Divakar Goyal (Minor) v. National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (Nmdc)

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 263 of 2020 Divakar Goyal (Minor) S/o Late Shri Godavri Goyal, Aged About 14 Years R/o Village - Upanpal, P.O. Nagarnar, District Baster Chhattisgarh. Through His Legal Gaurdian Shri Goverdhan Pujari, S/o Shri Gurudas Pujari, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Manjhi Para, Madpal, Police Station Nagarnar, District Baster Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (Nmdc) Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, H.Q. Khanji Bhavan, Castle Hills Masab Tank, Hyderabad Pin 500028.

2. The Executive Director National Mineral Development Corporation, (Nmdc) Nagarnar Integrated Steel Plant, Nagarnar, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector And Land Acquisition Officer Jagdalpur District Baster Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

4. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. R. K. Kesharwani, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ishan Verma, PL For Respondent/s :

Mr. Vaibhav shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21/01/2020

1. The limited grievance that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to consider and incorporate the name of petitioner in the survey list enabling the petitioner to get employment under respondent No. 1 & 2 under the Rehabilitation Policy of 2007.

2. Counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 submits that as per instructions the petitioner would not be entitled under the Rehabilitation Policy of

2007 for the reason that petitioner's father came in possession of the property subsequent to 2006 and that the petitioner herself is a person who was adopted in the year 2018.

3. Be that as it may, since petitioners have made a representation for grant of benefits under the Rehabilitation policy and by including the name of the petitioner in the survey list. Considering the fact that admittedly the father of the petitioner namely Godavari Goyal had received compensation against the land which was acquired by the State Government on the behalf of respondent No.1 & 2, let the petitioner make an appropriate fresh representation to the respondent No.2 & 3 giving details of his eligibility for his name to be included in the survey list enabling him to seek rehabilitation by way of employment.

4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let petitioner make a suitable representation along with all supporting documents to the respondent No.2 & 3 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and respondent No.2 & 3 in turn shall take a decision on the said representation in accordance with the policy governing the field at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, so far as entitlement of the petitioner is concerned.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit