1. This case is stark example of how huge Companies can force the poor citizens of the Country to repeatedly approach this Court denying the relief which they are legally entitled to.

2. Both these writ appeals arise out of one judgment and hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent No.1/petitioner - Prabhat Kumar Mishra was owner of land in village Rajgamar in Korba District. It is apparent from the record that his land was occupied by the appellants - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (for brevity, 'the S.E.C.L.') prior to 31.05.1994 as is apparent from letter dated 31.05.1994 issued by the Deputy CME, Sub Area Manager, Rajgamar Colliery, which reads as under:

"South Eastern Coalfields Limited

O/o the Sub Area Manager, Rajgamar Colliery,

P.O. Rajgamar Colliery Dist. Bilaspur (M.P.)

Ref.: SECL: RAJ: SAM; 94:354 Date: 31:05:1994

To,

All Land Hostees of Rajgamar Village

Khasra No.119/4 to 119/9 (0.75 Area)

Ompur, Rajgamar.

Sub.: - Occupation land at Rajmagar Village, Khasra No.119/4 to 119/9 by S.E.C.L.

Dear Sir,

Your land situated at Village Rajgamar, Khasra No.119/4 to 119/9, Area 0.75 Acre has been occupied by S.E.C.L. on 16/4/1994 for opening of PAWAN INCLINE (1&2) and the legal process for compensation and other benefits is under process.

Therefore all the above Land hostess are requested to please do not create any disturbance to the Contractor/workers who are working at the site. Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

(S.P. Shukla)

Dy. CME Sub Area Manager,

Rajgamar Colliery.

Copy to:

All Land Hostess

1. Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Khasra No.119/4 Area 0.05 acre

2. Kanhaiya Singh Yadav " 119/5 " 0.05 "

3. Umesh/Goma " 119/6 " 0.05 "

4. Harihar Singh Yadav " 119/7 " 0.05 "

5. Ku. Sarswati D/o Dharnidhar " 119/8 " 0.05 "

6. Manoga Thakur/Jagbali Thakur " 119/9 " 0.50 "

4. It would be pertinent to point out that in this communication sent by the S.E.C.L., it is clearly mentioned that the S.E.C.L. has already taken over the possession of the land and that the legal proceedings for compensation and other benefits are under process. The land owners were requested not to create any disturbance. Copy of this letter has been sent to the land oustees and the first name is that of the petitioner - Prabhat Kumar Mishra, owner of the land bearing Kh.No.119/4 measuring 0.05 acres. Therefore, it is beyond any ken of doubt that the possession of the land of the petitioner/respondent No.1 was taken by the S.E.C.L. prior to 31.05.1994. Thereafter, the S.E.C.L. wrote to the State Government to initiate acquisition proceedings. It appears that in May - June, 1994, acquisition proceedings were also initiated and the award was passed on 11.06.1996. However, it is the admitted case of the parties that the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra was actually not included in the notification issued in 1994-95. Thereafter, the S.E.C.L. sent another communication to the State Government that certain lands had not been acquired though they were in occupation of the S.E.C.L. Thereafter, fresh notification was issued for acquisition of the land of the petitioner/respondent No.1 on 25.03.2006. The fact remains that though the land of the writ petitioner was occupied by the S.E.C.L. in the year 1994, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued only in the year 2006.

5. It would be pertinent to mention that prior to the year 1994, there was a rehabilitation policy formulated by the S.E.C.L. and approved by the State Government that one member of every family, whose land is acquired, shall be provided employment in the S.E.C.L. In the year 1995, the scheme of rehabilitation policy was amended and now another stipulation was laid down that only those persons, who had been in continuous occupation of the land for at least 20 years prior to its acquisition, are entitled to the job in the S.E.C.L. It is not disputed that Prabhat Kumar Mishra had not been in occupation of the land for 20 years.

6. The s