HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE CHHATTIS6ARH: BILASPUR CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R.NAYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI V.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J. Writ Petiflon No. 2019 of 2001 Petitioner Respondents Mangli Bai, W/o Late Ramnath, aged about 35 years resident of Village Banshipur.Post office Bha^aon, Patwari Halka No.17, Pratappur, Disfrict Sarguja (CG). Versus 1. South Eastem Coalfields Limited through its Chairman - cum - Managing Director, SeepatRoad, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Chief General Manager South Eastem Coaffields Limited, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon, District Sarguja (CG). 3. Deputy Chief Personnel h4anager, South Eastern Coalfields Umitsd, Bhatgaon Area, Bhatgaon, Distrtet Sarguja (CG). Present:- Ms Sushma Chandel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Pravin E)as, counsel for the respondents. ORALORDER (Dated 27"' November, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R-Nayak, CJ. : The petitioner is the owner of 0.20 hectare of land comprised in khasra No.1122/2 of village Banshipur. 0.08 hectare of land, out of the said land, was acquired under ttie provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") for the beneTrt of South Eastem CoalfieMs Limited (for short "SECL"), the firet respondent herein. It is stated that the compensation determined t^ the Land AcquisWon Officer has been already pald to the petiUoner in pursuance to the award passed in theiyear 1998. f' Gowri What is claimed in thfe wrtt petition is that in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Scheme, 1991 framed by the State Government the petitioner ought to have been ghren employment m the colliery run by the SECL, she beinga land oustee. The writ pet'ition is opposed by the Management of the SECL by filing return. The relief is opposed on the ground Iftat under the M.P. Rehabilitation Scheme, 1991 onlythoseousteeswhose2^3[*oflandofthe total holding, If acquired, are entitled to appoinbnent underthe Scheme and not otherwise. The assertion made by the Management of the SECL that at the relevant point oftime the petitioner hetd 0.20 hectareof tandandof whteh only 0.08 hectare of land has been acquired. It is needless to state that 0.08 hectare is less than 2/3rt of the land held by the petitioner and, therefore, in terms offte M.P. Rehabilitation Scheme, 1991 the petitioner cannotseek appointment as a matteroflaw or matterofeourse. tn the result, we dismiss the writ peBtion. NOAOSts. / -^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge