The Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur Bench) has clarified that the rehabilitation policy issued by the State Government has statutory force and prevails over any conflicting internal policy or guideline of a corporate entity like South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) or its parent company, Coal India Limited. Further, the eligibility for rehabilitation and employment benefits for land losers is to be determined based on the policy that was in effect on the date their land was acquired.
The Court held that a right that has accrued to a land loser under the prevailing policy cannot be nullified by a subsequent change in guidelines. Furthermore, the right of land oustees to rehabilitation and employment is a significant right connected to the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and its arbitrary denial is impermissible.
Emphasising that separate land acquisition proceedings, initiated at different times under different laws, create distinct causes of action and confer separate legal rights, the Court quashed the Orders issued by SECL, and directed that the petitioners are entitled to have their cases for rehabilitation considered in accordance with the State Rehabilitation Policy that was prevalent on the date of their land’s acquisition.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed that SECL’s impugned order was primarily based on the failure to meet a two-acre minimum landholding requirement for employment eligibility. Upon examining the Chhattisgarh Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, and its 2008 amendment, the Bench found that there was no provision stipulating a minimum two-acre landholding for employment eligibility for displaced families.
The Bench distinguished between the two land acquisitions: the first in 2004 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the second in 2009 under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It noted that these were separate proceedings concerning different land parcels and gave rise to distinct legal rights, meaning that employment provided under the first acquisition did not extinguish claims arising from the second.
Regarding the allegation of mala fide partition of land, the Bench noted that the partition of ancestral property is a natural process and cannot be presumed to be for ulterior motives, also pointing out that SECL’s impugned order did not even contain this allegation.
Briefly, the petitioners were co-sharers in ancestral land situated in Village Lat, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. In 2009, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) initiated proceedings to acquire surface rights over approximately 138.088 hectares of land in the village, which included the petitioners’ land, with an understanding that employment would be provided to the affected landowners. Later, an award was passed and the land was acquired.
The petitioners subsequently applied for employment as per the agreement but received no response, compelling them to approach the High Court on previous occasions, which resulted in directions to SECL to consider their claims. However, SECL issued a common order rejecting the petitioners’ claims for employment. The primary ground for rejection was that the petitioners did not own a minimum of two acres of land, a condition SECL claimed was required under its guidelines and a consent proposal.
SECL also contended that the family’s employment quota was exhausted as a cousin of the petitioners had already been given a job for land acquired in an earlier phase (Phase I) and alleged that the family had divided the remaining land with mala fide intent to secure more jobs.
Appearances:
Advocates A.N. Bhakta and Vivek Bhakta, for the Petitioner
Deputy G.A., Sunita Manikpuri, Senior Advocate Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, CGC Tushar Dhar Diwan, along with Advocates Vivekanand Samaddar, Vaibhav Shukla, Himanshu Yadu, and Sudhir Bajpai, for the Respondent
