Disposed¶32

Sonu Bharti v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2026WPC/266/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 266 of 2026; decided 21/01/2026 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; petitioner Sonu Bharti sought employment in lieu of land acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Dipka Project); disposed of with direction to consider fresh representation before respondent No.3 within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent No.3 within 30 days; respondent No.3 to decide it in accordance with law/policy/guideline within further 60 days from receipt. ¶32

Sonu Bharti Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:3527

RUKHSAR BANO

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.01.24 11:10:21 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

WPC No. 266 of 2026

¶8

1 - Sonu Bharti W/o Arvind Banjare, Aged About 29 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Hardi Bazar, Tehsil, District Korba (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L., M Dipka Area District Korba (C.G.)

¶13

3 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Dipka, Area, District Korba C.G.

¶14

4 - Staff Officer (Land Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, District Korba (C.G.)

¶15

5 - The Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause title, as taken from CIS system)

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Yadu, Advocate For SECL/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No.5 : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer.

¶19

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

21/01/2026

¶22

Heard.

¶23

This petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

¶24

¶25

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the employment/service to the petitioner instead of the land acquired in Dipka Project.

¶26

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s mother is a land oustee. Her land bearing Khasra No.262/3, area 0.10 hectare and 0.40 hectare, situated at Village Hardi Bazar, P.H.N. 15, Tehsil Hardi Bazar has been acquired by respondents-SECL. Though the compensation has been determined but the petitioner and her mother are not interested to get compensation, rather, they wanted employment in lieu of acquirement. He next submits that the petitioner has filed representation (Annexure-P/4) dated 08.04.2024 before the Collector, District Korba and copy of the same has also been given to authority of SECL but the same has not been decided till date. He lastly submits that the petitioner is ready to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.3, hence, he prays that this petition may be disposed of directing respondent No.3 to decide the same in accordance with law/policy/guidelines within stipulated period.

¶28

On this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4- SECL submits that if the petitioner files a representation, it shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶29

Having considered the limited prayer of petitioner and contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent No.3 for redressal of her grievance, within a period of 30 days from today along with all necessary documents and a copy of this

¶30

¶31

order. Thereafter, if such representation is filed by the petitioner, it shall be considered and decided by respondent No.3 in accordance with law/policy/guideline, within further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of representation filed by the petitioner.

¶32

With aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of .

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶35

Rukhsar

Sonu Bharti v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Bharti 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manbasiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Nanda Dr. Anil Khakharia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhushan Lal Didhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Christian (Masihi) Mela Samiti Madkudweep Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kriparam Khande Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Rupal Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh