Right Of Land Losers To Rehabilitation & Employment Flows From Article 21; Arbitrary Denial Violates Articles 14, 15, 21: Chhattisgarh High Court

In this regard, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma explained,

“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.”

Background

The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions where the agricultural land of the petitioners, who were family members, was acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in 2009, with an understanding that employment would be provided to the displaced families and landowners as part of rehabilitation measures. However, when the petitioners applied to SECL for employment under the State Rehabilitation Policy, SECL did not act, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court, which, by an order dated 20.12.2019, sternly directed SECL to consider the claim of the petitioners in line with the applicable policy.

However, in 2020, SECL yet again rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they possessed less than 2 acres of land, thereby falling short of SECL's internal policy. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the said order.

They argued that the claim of SECL that petitioners should have possessed at least 2 acres of land as per their guidelines was against the available facts and evidence, and was contrary to the government's rehabilitation policy. Claiming their right to employment, petitioners argued that SECL guidelines cannot override government policy.

In contrast, SECL claimed that the petitioner was a minor in 2009 and his name did not appear in land records. The land belonged to his ancestors and employment was already given to the petitioners' cousin brother, and thus there lay no separate independent right of employment. It submitted that the petitioners' ancestors had accepted the settlement with SECL in 2009 whereby it was stipulated that one employment per 2 acres shall be provided. SECL also alleged that the remaining land was artificially divided into six parts with the underhanded motive of securing multiple employment.

At the outset, the Court noted that the claim of employment cannot be denied only on the basis that the petitioner's cousin had already been provided employment, which is a completely different case of action. Therefore the Single Judge held that “the petitioner is entitled for employment as per State Government's Policy despite acquisition of land less than 2 acres.”

Thereafter, the Court perused the Chhattisgarh Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, and noted that no provision existed in the policy mandating a person whose land is acquired for any commercial project to be eligible for employment only when he possesses 2 acres of land.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the State government's rehabilitation policy shall prevail over the policy framed by the SECL. It thus held,

“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.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned SECL order and concluded that the petitioners were entitled for consideration of rehabilitation as per the State Rehabilitation Policy prevalent on the date of acquisition of their land.

Case Details:

Case Number: WPC No. 6013 of 2024 and batch

Case Title: Ishwarilal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and batch

Click Here To Read/Download Order