Sanjay Singh v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( S.E.C.L.)

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 618 of 2018 • Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Nanhu Ram, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Silphilee, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S.E.C.L.) Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Personnel Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited Bishramupr, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Survey Officer, Office of The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents __________________________________________________________________ For Appellant :

Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents :

Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 24.08.2018 1.

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application of the present Appellant vide his order dated 17.07.2018, therefore, the appeal. 2.

There were two prayers made before the writ Court. One was for payment of compensation for the land which was said to have been acquired from the Appellant and secondly to grant him employment in lieu of such acquisition as part of rehabilitation scheme.

3.

Even if the assertion made by the Appellant before the writ Court is accepted that the acquisition was made sometime in the year 1998 under the erstwhile

Land Acquisition Act, why it should take an affected person to move the Court of law after two decades is not understood. There is no proper explanation coming from the Appellant on this aspect of the matter. His plea is that he had been filing repeated representations. The law is quite well settled on this issue that mere filing of the repeated representations does not take away the effect of laches and delay, of inordinate kind. 4.

So far as compensation for payment of acquisition of his land is concerned, the Land Acquisition Act is a composite Code by itself and there are remedy and safeguard provided therein. Writ Court has no role to play. The writ anyway should have been dismissed because composite reliefs and prayer were made in writ application. 5.

The writ appeal has no merit. It is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Chandra