ORDER : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the letter-cum-order dated 6.1.2014 (Annexure P/7) passed by Dy. General Manager(Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area, whereby the petitioner has been disqualified for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra No.22/7, P.H.No.35, area 0.040 acres situated at Village-Churakhachar which is registered in the name of his grand-mother. The said land was acquired by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited and as per CG Rehabilitation Scheme 1991 and its amendment dated 21.12.1995, the petitioner submitted his nomination form along with requisite documents before the respondent-SECL. The petitioner’s grand-mother also moved an application for correction of her land record before the Sub Divisional Officer on 3.1.2005. After due enquiry, respondent No.3/SDO (R), Katghora recommended the name of the petitioner for granting him employment in lieu of acquisition of his land. However, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2014 the Dy. General Manager (Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that as per rules, the petitioner does not fall in the category of direct liner dependent of the deceased employee. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company to consider the case of the petitioner as per the rehabilitation policy of the State. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent company to provide employment to the petitioner in lieu of the acquired land of the petitioner. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-7). 10.5 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 (Annexure P-7). 10.5 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The respondent/SECL acquired the land of the petitioner without granting him employment in contravention of the provisions of the Rehabilitation Scheme as the Rehabilitation Policy of 1991 and its amendment in the year 1995 specifically provide for employment of the land losers having title over the acquired land for more than 20 years. The petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents along with his nomination form before the respondent/SECL. The Collector in its enquiry report has specifically confirmed the title and ownership of the petitioner over the land acquired by the SECL and held him eligible for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of his land but the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 6.1.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matters of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Mishra, (2017) 2 CGLJ 193 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the land bearing Khasra No.22/7, total area 0.10 acre, belongs to one Manohar, son of Shivprasad as per official records vide Annexure R 4-6/1. After the death of original land owner Manohar, the SDO (R), Katghora passed order No.257 dated 6.2.2006 declaring Ramotin Bai as legal heir of the original land owner vide Annexure R 4-6/2. Ramotin Bain nominated her legal son Ashok Kumar (petitioner), son of Mitthulal for employment and submitted his nomination and other documents vide Annexure R 4-6/3. The said nomination letter was sent to the Collector, Korba for verification and enquiry. After verification, the Collector send Memo dated 7.12.2006 (Annexure R 4-6/4). For deciding the case of employment, a committee was constituted as per rules and after enquiry of Area Screening Committee, Kusmunda Area, the present nominated petitioner was found ineligible due to his relation as nephew of Manoharlal, the main Khatedar vide Annexure R 4-6/5. Hence this petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. For deciding the case of employment, a committee was constituted as per rules and after enquiry of Area Screening Committee, Kusmunda Area, the present nominated petitioner was found ineligible due to his relation as nephew of Manoharlal, the main Khatedar vide Annexure R 4-6/5. Hence this petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that Ramotin Bai, who was declared legal heir of original land owner Manohar, nominated the petitioner for employment in lieu of acquisition of land by SECL and his case was considered by the Committee and finally his claim was rejected by the Dy. General Manager (Personnel), SECL, Kusmunda Area vide Annexure R 4-6/5 on the following ground: “(03) Director (T)/(P&P) Bilaspur ds i= dzekad No.SECL/DTPP/A24(3)/181 dated 17-07-2002 ds vuqlkj½ ,lbZlh,y cksMZ ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij dsoy izR;{k jSf[kd vkfJr iq:"k mEehn~okj gh jkstxkj ikus okys dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSaA vr% vkids }kjk jkstxkj gsrq fn;s x;s vkosnu dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 7. This Court in the matter of SECL Vs. Prabhat Kumar Mishra (supra) held in paras 16, 17 & 18 of its order as under: “16. We have no quarrel with the proposition that normally it would be the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which will decide what is the relevant rehabilitation policy applicable to the case. However, each case has to be decided on its own facts. This is a case where it stands proved on the admission of the S.E.C.L. contained in letter dated 31st May, 1994 that it took over the possession of the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra prior to 31st May, 1994. As observed by us earlier, this was a totally illegal entry by the S.E.C.L. into the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra. Even if notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, no person can enter into the land of any person unless the award is announced or urgent proceedings under Section 17 are simultaneously started. Under Section 17, a percentage of the compensation as assessed has to be paid immediately before entering into the land of the land owners. 17. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of law in such a manner that it gives premium to dishonesty. Under Section 17, a percentage of the compensation as assessed has to be paid immediately before entering into the land of the land owners. 17. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of law in such a manner that it gives premium to dishonesty. We also cannot interpret any provision in such a manner that the person, who violates the rule of law, who breaks the specific provisions of the Act, who commits criminal offence of trespass can later claim that because of his illegal activities, he is not liable to give benefit to the displaced person because the acquisition of land is done later. It may be true that the S.E.C.L. had asked the State for acquiring the land of Prabhat Kumar Mishra and the mistake may be on the part of the State in not including the land of the petitioner in the acquisition notice. However, whether the fault was on the part of the S.E.C.L. or on the part of the State, the petitioner – Prabhat Kumar Mishra should not suffer. Possession of his land could not have been taken over without following the due process of law. Though the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is still Constitutional right under Section 300A of the Constitution of India. No man can be deprived of his property without payment of adequate compensation. Here, we are dealing with a case where a huge company entered into the land, sets up an industry does not pay compensation to the land holders and continues to remain in possession of the land and acquisition proceedings are started 12 years later in the year 2006. In such a situation, the normal date of issuance of notification may not apply. This is an exceptional case where the possession was taken over prior to the amendment of rehabilitation scheme in the year 1995, and therefore, the case of the petitioner was governed by the unamended scheme of 1991. 18. In addition thereto, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that the S.E.C.L. cannot have two different parameters in this regard; one in the case of Manoga Thakur and second in the case of Prabhat Kumar Mishra. Although both their cases were identical, employment was offered to one of the relatives of Manoga Thakur but denied to Prabhat Kumar Mishra.” 8. Although both their cases were identical, employment was offered to one of the relatives of Manoga Thakur but denied to Prabhat Kumar Mishra.” 8. In the present case also, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is son of nominee Ramotin Bai who is legal heir of original land owner Manohar and Ramotin Bai nominated her son for employment. However, the respondent authorities without considering all these facts denied employment to the petitioner. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Prabhat Kumar Mishra (supra), the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.1.2014 (Annexure P/7) is set aside. The respondents are directed to provide employment to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.