KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners, who are the villagers of two villages, namely, Saarasmal and Kosampali, Tehsil Tamnar of District Raigarh (CG), have questioned the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 18/3/2011 (Annexure P-14) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda in Revenue Case No.18/A-67/2007-08, whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 247 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959'), the amount of compensation pertaining to the land in question has been determined while granting surface right to respondent No.8-Jindal Power and Steel (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and, questioned further the order dtd. 23/11/2011 (Annexure P-16) passed by Respondent No.5- Mining Officer, whereby, a permission has been accorded to the Company to enter on the land for commencing with the coal mining operations.

(2.) The main contention of the petitioners is that the concerned respondent authorities have passed the alleged orders without considering their objections with regard to the rehabilitation policy of the State Government as the permanent employment in view of the said policy has not been provided and, therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.

(3.) In reply, it is stated by respondents 1 to7/State that the petition as framed and filed suffers from its delay and latches and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is contended further that a mining lease was granted to the Company on 12/5/2005 (Annexure R-1-7/4) with regard to the land in question as provided therein after approval of the Central Government on 12/10/2004 (Annexure R-1-7/1) as per the provisions prescribed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1957') and the amount of compensation has thereupon been determined while passing the order impugned dtd. 18/3/2011 (Annexure P-14) under Sec. 247 (4) of the Code, 1959. It is contended further that since the efficacious remedy in approaching the Civil Court is provided under the said provision, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. While reiterating the contention made by the State, it is contended by the respondent No.8-Company that the petitioners have approached this Court while suppressing the material facts as one of the family members have already been given an employment under the rehabilitation policy, therefore, the petitioners who approached this Court with a malafide intention would not be entitled to get any relief under the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.