Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:21384

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2687 of 2021

¶6

1 - Manoj Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Bhagwat Jaiswal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Arasmeta, Post - Sonsari, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through : Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Collector, Janjgir - Champa, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd., Through - Its Manager - Administration, Having Its Registered Office And Bakhtawar, 14th Floor, 229 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Maharastra).

¶12

4 - M/s Nuvoco Vistas Corp. Ltd., Arasmeta Cement Plant, Village Arasmeta, Post Office Gopal Nagar, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause title is taken from CIS system)

¶15

For Petitioner : Ms. Rajani Soren, Advocate For Respondents/State No.1 & 2 : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate

¶16

Digitally
BALRAM signed by
PRASAD BALRAM
DEWANGAN PRASAD
DEWANGAN

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

07/05/2026

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner Bhagwat Jaiswal has earlier filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.476 of 2023 before the High Court pleading that his land bearing Kh. No. 360/2, 362, 359/5, 359/8 situated at Village Arasmeta was being

¶21

2

¶22

illegally acquired and destructed by M/s. Lafarge India Ltd., and considering the nature of grievance raised, High Court has directed petitioner therein to submit an application before the Collector, JanjgirChampa vide order dated 20.02.2003. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, father of petitioner and other aggrieved persons have submitted an application before the Collector, based upon which, Collector has registered a case bearing No. 32/B-121/2002-03. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that earlier upon running a bulldozer over agricultural land of father of petitioner destroying the standing crops, father of petitioner received a notice from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer for determining the amount of compensation. After receipt of notice, objection was raised mentioning that there is no assessment of standing trees on the land and made a submission for grant of appropriate compensation to the damages caused and to provide permanent employment. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in the proceedings recorded by the Collector, it is clearly mentioned that many persons including father of petitioner has not been granted employment in lieu of land. Collector after hearing the parties have passed the order on 19.09.2003 directing the company therein to recruit Kanhaiya S/o. Ritu, Nokhram S/o. Chhotan, Rajendra S/o. Chamaru and Bhagwat S/o. Bishambhar (father of petitioner) or to anyone of the family members to give employment. Accordingly, petitioner was engaged through contractor M/s. Sanjay Construction. As petitioner was engaged by a contractor on direction of M/s. Lafarze India Limited and not by the company itself, respondent No.3 has not complied with the orders and the directive issued by the Collector in its words and spirit. Petitioner is well

¶23

3

¶24

qualified person having qualification of Diploma in Nursing DAMS, and has been engaged as compounder through contractor in the year 2004 and since then he is continuously working till date. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to give permanent employment to petitioner in the company and not through the agency under contract.

¶25

Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 would submit that respondent No.3 company has been taken over by respondent No.4 much after passing of the order by the Collector. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by the Collector, petitioner has been engaged in job, therefore, direction issued by the Collector has been complied with. It is also contended that as per order of the Collector, it is appearing that land of petitioner has not been acquired at any point of time. Employment can be given only when land is acquired. He also contended that right to permanent employment in lieu of land can only be claimed when minimum two acres of land is acquired by the Company, whereas from the order of the Collector, it is appearing that land of petitioner on which he is claiming permanent employment is 1.35 acres. He also submits that the claim of petitioner before the Collector is with regard to damages towards crops only and from the pleadings in the writ petition proceedings in this regard has been initiated by the SDO, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.

¶26

Learned State counsel supports the order passed by the Collector. He also pointed out that M/s. Lafarge India Ltd. in its letter has accepted the findings recorded by the Collector and have engaged the petitioner

¶27

4

¶28

temporarily till post became available for giving permanent employment, therefore, respondent No.4 herein cannot turn back to say that petitioner is not entitled for permanent employment.

¶29

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

¶30

From the proceedings of the Collector dated 19.09.2023, it is appearing that persons like petitioner were displaced by respondent No.3 or the officials of the cement factory for establishment of the factory, have approached this Court by way of filing writ petition alleging that due to activities of employees/officials of the cement factory, their agricultural land has been damaged by removing partition wall of agricultural field, running over dozers or heavy earth moving machines. It is also reflecting that some monetary compensation is also paid to the affected persons by virtue of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer – cum - Land Acquisition Officer. Name of father of petitioner in the revenue records of agricultural property records is also forming part of the proceedings of the Collector in its internal page No.16, in which prayer of father of petitioner (Bhagwat Prasad) was also recorded that of appropriate compensation and permanent employment. In the order of the Collector dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) Point No.5 Collector has considered the claim of permanent employment of affected persons including father of petitioner, Bhagwat Prasad and after hearing the affected persons as also respondent No.3, Lafarge India Limited Arasmeta directed to employ Bhagwat Prasad, S/o. Bishambhar, father of petitioner or any member of his family along with other three persons named therein.

¶31

5

¶32

The order of the Collector directing respondent No.3 to grant employment in lieu of the agricultural land is not put to challenge by respondent No.3 in fact they have complied it in part by issuing letter to petitioner on 17.03.2004 mentioning therein that this letter is written pursuant to the order of the Collector dated 19.09.2003 (wrongly mentioned in the letter 21.09.2003) and has ordered petitioner to be engaged as labourer with contractor M/s. Sanjay Constructions. It also mentions in last paragraph of said letter that in the event of becoming vacant of permanent post in future, they will consider to appoint him on permanent post as per his qualification, conduct, skills and work efficiency. From the letter Annexure P-2 dated 17.03.2004, it is apparent that respondent No.3 has accepted the decision of the Collector by issuing a direction to provide employment to father of petitioner or anyone of his family members, therefore, submission of learned counsel for respondents that petitioner is not entitled for any employment in lieu of the land for the reasons as argued before this Court, is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh had formulated a policy for the rehabilitation of displaced land owners. Under the said policy, a provision was made for grant of permanent employment so as to restore the status of land losers to the greatest potential including their physical, mental, social, and vocational rehabilitation.

