stand in each of the petitioner’s case to the General Manager (HR) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of claim from the petitioners and record of each case will be maintained separately.

¶73

Thereafter, the Collector or his nominee will sit together along with the General Manager (HR), NTPC, in the Collectorate premises and will hear the petitioners / their representative and the respondent NTPC / its representative and will hold a brief hearing which will be completed within a period of two months and thereafter, pass reasoned and speaking order in each individual case separately within 45 days from the date of hearing, in accordance with law.

¶74

The party / aggrieved person will be at liberty to question the order so passed, in accordance with law.

¶75

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶76

All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the manner in indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).”

¶77

Instant petitions have also been filed by the land oustees seeking employment against their lands acquisition for the purpose of NTPC. Though in instant cases, representations have not been filed by the petitioners, as was already filed in a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956 of 2013, but ends of justice would be served if the

¶78

9

¶79

petitioners of instant petitions are granted liberty to file representations within a period of 30 days from today and the same be considered and decided by the respondent authorities as per terms of the order dated 21.09.2021 passed in a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956 of 2013 and the other connected matters.

¶80

Having considered the aforesaid facts and limited prayer of the petitioners, without making any comment on merits of the cases, both the writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file representations for redressal of their grievance pertaining to providing employment, before the respondent authorities, within a period of 30 days from today, thereafter, it shall be decided by the respondent authorities, within a further period of 45 days, as per the terms of order dated 21.09.2021 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in a batch of writ petitions bearing WP(S) No.3956 of 2013 and the other connected matters, in accordance with law, applicable rules and rehabilitation rules, after filing representations by petitioners along with a copy of this order.

¶81

Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of .

¶82

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶85

JUDGE

¶86

Rukhsar

Devli Bai v. National Thermal Power Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devli Bai v. National Thermal Power Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Shyampal Tamrakar

New Royal Travels Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prandhar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gurudas Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Bhoi, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Vs Santosh Satnami