Back
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mathias Oram – Respondent
JUDGMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The captioned M.A. No. 2662 of 2023 in M.A. No. 231/2019 has been filed by the Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal Officer, Claims Commission, Bhubaneswar seeking extension of time to finalise the report of village Ratansara.
2. The captioned M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 in M.A. No.231/2019 has been filed by the Applicant - Manikeswari Bisthapita Committee through its Secretary praying to direct the Commission to prepare the PAF/PDF list determining R&R benefits of any or all four remaining Villages namely Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Kiripsira and Ratansara out of 14 villages acquired by the MCL in compliance of the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 231 of 2019.
3. The captioned M.A. (D) No.30630/2024 has been filed by the eight applicants praying to direct the Commission to decide their cases at the earliest.
4. It may be noted that the Claims Commission had submitted the status report showing the progress of the proceedings before it as on 27.06.2024, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.01.2024. Vide the said order dated 23.01.2024, this Court had extended the term of the Commission till 15.07.2024, after recording the statement of
The Claims Commission cannot reopen finalized compensation cases or entertain new issues outside its established mandate, as directed by previous court judgments.
The Claims Commission lacks authority to modify compensation rolls approved by the Supreme Court, particularly for structures built after the cut-off date, unless supported by authenticated evidence ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes exceeded its jurisdiction and acted as an adjudicatory authority, which was beyond its powers. Th....
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 ....
Point of Law : State has not been diligent in pursuing its case where identical issues were involved before this Court.
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must be assessed under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and not under the State Rehabilitation Policy, as the land was not classified as forest land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the consent award, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the doctrine of promissory esto....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
