Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4997/2026 of RAJKUMAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 29 September 2026
2026:CGHC:42496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4997 of 2026 Rajkumar S/o Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Batra, P.O. - Batra, P.S. Karanji, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The
CGHC010378452026
2026:CGHC:42496
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4997 of 2026
Rajkumar S/o Chandrika Prasad, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Batra, P.O. - Batra, P.S. Karanji, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector - Surajpur (C.G.)
2 - South-Eastern Coalfield Limited (S.E.C.L.), Through Its Chairman, South-Eastern Coalfield Limited (S.E.C.L.) Seepat Road, Dist. Bilaspur
(C.G.)
3 - South-Eastern Coalfield Limited (S.E.C.L.), Bishrampur Through - The General Manager, Bishrampur Area, South-Eastern Colafield Limited (S.E.C.L.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant
: Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate
For Respective Respondents : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.09
.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the application for exemption from filing typed copies of the documents.
2. In view of the aforesaid submission, the application seeking exemption from filing typed copies of the documents is dismissed as not pressed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limited grievance of the petitioner is that his representation is pending before the authorities concerned in respect of rehabilitation on account of the acquisition of his land. He submits that the petitioner has not been provided employment after the acquisition of the land and, as such, he has filed an appropriate representation before the authorities concerned. He further submits that representations have been filed since 1993; however, the same has not been decided till date.
4. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is directed to consider the same and decide the representation in accordance with law within a stipulated period, preferably within 60 days, as the representation has been pending for the last three decades, and pass an appropriate reasoned order.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, and the authorities are at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. However, the same shall be passed within 60 days.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE Saurabh