Salikram vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to respondents No. 3 to 5 for taking appropriate steps in ensuring

compliance of an earlier memo issued by the Divisional Commissioner Bilaspur Division dated 03.02.2016 in-respect-of the implementation of the

rehabilitation and resettlement package to the land oustees and land losers of Village Bichhinara, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh whose lands are

said to have been acquired by the State authority for the public purpose of the establishment of a power plant by the respondent No. 5, the acquisition

having been done under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.

Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a categorical statement that the grievance of the petitioners herein is not in respect of the quantum of

compensation and that they are not raising a claim for enhancement of compensation. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the relief sought for

by the petitioners in the present writ petition, is only for the other benefits which the petitioners would be entitled for under the Rehabilitation and

Resettlement package which was in force at the time of acquisition of the properties of the petitioners and of their families. The Divisional

Commissioner Division Bilaspur has also in this regard issued a memo to the District Collector District Raigarh on 03.02.2016 (Annexure P/2). The

Divisional Commissioner had issued certain instructions to be complied with and adhered to by the District Administration as also by the Project

N.T.P.C. in this regard.

Shri. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 submits that there can be cases where the petitioners may not be entitled for

the benefit under the 2013 Act for the reason that the acquisitions and the payment of compensation must have been settled much before coming into

force of the Act of 2013.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case what has to be considered is that once when it is established that the properties of the

petitioners or in their families have been acquired be it under the aforesaid Coal Bearing Act 1957 or under the land acquisition unamended Act 1894.

The land oustees and also the land losers would be entitled for certain benefits of compensation in accordance with the provisions of law as it stood

then. The petitioners were also entitled for the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in terms of the rehabilitation and resettlement policy governing

the field then.

It goes without saying that if the lands of the petitioners have been acquired and they are entitled for the benefits under Rehabilitation Policy, there

is no reason why the petitioners should be deprived or denied of their rightful claim for consideration of rehabilitation.

Under the said circumstances, the Writ Petition in its present form at this juncture can be disposed of directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to

individually scrutinize the claim of each of the petitioners so far as their entitlement under the rehabilitation policy governing the field on the date of

acquisition and an appropriate decision so far as entitlement of the petitioners is concerned, be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of four

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

It is made clear that the claim of the petitioners would be confined only for grant of benefits under the Rehabilitation Policy. The claim has not to be

considered for enhancement of compensation.

The present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.