Phool Singh v. Union Of India
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4516 of 2019 Phool Singh S/o Bhogi Lal Kanwar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Porda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through - Under Secretary To Government Of India, Ministry Of Coal, Office At New Delhi
2. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Managing Director, Office At Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Raigarh Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Baroud Sub Area, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
6. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent no.1 :
Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, ASG For Respondents 2 to 4 :
Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents 5 & 6 :
Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 10.12.2019 Heard.
1. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted lease on a forest land and since land came for the mining purpose by the SECL, he has been displaced and the mining have been affected.
2. It is stated that by a letter dated 29/08/2019 SDO (Revenue) Gharghoda has directed SECL to make payment of compensation in respect of the land of the different petitioners and make rehabilitation according to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. The prayer of the petitioner is that direction given by the SDO (Revenue) Gharghoda may be complied with and SECL may be directed to take decision on such letter dated 29/08/2019. At this stage considering the communication made by the SDO (Revenue) Gharghoda to the SECL, without any observation on the merit, SECL is directed to take cognizance of the letter dated 29/08/2019 and take a decision in this issue so that the benefit can be extended to the affected persons. The said decision may be taken within outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. If grievance of the petitioner subsists, the petitioner shall have the liberty to approach this Court again.
4. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai