To claim employment under the Rehabilitation Policy 1991, the claimant must strictly satisfy all eligibility criteria, including the mandatory requirement of owning the land for at least 20 years prior to the date of acquisition as per the 1995 amendment.

Order on Board

13/04/2026

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.12.2015 (Annexure P/6) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide employment to the petitioner no. 2 in SECL for acquisition of land of petitioner no. 1, forthwith.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to provide land compensation to the petitioner no. 1 with interest @ 12% from the date of taking possession to its actual payment.

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing kh. no.1951 of 2016 admeasuring 0.016 hectare situated at Village – Batara, District- Surajpur. Land of petitioner along with land of other residents of Village – Batara was subject matter of acquisition by respondents for the purpose of railway siding in the year 1981-82. Revenue Inspector vide its report dated 24.07.1995 intimated that land of the villagers of Village Batara was acquired in the year 1981-82 vide Annexure P-1. According to policy, petitioner No.1 along with others were also entitled for benefit of re- settlement along with compensation to be paid to land owners. Proceeding in this regard has been processed through the concerned Collector and respondents were directed to consider the claim of land- losers for granting employment in lieu of land under the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy, 1991 . Name of petitioner along with other villagers were also proposed to be considered by Collector to respondent authority. However, name of petitioner No.1 was considered and rejected on the ground that he was not fit as petitioner No.1 has crossed age of 35 years. Petitioner at that time was not intimated that name of any other person of family can be proposed for grant of benefit of employment under the Rehabilitation Policy and therefore petitioner could not able to propose the name of his son i.e. petitioner No.2. After coming to know that family member other than the land owners have been considered for employment in case of other land owners, petitioner had submitted representation before the authority in the year 2013 which was rejected arbitrarily and therefore respondents be directed to consider the claim of petitioner No.2 for employment under the Rehabilitation Policy 1991. He also contended that in Rehabilitation Policy, there is no mention of the maximum age of person to be employed and therefore even if petitioner was more than 35 years of age on the date of consideration i.e. in year 2000, name of petitioner No.1 ought to have been considered by respondents for grant of employment in lieu of land or else respondents were under obligation to intimate petitioner No.1 that he can suggest or propose the name of other family members in which they have utterly failed and in the aforementioned facts of case, respondent cannot take the plea that writ petition has been filed with delay.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that upon acquisition of land of village Batara of the land owners including petitioner, name of land owners for grant of employment in lieu of land under Rehabilitation Policy was considered based on list of land-losers as provided by concerned Collector. He contended that name of land-losers for employment in lieu of land is to be considered based on guidelines formulated by respondents which mentions that applicant should be physically fit to work in underground mines, he or she should not be more than 35 years of age and further that the ownership of