SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 220 of 2023 (@ SLP(C) No. 16835 of 2019)
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – Sections 9 and 11 – Acquisition of land – State Government can be said to be ‘person interested’ in getting compensation – High Court is absolutely right in observing and taking the view that being ‘person interested’ State Government is entitled to compensation/rental, etc. – Compensation/rental payable with respect to lands by lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than royalty – Royalty is for extraction of minerals in lands in question – Amount of royalty cannot be mixed with compensation/loss caused to State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as State Government is entitled for adequate compensation – High Court is absolutely justified in confirming respective demand(s) for Premium – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 5, 5.1, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2019, passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 2477/2009, by which, High Court has dismissed said writ petition preferred by appellant herein and has confirmed demand made by District Magistrate & Collector, Sambalpur, of Rs. 70 lakhs towards the premium of government land, the appellant – Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is not required to be interfered with. However, if appellant is disputing the quantum and/or calculation of demand(s), it would be open for them to approach appropriate authority, however, the demand(s) as such is/are upheld.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2019, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 2477/2009, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the demand made by the District Magistrate & Collector, Sambalpur, of Rs. 70 lakhs towards the premium of the government land, the appellant – Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: -
2.1 That the lands in question owned by the State Government of Odisha came to be acquired by the Government of India under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1957). That thereafter, vide order dated 04.09.1981 and in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, 1957 with respect to some lands acquired, the Central Government directed that the rights in or over the lands vested absolutely in the Central Government, shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, under Sub-section (1) of Section 10, vest in the Western Coalfields Limited. That vide order dated 15.12.1988, with respect to some other lands acquired by the Central Government and in exercise of powers conferred by the Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, 1957, the Central Government directed that the said lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from 16.05.1987 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. That is how, the appellant acquired the lands and rights over the lands in question. That respondent issued the demand notice dated 15.03.1984 for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards premium for Government land and Rs. 40 lakhs towards compensation. That various similar demand notices were issued for area of Non-Forest Government land and Revenue Forest land. The demands were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition before the High Court. Before the High Court, Section 18(a) of the Act, 1957 was pressed into service by the appellant herein and it was submitted that in view of the notification as the lands and rights on the lands absolutely vested in the Central Government thereafter, the State Government is not entitled to any compensation with respect to the lands so acquired/vested except the royalty leviable under Section 18(a) of the Act, 1957. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has interpreted Section 2(d) of the Act, 1957 and has observed that the State Government can be said to be person interested in land and therefore, entitled to the compensation over and above in lieu of losing the rights over the land. That thereafter, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and has confirmed the demand(s).
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court the appellant – original writ petitioner – Mahanadi Coalfields Limited has preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us to the entire scheme of the Act, 1957 right from Section 4 to Section 11. It is submitted that as per Section 4 of the Act, 1957, whenever it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from land in any locality, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette give notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein. It is submitted that thereafter after following the due procedure as required the Central Government being satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 8 that any land or any right in or over such land should be acquired, a declaration shall be made by it to that effect. It is submitted that thereafter once the declaration under Section 9 of the Act
Acquisition of land – State Government can be said to be ‘person interested’ in getting compensation – Compensation/rental payable with respect to lands by lessee/deemed lessee is altogether differen....
The State Government cannot claim lease rent from a Government Company under the Coal Bearing Areas Act, as the rights vested in the Company are absolute and free from encumbrances.
Section 17(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 only empowers the tribunal to receive compensation from the Central Government and does not provide for imposing intere....
(1) Acquisition of land – Disputes regarding ownership of subject land cannot be an impediment to legitimate rights of original landowners to receive compensation.(2) Return of acquired land – Party ....
Acquisition of land – Purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining market value.
Compensation rights in land acquisition are determined by the nature of ownership and legal claims, emphasizing the need for proper apportionment according to respective interests.
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.