HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR -.NCH : HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, CJ. Writ Petition No. 998 OF 2002 PETSTSONERS 1. Sahdev,S/o. Khabhu, aged about 30 years. 2. Rama S/o. Shivmurat, aged about 22 years. 3. Prem Lal, S/o. Balli, aged about 60 years. 4. Hira Sai, S/o. Raghuvir, aged about 26 years. 5. Son Kunwer, S/o. Rangiai, aged about 65 years 6. Sadhu Charan S/o. Katan Sai, aged about 40 years. 7. Ravtiraman S/o. Sudhanram, aged about 19 years. 8. Vinod, S/o. Dharmdeo, aged about 30 years. 9. Narayan, S/o. Somar Sai, aged about 35 years. 10. Ramesh Kumar S/o. Rajdeo, aged about 21 years. 11. Mohar Sai S/o. Raghunath, aged about 37 years 12. Ram Prasad S/o. Premlal, aged about 40 years. 13. Ram Singh S/o. Ghagar Sai, aged about 30 years. 14. Bhola S/o Ram Jatan, aged about 70 years. 15. Hiraial S/o. Baijnath aged about 28 years. 16. Budhni Baiva S/o. Jaikaran, aged about 65 years. 17. Akhitesh S/o. Somnath, aged about 26 years. 18. Ramakant S/o. Baratu, aged about 40 years. 19. Bhuvneshwar S/oPannalal, aged about 23 years. 20. Kamaikant S/o. Kailash, aged about 27 years. 21. Gambhir Sai S/o. Mohar Sai, aged about 45 years. 22. Dhanukdhari S/o. Jaita, aged about 80 -Q- years. 23. Raj Kumar S/o. Hari Prasad, aged about 30 years. 24. Narayan S/o. Baldeo, aged about 20 years. 25. Rakesh Kumar S/o. Sahebla!, aged about 36 years. 26. Arvind S/o Brijnath, aged about 22 years. 27. Ramsingh S/o. Jhagar Sai, aged about 23 years. 28. / Shyama Devl w/o. Lalsirsgh, aged about 60 years. 29. Ravindra Kumar S/o. Shivfate, aged about 24 years. 30. Ramesh Kumar S/o. Umashankar, aged about23years. 31. Lai Singh S/o. Ramcharan, aged about 58 years. 32. Munni Lal S/'o. Maghi Ram, aged about 27 years. 33. Raj Kumar S/o. Musafir, aged about 46 years. 34. Shivadhar S/o. Bhaiyalai, aged about 28 years. 35. Rama Shankar S/o. Dadhiwal, aged about23years. 36. Sandeep Kaui S/o. R.K. KauS, aged about30years. 37. Indra Ram S/o. Rambriksha, aged about 22 years. 38. Kusum Singh S/o. Maya Ram, aged about 28 years. 39. Awadhesh S/o. Pratap Singh, aged about 29 years. 40. Ashok Kumar S/o. Shyam Bihari, aged about24years. 41. Arvind S/o Rajdeo, aged about 20 years. 42. Gandi Bai, Wd/0. Sukhnath, aged about 60 years. 43. Baldeo S/o. Hiravan, aged about 85 years. 44. Peeran Bibi, Aged abput 72 years, Widow of Late Nadhir Khan, Resident of Khursia, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (Chhattisgarh) 45 Vinod Kumar S/o Shyam Lal, aged about 22 years. 46 Ganesh Prasad S/o. Amarnath, aged about25years. 47. Birbal S/b Subradh, aged about 55 years. %- 48. Baldau S/o Tejram, aged about 40 years. 49. Chandra Lekha S/o Antu Das,aged about 56 years. 50. Shiv Singh S/b Chandan Singh, aged about 30 years. 51. ishwer Chandra Pandey S/o Briksha Kishore Pandey, aged about 22 years. 52. Laiifa Kumari D/o Ram Prasad, aged about18years. 53. Bhanmati Wd/o Pran Sai, aged about 57 / years. 54. Dayaram S/o Nanku Ram, aged about 50 years. 55. Prem Singh S/o Daduram, aged about 37 years. 56. Bhaiya Ram S/o Ratan Sai, aged about 35 years. 57. Amar Sai S/o Raghunath, aged about 38 years. 58. Vinod S/o Ramawtar, aged about 24 years. Ali Residents of Vi!iage- iurasla, Chirmiri, Baikunthpur DistS. Korea (C.G.) 1. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Through C.M.D. Seepat Road, Bilaspur. 2. Chief Genera! Manager, Chirmiri Area, S.E.C.L. Baikunthpur, District - Korea. 3. Collector, Korea 4. Sub Divisionat Officer, Baikunthpur, District-Korea. Vs. Present: Shri Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawai, learned counsei for respondents 1 and 2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned G.A. for respondents 3 and 4. ORAL ORDER (Passedon26tnJuly2006) As many as 58 residents of Khurasia village Chirimiri Block Baikunthpur, District Korea have flled this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution compiaining that due to underground mining camed out by the respondent-SECL, the lands owned by the petitioners have become -k- useless and they are not fit for cultivation. They complain that though this fact was brought to the notice of the authorities of S.E.C.L. as wel! as the Collector of Korea and Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur, no relief was granted to them. In the circumstance, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the authorities of S.E.C.L. to pay compensation to the damage caused to their !ands and also a direction to S.E.C.L. to provide employment to a member of each of the families of the petitioners. Opposing the writ petition, the S.E.C.L. has filed return. In the return, all materia! aiiegations made in the writ petition are densed. The respondents 3 and 4 have not fited any return. (2) Heard learned counset for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegation that the underground mining carried out by the S.E.C.L. authorities had damaged the lands of the petitioners, is amply established by the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-P/5 at page 137 of the matersal papers. It is true that if one goes by what is stated in the report of the Land Acquisition Cfficer, damage is caused to the tands of the petitioners, but, the untested report of the Land Acquisition Officer couid not be taken to be true to grant substantive relief to the petitioner, particuiariy, in the context of the total deniai of the aliegaUons by the SECL authorities in their return. The ailegations made by the petitioners have to be proved satisfactorily by adducing substantive legal evidence before the jurisdictional civil Court and also the actual damage caused to the petitionsrs on the alieged account of underground mining carried on by the SECL authorities. The dispute brought before this Court cannot satisfactorily be resoived in a summary proceeding under Artlcie 226. In -5- order to resolve the dispute, it becomes imperative for the Court to permit the parties to lead evidence and tender them to cross-examine by each other. in that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of She matter, 1 dismiss this writ petition. No costs. However, this order sha!i not come in the way of the petitioners, if they so advised, to workout Sheir legal remedies by instituting a suit in a jurisdictional civil Court and that right is reserved to the petitioners. Sd/- Chief Justice