JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant compensation along with interest to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his land appertaining to Khata No. 9, Plot No. 439, Village-Sayal Thana No. 23, District Ramgarh, measuring an area of 27 Decimals which was acquired by the respondents vide L.A. Case No. 03/81-82. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner under their Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (R&R Policy) in lieu of acquisition of the said land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land was purchased by the petitioner’s mother, Balmati Devi, by virtue of registered sale-deed in the year 1966 from one Jageshwar Sao. Subsequently, the said land was mutated in her name vide Mutation Case No. 87 of 1969-70 and she came in possession of the same. The rent of the said land was continuously paid to the government. It is further submitted that the State Government initiated a land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 03 of 1981-82 for acquisition of the land measuring an area of 4.07 Acres under Plot Nos. 402, 431, 432, 433, 439 and 518 for Sayal D Colliery and the persons, namely Munshi Sao, Awinash Sao and Jageshwar Sao, all sons of Haidar Sao, Ram Sao and Haridas Sao, both sons of Kashi Sao, were awarded compensation for the same to the tune of Rs. 39,960.43 vide order dated 07.03.1984. However, the petitioner’s mother was neither issued notice nor awarded any compensation in lieu of acquisition of her land measuring an area of 27 Decimals under Plot No. 439, Khata No. 9. It is further submitted that under the R&R Policy of the respondents, the land losers/their nominees were provided employment. More particularly, for acquisition of Plot Nos. 431, 402, 439, 518, 433 and 432, one Madan Prasad, who was the grandson of Munshi Sao, was provided appointment. Since said Madan Prasad, apart from getting compensation, also got appointment under R&R Policy, he deprived the petitioner/his mother of his/her legitimate right. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s mother was an illiterate lady, who did not have sufficient means and knowledge to seek remedy under the law and she passed away in the year 2018. The petitioner made representations before the respondent No. 4 seeking information to that regard under RTI. However, he was provided information under RTI that no record was available in the concerned office with respect to payment of compensation and providing employment in lieu of acquisition. It is further submitted that the petitioner also sought information under RTI Act from the Management of CCL about acquisition of the land in question, payment of compensation and providing employment to the land owners and it would be evident from the reply of the respondent No. 8 annexing therewith the copy of the agreement dated 24.09.1984 entered between the land ousters and the representatives of the C.C.L. Barkakana that the said land was also included in the acquired land and the employment was provided to one Madan Prasad, who was the nominee of the land losers.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as the respondent-CCL submit that the petitioner is raising his claim after more than 30 years from the date of acquisition of the said land and as such the same is hopelessly barred under the law. It is further submitted that such a highly belated claim of compensation and employment in lieu of acquisition may not be entertained by this Court and the present writ petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner seeks compensation and employment under R&R Policy of the respondents for acquisition of the said land of her mother which was acquired vide L.A. Case No. 03 of 1981-82. The claim