Disposed

Bholenath Singh v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026WPC/4773/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, residents of Kete Basen village in Sarguja district, filed a writ petition seeking direction to the Collector, Ambikapur to decide their representation dated 23.06.2026 concerning rehabilitation benefits, compensation and employment priority under the Kete Extension Coal Project. Both the State and Union of India had no objection to a limited direction. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the Collector to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within 60 days, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Collector, Ambikapur to consider and decide petitioners' representation dated 23.06.2026 within 60 days after hearing the petitioners.

Bholenath Singh Vs Union of India — Mining and Natural Resources | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010366002026

2026:CGHC:40922

NAFR

RAVVAUTTEJKUMARRAJU Digitally signedby RAVVAUTTEJ KUMARRAJUDate:2026.09.2212:13:06+0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4773 of 2026

¶8

1 - Bholenath Singh S/o Kalyan Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Boluram S/o Jagarnath Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Kamaan Singh S/o Jaguram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶11

4 - Ramdhan S/o Bhoglu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶12

5 - Sunita Singh D/o Shivmangal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶13

6 - Kunti Bai W/o Shivmangal Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶14

7 - Bindumati W/o Kamaan Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶15

8 - Raisingh Neti S/o Jaguram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Kete Basen, Post - Dandgaon, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

... Petitioners

Versus

1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Mines, Government Of India, Room No. 320 A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

¶20

2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

3 - Collector Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶22

4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶23

5 - Secretary Gram Panchayat, Basen, Tahsil - Udaipur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶24

6 - Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Through Authorized Officer, Chandgi Ram Heights, Near Kharsia Chowk, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)

¶27

For Petitioners	: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, C.G.C. along with
	Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General for UOI.
For State	: Mr. Praveen Das, Additional A.G.

¶28

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶29

Order on Board

¶30

21/09/2026

¶31

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for following reliefs:-

¶32

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation dated 23.06.2026 (Annexure P/4) submitted by the petitioners before respondent No. 3/Collector, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a timebound period.

¶33

¶34

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the competent authority to take appropriate consequential action, in accordance with law, regarding payment of compensation to the petitioners in respect of their affected/recognised lands, after determination and recognition of their forest rights and subject to their entitlement under the applicable law, rules and project/rehabilitation provisions;

¶35

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for such other consequential benefits, including employment/rehabilitation benefits or priority therein, as may be admissible to them under the applicable law, policy, rehabilitation and resettlement provisions and the terms applicable to the Kete Extension Coal Project.

¶36

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and further be pleased to award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have filed a representation dated 23.06.2026, which is pending consideration before Respondent No.3/Collector, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), with a prayer to pass appropriate orders in respect of rehabilitation benefits or priority therein, as may be admissible to them under the applicable law, policy, rehabilitation and resettlement provisions, and the terms applicable to the Kete Extension Coal Project.

¶38

Learned counsel for the State, as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1/Union of India, submit that they have no objection to the issuance of such a limited direction.

¶39

Considering the submissions made by both parties and the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the concerned authority—namely

¶40

¶41

Respondent No.3/Collector, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)—is directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation dated 23.06.2026 in accordance with law within a specified period, preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the competent authority is at liberty to take an independent decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶42

With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶45

Judge

¶46

U.K. Raju

Bholenath Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholenath Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases