SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1115

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Mathias Oram and Others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2019, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 6933 of 2007, 15877-15878 of 2020, CONMT. PET. (C) Nos. 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 685, 686, 687 of 2019
Decided On : 03-11-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, AOR Mr. Atma Ram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Rita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Puneet Sheoran, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, Adv. Mr. Nisarg Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Rebello, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Ms. Anindita Pujari, AOR Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Azad bansala, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, AOR Mr. Nabab Singh, Adv Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Adv Ms. Nikita Jaydevan, Adv Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Mudit Sharma, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Ms. Alka Agarwal, Adv. Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Akhil, Adv. Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv. Ms. Akriti A. Manubarwale, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, AOR Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR. Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhatdwak, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, AOR Mr. K.R. Shiyas, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR

Headnote:(A) Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - Section 4(1) and Section 9 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 24 and 105 - Compensation for land acquisition - Displaced landowners sought compensation that had been pending since 1988; court emphasized urgency in determining compensation under established principles based on the Gopalpur model; the court ruled the applicable cut-off date for determining compensation is September 2010, and the R&R Act provisions are applicable for villages Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and Kirpsara. (Paras 1, 70).

(B) Rehabilitation - Employment benefits and family definitions under policy - Court held that benefits are to be provided under the R&R Policy 2006, as amended in 2013; each family consists of the head of the family, one major son, and unmarried daughters without a numerical limit on family members eligible for employment. Any previous approvals or employment cannot be re-opened. (Paras 54-68)

(C) Facilities and Amenities - R&R Act, 2013 mandates provision of facilities like schools and medical facilities in resettlement areas. The court directed these to be developed within a specified timeframe. (Paras 63-66)

Table of Content
1. justice delayed is justice denied. (Para 1)
2. background of land acquisition and compensation issues. (Para 2 , 3)
3. issues raised by parties regarding compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. analysis of cut-off date for compensation determination. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. debate on applicability of r&r act, 2013. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. clarification on statutory provisions affecting compensation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. revisiting r&r policy benefits for landowners. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. defining family units under policies affecting entitlements. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
9. entitlements of families based on definitions in amendments. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
10. special provisions for sc/st protections post-acquisition. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
11. conclusion on eligibility and future actions regarding compensation. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
12. directives for timely completion of resettlement and compensation. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
13. mandates for development of facilities at resettlement sites. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
14. ensuring review and protection under sc/st provisions. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
15. final conclusions and directions for compliance. (Para 68 , 69 , 70)

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The oft repeated aphorism “Justice delayed is justice denied” cannot apply with more force than in these proceedings. The applicant writ petitioners (hereinafter “landowners/displaced persons”) have waited for roughly half the number of years that this republic has existed. They predominantly belong to tribal communities, and their lands were first notified and acquired in 1988 for the purposes of coal mining. Yet, they have not been paid compensation. The tangled and torturous journey of their tribulations has been elaborately documented in a previous judgment of this court. [Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Another vs. Mathias Oram and Others , (2010) 11 SCC 269 ]

(A) Background

2. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter “MCL”) is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. (hereinafter “CIL”) the biggest coal producer in the country. MCL was aggrieved by an order1 [W.P. (Civil) No. 11463/2003 (Orissa High Court), dated 13.11.2006] of the Orissa High Court, wherein the High Court directed the Central Government and MCL to immediately proceed under provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter “CBA Act”) to determine and disburse compensation payable to landowners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.

3. The Central Government issued the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the CBA Act on 11.02.1987, conveying its intention to prospect for coal in village Gopalpur and others, district Sundergarh, Orissa. This was followed by another notification under Section 7 (1) of the CBA Act on 27.07.1987 for acquisition of the notified lands. Finally, by notification dated 10.07.1989, the declaration of acquisition of the land under Section 9 of the CBA Act was made, which led to the lands being vested absolutely in the Central Government. On 20.03.1993, the Central Government issued notification under Section 11 of the CBA Act, vesting the acquired land and all rights therein in MCL, retrospectively with effect from 17.11.1991. The writ petitioners before the High Court were landowners who were not paid any compensation for their lands. After unavailingly seeking the same, the landowners approached the High Court seeking direction for compensation. Before the High Court, the landowners’ claims were mired in a dispute between Coal India Ltd. (hereinafter “CIL”) and the Central Government. CIL urged that it no longer required the lands, whereas the Central Government rejected CIL’s proposal for de-notification by order dated 12.09.2006. The High Court held that a land o


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top