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
| 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
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 10 SCC 43 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 29 [Para 28]
Brij Mohan v. HUDA (2011) 2 SCC 29 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 336 [Para 27]
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549 : AIR 1996 SC 1051 [Para 28]
Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 : AIR 1995 SC 142 [Para 28]
Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram (2007) 10 SCC 448 [Para 28]
Land Acquisition Officer v. Mahaboob (2009) 14 SCC 54 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 297 [Para 27]
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority (2002) 4 SCC 666 : AIR 2002 SC 2036 [Para 27]
Samatha v. State of A.P. (1997) 8 SCC 191 : AIR 1997 SC 3297 [Para 28]
State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (2009) 8 SCC 46 [Para 30]
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
State of U.P. v. Pista Devi (1986) 4 SCC 251 : AIR 1986 SC 2025 [Para 27]
Denial of rehabilitation and resettlement compensation under RFCTLARR Act was improper as it did not confirm eligibility despite prior compensation under the NH Act.
The court emphasized that past compensation does not preclude a party from claiming separate rehabilitation and resettlement compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, necessitating explicit evaluation of ....
The Claims Commission cannot reopen finalized compensation cases or entertain new issues outside its established mandate, as directed by previous court judgments.
The main legal principle established is that single adult members falling within the definition of separate family under Section 3(m) of the Act 2013 are entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PESA Act, Forest Rights Act, and RTFCATILA, RAR Act, 2013 were not applicable to the petitioners' case, and the Orissa Rehabilitation and ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.