Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramjiyawan Verma vs Northern Coalfields Ltd. on 1 April, 2026
1 WP-16089-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16081 of 2014
PARMESHWAR VERMA
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskan
Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 16082 of 2014
LALJI
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 16083 of 2014
MANSARAM
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
2 WP-16089-2014
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 16087 of 2014
SHYAM KARTIK VERMA AND OTHERS
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 16088 of 2014
RAM LALLU VERMA
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 16089 of 2014
RAMJIYAWAN VERMA
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
3 WP-16089-2014
WRIT PETITION No. 16091 of 2014
RAKESH KUMAR VERMA
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
WRIT PETITION No. 17518 of 2014
HARI RAM VERMA
Versus
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Ms.
Muskan Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
ORDER
Looking to the similitude of the facts of the cases, they are being heard
and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are
taken from W.P.No.16081/2014.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following reliefs :
(i) To call for the relevant record of the respondents regarding the
appointments given by them to villagers of Banauli against of acquisition of
lands,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
4 WP-16089-2014
(ii) To direct the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner;
(iii) To direct the respondents not to disturb the possession of the
possession over the said land till regular employment is given to the petitioner.
(iv) To pass such other order/orders as it may deem fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
It is the case of the petitioner that the land belonging to the petitioner
and many other villagers was officially acquired by the respondent/Northern
Coalfields Limited. The petitioner was the owner in possession of a part of
Khasra No.342, area 0.05 acre of Village Banauli, Tehsil & District Sidhi
which was acquired by the NCL. The petitioner was paid Rs.1,002/- in 1987.
In addition to this, compensation of Rs.45,000/- was also paid to the
petitioner in the year 1990 against the ‘acquisition’ of his house, however,
the possession of the said land was not taken by the respondent/NCL. The
petitioner requested for employment against the acquisition but the
respondents stated that since the possession of the land is still with the
petitioner, therefore, employment would not be given, however, assured
that employment would be provided when the possession would be
taken. The petitioner continued to reside on the said land. The remaining
portion of the land was used by the petitioner for cultivation. In January,
2001, petitioner came to know that respondents will dispossess the petitioner,
therefore, the petitioner alongwith many other persons filed representation
dated 05.01.2001 (Annexure P/3), praying that till the petitioners are given
job, they should be permitted to remain in possession. In April 2001, the
respondents made preparation of dispossessing the petitioner. The petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
5 WP-16089-2014
again made representation dated 16.04.2001 to the Additional Collector,
Waidhan (Singrauli) District Sidhi (Annexure P/4). Thereafter, the
respondents orally informed that on the date of acquisition, the petitioner was
not the owner of the land, hence employment cannot be given. Thereafter,
many of the farmers, like the petitioners filed writ petitions. As a result, the
respondents refrained from dispossessing the petitioners therein. The
petitioner was late to come to Jabalpur, hence the petition was not filed in
time.
It is submitted that the to prove ownership over the land, the petitioner
has filed Khasra Annexure P/7. It is submitted that there was a dispute
regarding ownership and possession over respective portions at the time of
acquisition, however, when all the disputes were solved, numerous similarly
situated persons were given compensation and employment by the
respondents, whose name are mentioned in para 5.12 of the petition. It is
submitted that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1982 and
denied employment on the ground that when the possession will be taken
over, employment would be provided. It is submitted that the action of the
respondents is discriminatory and the petitioner should have been treated at
par with the other similarly situated persons.
It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the petition is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the petitioner himself
has admitted that he has received the compensation amount in the year 1987
and the present petition has been filed in the year 2014 i.e. almost after 27 of
years getting the compensation. It is submitted that at the time of acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
6 WP-16089-2014
of land/publication of notification under CBA Act, land Kh.no. 341, 344 total
area0.25 acre was in the name of Bhragu Prasad Jaiswal, Mandata Prasad
Jaiswal and Chaiman Lal sons of Prem Lal Jaiswal. It is submitted that
petitioner was not the owner of the land as no document has been filed by
the petitioner to substantiated his ownership. It is submitted that the
compensation of amount of Rs. 1002/- and also Rs. 45,000/- was paid to
petitioner because petitioner’s name was recorded in the revenue record and
at the time of payment the above stated persons did not object for payment of
compensation to petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of acquisition of
the land in the year 1982 there was no policy or guidelines issued by the
Coal India Ltd. The policy came into existence on 31.12.1984, making it
effective from 01.01.1985, according to which the land oustees were made
entitled and considered for employment who owned 03 acres of unirrigated
land or 02 acres of irrigated land. Therefore, also the petitioner is not entitled
for any consideration.
It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that few
persons have been provided the employment is incorrect and false as the
NCL management has provided the employment to those who were owners
at the time of acquisition of the land and they have been really deprived of
their livelihood. It is submitted that seeking employment in lieu of land under
some scheme is not a fundamental or legal right.
To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has
relied on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Union of India vs.
Shivkumar Bhargava AIR 1995 SC 812 and Butu Prasad Kumbhar vs. Steel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
7 WP-16089-2014
Authority of India Ltd. 1995 JLJ 463 and order passed by Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Chhabbilal vs. Western Coal Field Ltd.
(W.A.No.829/2010 decided on 26.10.2010).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the following
petitioner or the father of the petitioners have earlier filed Writ petitions
before this Court, details of which are as under :
Sr.No. Petitioners Name Case No.
Parmeshwar S/o Shriram Pyare Shriram Pyare filed
51 W.P.No.2520/2001 DD on
24.12.2001
Vishwanath filed
Lalji S/o Vishwanath W.P.No.2893/2001 DD
51.1 25.07.2001
Lalji filed W.P.no.2547/2001
Mansaram S/o Shriram Pyare Shriram Pyare filed
51.2 W.P.No.2520/2001 DD on
24.12.2001
Shyam Kartik S/o Rajrup
Rajrup filed W.P.No.2895/2001
Ramji S/o Rajrup
51.3 D.D.on 26.07.2001
Ghanshyam Das S/o Rajrup
Raj Bali S/o Rajrup
5.4 Ram Lallu S/o Ramadhar
Ramjiyawan S/o Shriram Pyare Shriram Pyare filed
51.5 W.P.No.2520/2001 DD on
24.12.2001
Rakesh S/o Jagjivan Ram W.P.No.2567/2001 disposed of on
51.6
18.03.2002
51.7 Hariram S/o Heera Lal
It is submitted that some of the petitioners and their predecessors did
not agitate the matter, however, those who filed the petitions, their petitions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
8 WP-16089-2014
were dismissed in default. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this
Court in the year 2014, after 27 years of getting compensation. It is prayed
that, in view of such an inordinate delay, the petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shivkumar
Bhargava AIR 1995 SC 812 has held :
“4. The policy of the Government indicates that the person whose land was
acquired means the owner as on the date, notification was notified for acquisition,
and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site. A person who
purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be entitled to claim
compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the right, title and
interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment
since the right of ownership would be determined with reference to the date on
which Notification under Section 4(1) was published. This was the view of this
Court in another case while considering the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi
High Court. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The respondent
cannot be considered to be the owner as on the date of Notification under Section
4(1) published in the Gazette. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is
accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.”
Further, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar
vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 1995 JLJ 463 has held :
“6. … Their land was taken under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid
compensation for it. Therefore, the challenge raised on violation of Article 21 is
devoid of any merit. Even otherwise the obligation of the State to ensure that no
citizen is deprived of his livelihood does not extend to provide employment to
every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. … ”
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chhabbilal vs Western
Coal Field Ltd. (W.A.No.829/2010 decided on 26.10.2010) has held :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
9 WP-16089-2014
“In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is graphically
clear that a land oustee like the appellant has neither any legal or fundamental
right to claim appointment. In the absence of any legal right to claim
appointment, in lieu of acquisition of land, no mandamus can be issued to
respondents directing them to provide employment to the appellant.”
Moreso, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Bhaisare
vs. Union of India & others (W.P.No.14211 of 2024 decided on 6th January,
2026) has held :
“12. This Court, on perusal of the record and the scheme, is of the considered
opinion that the scheme has been formulated only for the purpose of giving
benefit to those persons, who are affected by the acquisition. From the bare
perusal of the documents of plot of the alleged parents of the petitioners, it is
found that the plot size is only of 1500 sq. ft., which cannot be said to be source
of livelihood for the affected family. In the discretion of the Railways, the
applications of the petitioners have been rejected finding that even after execution
of the adoption deed the names of biological fathers of the petitioners have
continued to be recorded in the record. This Court does not find any infirmity in
the findings of the Tribunal. Thus, the petitions sans merit and are hereby
dismissed.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. vs.
Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 has opined as under :-
“54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be
considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the
Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as
the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant
cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases
where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. District
Magistrate, Basti (2012) 3 SCC 311 has opined as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
10 WP-16089-2014
“10. …. It is time and again, stated that a party who has slept over his right since is
not entitled to the discretionary relief of the High Court.”
From the perusal of the record, it is found that the petitioners had a
very small piece of land and it cannot be said that such small piece of land
was the only source of livelihood of the petitioners. The very purpose of the
scheme is only for the purpose of giving benefit to those persons who are
affected by the acquisition. The petitioners have already been suitably
compensated for acquisition of their lands. The scheme is discretionary in
nature to be implemented by considering the parameters and the financial
impact of acquisition over the families. Therefore, the petitioners cannot
claim as an absolute right to have employment as per the scheme.
In view of aforesaid enunciation of law as well as the considering the
totality of the facts of the case, this Court finds that once the land acquisition
proceedings stood concluded and the notification was issued, the land vested
absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. In such
circumstances, there remains no question of possession continuing with the
petitioners. The forefather of petitioners, having accepted compensation long
back and after an inordinate lapse of time, L.Rs. (Petitioners) cannot be
permitted to agitate their claim, that too, by creating false cause of
action. The claim for employment is founded on acquisition of such smaller
piece of land which is wholly misconceived and untenable. Moreso, it is well
settled that a litigant who has slept over his rights for decades cannot seek
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
11 WP-16089-2014
the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less the relief of
employment. The writ petition, being devoid of merit and barred by delay
and laches, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
anand
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
18:18:36
