Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Anil Singh S/o Shri Durgvijay Singh – Appellant
Versus
South Eastern Coalfield Limited – Respondent
Order :
(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)
1. The short question involved in the instant writ petition is whether respondent-South Eastern Coalfield Limited (for brevity “SECL”) is justified in denying employment to the petitioner herein under the Rehabilitation Policy after acquiring his land and making payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,27,805.60/- to him on 17.07.2012, by disputing validity of his sale deed by which the petitioner acquired title over the said land on wholly untenable ground?
2. The aforesaid question of law arises on the following factual backdrop:-
(I) The petitioner herein was title holder of the land bearing Khasra No.630 area 0.66 acre situated at village Pondi, which he had purchased by registered sale deed dated 24.12.1992 by one Jyotibhushan Pratap Singh in which the caste of the seller and purchaser are mentioned as Schedule Tribe (Adivasi).
(II) The above-stated subject land was acquired by the competent authority for the purpose of respondent-SECL under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for brevity “the Act of 1957”) for Gevra-Project in 2004, accepting the clear and marketable title of the petitioner and compensation to the tune o
The denial of employment under the Rehabilitation Policy after land acquisition is unjustified when the title is acknowledged and compensation paid, invoking the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
The court established that employment entitlements under land acquisition policies must be honored as per the terms in effect at the time of acquisition, ensuring adherence to principles of natural j....
The court affirmed that a land loser is entitled to employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, regardless of pending title disputes.
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, ruling that the absence of a dwelling house on the acquired land precluded entitlement to employment under the rehabilitation policy.
The High Court may refuse relief due to delay and laches, particularly when third-party rights have accrued, prioritizing timely claims and the integrity of past compensations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
