SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DHANESHWARI – Appellant
Versus
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED – Respondent
WPS/3784/2022



##PAGE1##

1

D byig Sit Ia Dll Dy H s Aig Nn Ted 2026:CGHC:22440

SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR

TAMRAKAR D 20a 2te 6: .05.13

17:57:49

+0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 3784 of 2022

• Dhaneshwari D/o Pyare Lal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Gevra Basti,

Kusmunda, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Director (Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat

Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Dipka Area, District

Korba (C.G.)

4. General Manager (Mining), Dipka Extension Project, South Eastern Coalfields

Limited, Dipka Area, District Korba (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

13/05/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the

entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the

impugned order dated 16.02.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued by

the respondent no. 4.

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the

respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for

grant of employment in lieu of her land acquired by the

respondents as per nomination.

##PAGE2##

2

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deems

fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including

the cost of the petition.”

2. The Central Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings in the year

2004 for extension of Dipka Project of the respondent/SECL. The lands of

village Malgaon Tehsil- Katghora District Korba was acquired by the Central

Government under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act, 1957 (in short CBA Act) for the Dipka Expansion Coal Mines Project of

Dipka Area SECL. In this regard for the said acquisition a notification u/s 4 of

the C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 12.02.2001 and notification u/s 7 of the

C.B.A. Act, 1957 was issued on 17.02.2004 and notification u/s 9 of the C.B.A.

Act, 1957 was issued on 24.11.2004 by the Central Government and those

notifications were published in the official gazette.

Upon publication of the notification in the official gazette u/s 9 of the

said Act, the land and right over the land vested absolutely with the Central

Government, free from all encumbrances. In terms of Section 11 of the above

Act, the above referred land and right vested with the company i.e. S.E.C.L.

It was agreed by the SECL to provide employment to one of the family

members of each land oustee as per the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 issued by

the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. However, subsequently employment

was offered according to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal

India Limited, 2012 and authorities failed to consider claims of land oustees

according to Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was prevalent at the time of

land acquisition. According to the Policy of 2012, the land oustees having land

less than 2 acres would not be entitled to get employment.

##PAGE3##

3

The petitioner as such preferred WPS No. 6243/2021 which was

disposed of by the High Court directing the respondents to consider the claim

of the petitioner in accordance with rules, regulations and policy governing the

field.

The application/representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the

SECL authorities. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to

the respondent authorities to provide employment according to the

Rehabilitation Policy of 1991, which was in existence at the time of land

acquisition. The petitioner has also sought relief to quash the order passed by

the SECL authorities, whereby his claim has been rejected.

3. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top