Chattisgarh High Court
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs Arun Mishra on 6 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR 2025:CGHC:38959-DB
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.06
18:37:40
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 575 of 2025
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through The Director (Personnel)
Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1 In Wp)
2 – Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gavera
Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2 In Wp)
3 – Land Revenue Officer South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Office Of The
General Manager, Gavera Extension Opencast Project, Gavera Area
District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3 In Wp)
… Appellants
versus
1 – Arun Mishra S/o Gandharva Prasad Mishra Aged About 40 Years
R/o Gram Bahanpath, District – Korba, Presently R/o Mariyadpur,
Jasthatola Tehsil – Ramnagar District Satna Madhya Pradesh
(Petitioner In Wp)
2 – Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4
In Wp)
… Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
2
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06.08.2025
1. Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt.
Advocate for the State/respondent no. 2 on I.A. No. 01/2025,
an application for condonation of delay in fling the appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are
of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been
shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is
allowed and delay of 38 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. By the present writ appeal, the appellants are seeking
quashment of order dated 06.03.2025 passed in WPS No.
1555/2018 by the learned Single Judge of this Court on
06.03.2025.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties
would jointly submit that the issue involved in this appeal has
already been considered and decided by this Court in Writ
3
Appeal No. 424/2025 decided on 29.07.2025 and other
connected matter and as such this appeal may be disposed of
in terms of the said judgment.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 424/2025. In the said
appeal this court has observed thus:-
“20. A similar issue came up for consideration before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Lahre v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others {WA No. 254/2023),
wherein a learned Division Bench has taken note of the
fact that a writ petition being WP No. 13561/2005 which
was a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Sarpanch of
the affected Gram Panchayat where acquisition was to
take place and various grounds were taken to challenge
the acquisition inter alia the ground that no acquisition
could take place in a Scheduled Tribal Area. A Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had passed a
detailed order dated 12.11.2008 deciding the said petition
being WP No. 13561/2005 and batch and ultimately held
in paragraph 24 that the State Government and SECL
would ensure that the persons who are eligible to the
4rehabilitation facility indicated in the MP R&R Policy of
1991 will receive the said facility of rehabilitation and
resettlement. The Central Government was also directed
to issue Notification under the 1957 Act for acquisition of
land and take possession of the land in question in the
manner detailed in para 22 of the said judgment. In para
22, the Division Bench had held that instead of quashing
the acquisition proceedings, it is immaterial under which
Act the acquisition has been made, but the land owner
should be given higher compensation applicable to avoid
discrimination. Therefore, the Division Bench directed that
compensation be determined under the 1957 Act and any
compensation already received by owners of the land will
be adjusted by the compensation to be determined under
the Act of 1957. The aforesaid order was put to challenge
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.
2915/2009 and initially the Supreme Court stayed the
operation of the judgment on 18.02.2009 subject to
compliance of rehabilitation as directed in the said
judgment. Subsequently, agreement for opening of mines
were arrived at between the villagers on 20.02.2009 and
523.02.2009. Subsequently, the interim order was also
modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Special
Leave Petition came to be finally disposed of by the
Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.08.2014 observing
as under:
“It has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners would follow the
policy set up by the State of Madhya Pradesh with regard
to giving employment to the persons whose lands have
been acquired. In addition thereto, it has been submitted
by him that even as per the policy laid down in the
Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation Policy of Coal India
Ltd., 2012, all the 899 persons will be given employment.
It has been further submitted by him that no land
owner has filed any appeal which is to be decided in
accordance with Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, and, therefore,
the Tribunal has not been constituted.
In view of the above facts stated by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, we see no reason
to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High
6Court. The impugned order stands modified to the extent
as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
21. Ultimately, at paragraph 38 of the judgment, the
learned Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
observed as under:
“38. However, at the same time, since the
appointments granted by way of mutual agreement
to various land losers in terms of CIL R & R Policy,
2008 have not been interfered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court nor such agreements by mutual
consent has been held illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Therefore, we hold that after extending
appointments to all the eligible persons under M.P. R
& R Policy, 1991 and CIL R & R Policy, 2012, the
persons appointed under CIL R & R Policy, 2008 by
way of mutual agreement shall be adjusted subject to
maximum limit of 899 employments, which have been
undertaken to be granted before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by the SECL. These persons appointed
underCIL R&R Policy 2008 have put in almost 16 years
7of service till date and subject to ceiling of maximum
899 employments, employments to these persons
appointed by mutual agreements between SECL and
land losers will stand validated because the
undertaking of SECL before the Supreme Court to
grant 899 employments in total, impliedly saves the
remaining appointees subject to maximum limit of
899 after all persons are considered and given
employment under the M.P. R&R Policy, 1991 and CIL
R&R Policy, 2012 (in descending order), because it will
not affect rights of any of the residents/land losers of
these villages who are entitled to be appointed in
terms of Govt. of M.P. R&R Policy 1991 as also CIL R &
R Policy, 2012.
39. Therefore, first the respondents SECL and DRRC of
the State Government shall examine the claims of
remaining eligible persons under State of MP R&R
Policy 1991 and CIL R&R Policy 2012 and all the
remaining eligible persons under these two policies
8be given employment. This exercise be completed
within one month of this order.”
22. A learned Single Bench of this High Court, in Pyarelal
(supra), while dealing with similar issue, had framed
various issues among which one was as to whether the
petitioners therein were entitled to be rehabilitated as per
the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Policy, 1991, which has
been answered in paragraph 66.3 that the petitioners
therein were entitled for consideration or rehabilitation as
per the policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their
land within 45 days from the date of production of a copy
of the order. It was also observed that the policy in force
on the date of acquisition will be the relevant date for
grant of rehabilitation, and subsequent change in policy
would not affect the claim of rehabilitation.
At paragraph 65 of the judgment, it has been observed as
under:
“65. Right of the land losers to get employment as per
the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right
and that has to be considered in accordance with law
9and in accordance with the policy in force on the date
of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in
policy will not take away their accrued right, if any,
that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands.
Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to
land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and denial of employment is
violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents
are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for
rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance
with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of
their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such
consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days
from the date of production of a copy of this order.”
23. A query was made to the learned counsel appearing
for the parties as to whether the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge in Pyarelal (supra) was challenged
before any higher forum, it has been stated that no appeal
has either been preferred before this Court or before the
10
Apex Court till date. As such, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge holds good.
24. The orders sought to be impugned in these appeals are
also based on the judgment rendered by the learned Single
Judge in Pyarelal (supra). The learned Single Judge, in
Pyarelal (supra) has held that the petitioners therein were
entitled for consideration of rehabilitation as per the policy
prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land within 45
days from the date of production of a copy of the order.
25. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-SECL
have utterly failed to persuade us to take any other view
than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.
26. We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge which are impugned herein and as
such, these appeals stand dismissed.
6. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed, in terms of the
judgment rendered in Appeal No. 424/2025 dated 29.07.2025
and other connected matters.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib/Amardeep