1. Tribal landowners' lands acquired for coal mining under CBA Act since 1988; compensation undetermined for decades through Claims Commission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
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
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)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
administrative law
- land acquisition statutes
- compensation determination
- property law
- labor and employment law
Table of Contents
2. Disputed cut-off date for compensation, applicability of R&R Act 2013, and which rehabilitation policy and family definition applies. (Para 13 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 35 , 36 , 47 , 56 , 57 )
3. Cut-off date fixed at September 2010; R&R Act 2013 applies from 28.08.2015; R&R Policy 2006 as amended governs rehabilitation; plots or cash compensation ordered. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 )
4. What date serves as the cut-off for computing compensation when land acquisition under the CBA Act has been pending for decades?
The date of notice of survey given by the Claims Commission (September 2010), as approved in the Gopalpur report, is the cut-off date for determining compensation and all associated benefits. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Does the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to acquisitions made under the Coal Bearing Areas Act, 1957?
Yes, from 28.08.2015 when the Central Government notified applicability under Section 105(3). Reports finalized before that date stand unaffected and cannot be reopened. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 34 )
6. Which rehabilitation and resettlement policy governs employment benefits — the 2006 State policy or the 2013 amended policy?
The Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006 as amended in 2013 applies. A family unit includes the head, one major son or grandson, and an unmarried daughter as separate units; cases already finalized cannot be reopened. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
7. What are the entitlements regarding resettlement plots and housing for displaced families when plots are unavailable?
The State must develop resettlement plots within specified timeframes with nodal officers. If plots are inadequate or unavailable, displaced families receive one-time cash compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest at 7% per annum. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 )
8. What special protections apply to Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste displaced persons under the R&R Act, 2013?
All amenities under the Third Schedule must be provided. SC/ST status must be preserved under Section 42, with fresh caste certificates issued for involuntarily displaced families who must migrate to other areas. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 )
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 oustee under Section 9 of the CBA Act was to be paid compensation after taking into consideration the factors enumerated under Section 13 (5) of the CBA Act. MCL preferred a special leave petition before this court. The court sought the assistance of the then Solicitor General for India, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, who proposed a scheme which was accepted by this court, in its judgment reported as Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (supra).
4. The relevant extract of the operative portion of the judgment is reproduced as follows:
“22. The scheme proposed by Mr. Subramanium and agreed upon by the Central Government and the Coal Company is as follows:
“1. The land in Village Gopalpur, District Sundergarh, Orissa stands acquired by the Central Government and ownership is vested with MCL which will determine and pay compensation to the erstwhile landowners.
2. In respect of vast portions of the acquired land (excluding the area where mining activities are being undertaken), actual physical possession was never taken. The State of Orissa and its officers are directed to assist MCL in taking actual physical possession of the acquired land.
3. Since the matter pertains to an acquisition of 1987 i.e. more than two decades ago, the extent of actual physical possession needs to be re-ascertained, it is ne
