Safiya Malik

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma set aside a coal company’s order that rejected land-acquisition oustees’ claim for rehabilitation-linked employment by applying a minimum landholding threshold drawn from later Coal India guidelines. The dispute centred on landholders whose surface rights were taken for a mining project and who sought appointment under the State’s rehabilitation framework but were denied on the ground that the acquired land was under two acres. Allowing the petitions in part, the Court directed the authorities to consider their rehabilitation entitlement under the State policy applicable on the acquisition date within 45 days, holding that access to rehabilitation and employment for land losers flows from the right to life and that denial offends equality and non-discrimination guarantees.

The petitioners contended that despite the acquisition of their lands and repeated representations, SECL denied employment solely on the ground that the individual landholdings acquired were less than two acres, relying upon its internal guidelines. It was asserted that such guidelines could not override the State Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, which governed the acquisition. SECL, on the other hand, maintained that employment eligibility required possession of a minimum of two acres and that one member of the family had already been provided employment earlier. The State appeared as a formal party. The dispute thus centered on whether SECL could deny rehabilitation employment by applying its own criteria in derogation of the prevailing State policy.

Also Read: Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Seeking Reasons For Impleading A Respondent: Supreme Court

The Court examined the nature of the acquisition and the applicable policy framework. It observed that “on 05.11.2009 an award was passed by the SECL for acquisition of land” and that the petitioners were claiming employment on the basis of surface rights granted under the relevant proceedings, which were distinct from earlier acquisitions.

The Court recorded that “the land acquired by the SECL as per notification dated 10.09.2009… therefore the claim cannot be denied only on the basis that Vinod Kumar, a family member of the petitioners, has already been provided employment, which is completely a different cause of action.”

On the issue of minimum landholding, the Court recorded that “from perusal of the Chhattisgarh Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 and the amended policy of 2008, there is no provision which mandates that employment shall be provided only if the displaced person possesses two acres of land.”

Addressing the allegation that the land was artificially partitioned, the Court observed that “partition of ancestral property is a natural process and cannot be presumed to be malafide unless such finding is specifically recorded in the impugned order.”

The Court further stated that “The land in question was acquired on the specific assurance of providing employment to the land losers. However, subsequently, Coal India Limited (CIL) introduced a new scheme and, on that basis, denied employment to the affected persons. Such action is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation and therefore cannot be sustained in law. The acquisition was governed by the C.G. Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, which was applicable at the relevant time and mandates employment to each major member of the displaced family. No valid agreement or consent overrides the statutory policy, and any reliance on CIL policy in preference to the State policy is legally untenable.”

The Court recorded that “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 and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in guideline of CIL (Coal India Limited) 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.”

Also Read: Accused Tortured, Illegally Handcuffed, Publicly Paraded And Forced To Chant Derogatory Slogans Over Trivial Dispute: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Probe Against SHO

The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 is hereby set aside. The petitioners are entitled for consideration of rehabilitation as per the State Rehabilitation Policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land. Such consideration shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are allowed in part only qua the rehabilitation.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate; Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate, along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Government Advocate; Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Mr. Himanshu Yadu, and Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocates

Case Title: Ishwarilal Sahu & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:4444
Case Number: WPC Nos. 6013 of 2024, 6020 of 2024, 6012 of 2024
Bench: Justice Arvind Kumar Verma