¶34

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of 24 Parganas v. Lalith Mohan Mullick, reported in AIR 1986 SC 622 has discussed the meaning of “rehabilitation” and observed thus :-

¶35

6

¶36

“ 13. In Collins Dictionary of the English Language , the meaning for the word ‘rehabilitate’ is given as “to help a person (who is physically or mentally disabled or has just been released from prison) to readapt to society or a new job as by vocational guidance, retraining or therapy. . .”. By rehabilitation what is meant is not to provide shelter alone. The real purpose of rehabilitation can be achieved only if those who are sought to be rehabilitated are provided with shelter, food and other necessary amenities of life. It would be too much to contend, much less to accept, that providing medical facilities would not come within the concept of the word ‘rehabilitation’……….”

¶37

In case of State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that land oustees are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per policy framed in this regard and observed thus :-

¶38

“31. Thus, from the abovereferred judgments, it is evident that acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/fundamental right of the displaced persons. However, they are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed for the oustees of the project concerned.”

¶39

Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vaibhav Raj Patel Vs. State

¶40

of Chhattisgarh & Ors., in WPS No. 4221 of 2014, decided on 11.09.2017 while considering the issue of non grant of permanent employment to the land oustees relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus :

¶41

“12. …….. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer has clearly held that the family member of land oustees would be entitled for permanent employment and that too it should be granted within six

¶42

7

¶43

months as per the rehabilitation policy as on 2007, but the two appointment orders issued to the petitioner would clearly show that respondent No.5 Jindal Steel and Power Limited is not ready and willing to grant permanent employment to the petitioner and only he has been twice offered appointment as Trainee and that too for 12 months on a stipend of Rs.11,000/- per month and Rs.20,000/- per month, respectively, which is against the spirit of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner ought to have been offered permanent job with a salary attached to that post, as his educational qualification is B.E. (Mech.). It is unfortunate that the order of the SubDivisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer, though passed in favour of the beneficiary and land of the petitioner's father has been acquired as back as on 177- 2008, yet, has not been followed in its letter and spirit. The fact remains that the family member of the land oustee has not been granted employment despite the award dated 17-7-2008. It is also unfortunate that for last nine years, the respondent Jindal Steel and Power Limited has not implemented the order of the SubDivisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer granting rehabilitation to the member of the family of the land oustee and the petitioner is made to run from pillar to post. Once the land acquisition proceeding has become final, employment ought to have been granted as per the rehabilitation policy and as per the order of the SubDivisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer. It is bad on the part of Jindal Steel and Power Limited of not providing permanent employment to the family member of the land oustee giving complete go-by to the object of rehabilitation as held herein-above that refusing to rehabilitate land oustee family as per the award is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such an action on the part of a private company is highly

¶44

8

¶45

deprecated. It is, therefore, directed that within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the award dated 17-7-2008 will be complied with in its letter and spirit and the petitioner will be offered a permanent job in the said company as per the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Land Acquisition Officer…...”

¶46

Reverting back to the facts of the case it is not in dispute that father of petitioner after being ousted from his agricultural land owned and possessed had made request and agitation before the authorities and thereafter have filed the writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. Pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court, father of petitioner along with other submitted representation/ application before the Collector, upon which, a case was registered by the Collector against respondent No.3 and other State agency. After hearing all the parties including respondent No.3, Collector has issued a direction to provide employment, which means providing permanent employment in the institution i.e. respondent No.3. From the letter also it is appearing that respondent No.3 at that time had accepted the order and for the time being had granted temporary employment through contractor with an undertaking that as soon as permanent post will be available, petitioner herein will be considered for permanent employment subject to his qualification and work efficiency etc., therefore, now the respondent No.4 who took over the respondent No.3 company will not be permitted to act in contravention of the direction issued by the Collector and accepted by respondent No.3 company at that time. Respondent No.4 has stepped into the shoes of respondent No.3, therefore, in the opinion of this Court in the

¶47

9

¶48

facts of the case, petitioner has made out a case for grant of relief as prayed for.

¶49

Though the counsel for respondent No.4 has made an attempt to say that minimum land to claim employment was not affected, hence, no relief of employment can be granted has no legs to stand, when the order of Collector dated 19.09.2003 is not put to challenge in fact it was accepted by the then officials of the company. Another aspect is that the respondent No.4 has not filed any document or policy applicable on that date i.e. the date when land of father of petitioner was damaged by the company which appears to be of prior to the year 2000. Arguments without supporting documents cannot be accepted.

¶50

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.4, who took over respondent No.3 is directed to comply with the direction issued by the Collector in its order dated 19.09.2003 (Annexure P-1) in its words and spirit and to offer permanent employment to petitioner according to his qualification and work efficiency etc. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

Balram

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y. Rajendra Kumar Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arjun Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Faguram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankita Mishra Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

Sumeet Jal @ Bathu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Punam Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh