Ravi Kumar Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to add the khasra no.213/1 along with the already added khasra no.2/2B situated at Patwari halka no.13 Gram Budbud, Tehsil: Pali, District: Korba (C.G.).

¶23

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct to the respondent authority by adding khasra no.213/1 the name of the petitioner's mother will find place at serial number 05 instead of serial number 20 in the list of employment benefit under the Chhattisgarh Rehabilitation Policy as the house is constructed in the aforesaid khasra number (ANNEXURE P/5).

¶24

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a resident of village Budbud, Post Pali, District Korba. As pleaded in para 8.3, few survey numbers are recorded in the names of family members of the petitioner in the revenue records, as per Annexure-P/1. The South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (SECL) acquired the lands situated in villages Budbud and Rahadih for Saraipali Open Cast Project. The compensation has already been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner and other land oustees also claimed employment in lieu of the acquisition of their lands. The petitioner has pleaded that house of one Ram Singh, who has since died, was also acquired by the SECL. Daughter of Ram Singh, namely Shanti Bai, wife of Amrit Lal, has been paid

¶26

3

¶27

compensation and the petitioner, being the son of Shanti Bai, is entitled to get employment according to Rehabilitation Policy in lieu of the acquisition of the land. The petitioner has further pleaded that the applications were submitted before the respondent authorities, but no action has been taken, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition. It is also pleaded that the SECL has provided employment to other land oustees or their dependents. The mother of the petitioner, namely Shanti Bai, is the owner of Survey No.213/1. Her name has been placed at Sr. No.20 in Annexure-P/4, whereas it ought to have been placed at Sr. No.5. Thus, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent authorities to include Survey No.213/1 alongwith already included Survey No.2/2B situated at Patwari Halka No.13, village Budbud, Tehsil Pali, District Korba. A further relief has been sought to include Survey No.213/1 in the name of Shanti Bai “mother of the petitioner” and to place her name at Sr. No.5.

¶28

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lands of the petitioner and his family members were acquired by the SECL and subsequently, an award was passed. She would submit that the land oustees have already been paid compensation. It is argued that a chart was prepared but Survey No.213/1 has not been included alongwith Survey No.2/2B, situated at village Budbud against the name of Shanti Bai at Sr. No.5 in the chart prepared by the respondent authorities. She would pray to allow this petition.

¶29

4

¶30

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner has sought for relief of mutation or correction of the revenue entries. They would contend that the petitioner ought to have approached either the Revenue Court or the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. It is also argued that the petitioner has not sought for any relief in his own favour and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

6) Admittedly, the lands situated at village Budbud and Rahadih were acquired by the SECL for Saraipali Open Cast Project. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and compensation has already been paid to the land oustees. The petitioner has stated that Survey No.213/1 was recorded in the name of Ram Singh, who is no more. Smt. Shanti Bai is daughter of Ram Singh. It is also pleaded that house is situated over Survey No.213/1. It is also argued by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have not included Survey No.213/1 against the name of Smt. Shanti Bai. It is the further claim of the petitioner that on account of non-inclusion of name of Shanti Bai against Survey No.213/1, his claim for employment in lieu of land acquisition has not been considered.

¶33

5

¶34

7) Annexure-P/1 is a chart prepared by the revenue authorities. It is apparent that the name of Shanti Bai appears at Sr. No.268 but survey No.213/1 has not been recorded in her name. Further, a perusal of Annexure-P/5 reflects that the name of Shanti Bai at Sr. No.20 and again Survey No.213/1 has not been entered against her name. The lands were recorded in the names of the respective owners after due verification of the revenue records. An order was passed by the Tehsildar directing that the names of Shanti Bai and Sushila be entered against Survey Nos.2/2K, 2/3, 3, 522, 1/3Kh, 1/4K, 182/1, 213/1, total area 1.73 acres and the record was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for necessary action. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer forwarded the order to the SECL authorities vide letter dated 19.9.2022 for necessary action. The relief sought by the petitioner can be granted only by the Revenue Courts, the Revenue Authorities or by Civil Court. Without verification of the relevant facts, no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to include any survey number against the name of any person. It is a well-settled principle of law that where the petitioner has not sought any substantive relief in his own favour, the petition is not maintainable.

¶35

8) A perusal of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner would make it clear that none of them relates to any service claim. Rather, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent authorities to include a particular survey number against the name of his

¶36

6

¶37

mother. As orders have already been passed by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, the mother of the petitioner ought to have approached the higher Revenue Authorities for redressal of her grievance.

¶38

9) In the present petition, the petitioner has not claimed any relief in his own favour. It is a well-settled principle of law that, in order to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter.

¶39

10) Having considered the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to grant any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed . However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶42

Nimmi

Ravi Kumar Nayak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shail Dubey Vs Shiv Shankar Mishra

M/S Navkaar Associates Vs Union of India

Ram Narayan Sahu Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Manoj Kumar Gubrelay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Phoolbai Chauhan Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Ashwani Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh