Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arup Kumar Goswami, Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, JJ.
Mangal Sai Armo S/o Late Sukrit Ram - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - Respondent
WPC No. 302, 560, 698,1247 of 2022, WPC No. 2541 of 2020
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 254(2), 244(1), 141, 19(1)(g) and 31(A) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 and Section 27 - Coal Bearing Area Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 - Sections 9(1), 7(1) , 4(1) , 11(1) , 10(1) - A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 - Sections 3(1), 3(1)(a) and 264 - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 165(6) - FR Act, 2006 - Section 3 - Acquisition of land Parsa Coal Block - Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition - Respondent No. 2 operates thermal power generating stations of total capacity of 7580 MW in the State and supplies electricity to the entire State of Rajasthan and caters to 37% of need of power to State - Coal from the Parsa Coal Block is earmarked for captive use for the power plants of respondent No. 2 situated and operating in State - Declarations are sought that (i) CB Act is ultra vires to Constitution of India; (ii) CB Act cannot be invoked in case of State Government owned company or where acquired land ultimately benefits a private company - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Publication in the Official Gazette of declaration under section 9, land or any rights in or over such land shall vest absolutely in Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section 10(2) provides that where rights under any mining lease granted or deemed to have been granted by a State Government to any person are acquired under this Act – Held, Section 24 of CB Act read with Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1957, only a notice or order, if directed against an individual, is required to be served by delivering or tendering a copy thereof duly signed to person on whom it is to be served and there is no such requirement under Section 3(1) of Rules of 1957 for service of any notice or order which is of general nature or affecting a number of persons. Sections 4(1) and 7(1) notifications had affected a large number of persons and therefore - Section 8 (1) of CB Act, any person could object within 30 days of issue of notification under Section 7(1). Though the Gazette notification under amended Section 7(1) was published on 27.12.2017, Competent Authority computed 30 days from date of publication of the Gazette Notification in two newspapers on 16.01.2018 and accordingly, last date for lodging objection - No objection was received in that period, though, some objections came to be filed by some villagers - some villagers had lodged some objections to Section 4(1) and Section 7(1) notifications, though belatedly, also negates the claim of the petitioners that there was no Gazette publication of Section 4 (1) or Section 7(1) notification - There is no acceptable explanation for delay in approaching this Court - we are of the considered opinion that apart from gross delay in approaching the Court, there being no merit in these petitions - petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
WPC No. 2541/2020, WPC No. 302/2022, 560/2022, 698/2022 and 1247/2022 are listed together. Notice has not been issued in all these cases by Court as yet. Respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8 in all these petitions are same. The respondent No. 7 in WPC No. 2541/2020 is not a party in the other writ petitions. Respondent No. 7 in other writ petitions is same. However, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appears for respondent No. 1 and 8, Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appears for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, Mr. N.Nagrath, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel, appears for respondent No. 6. Dr. N.K.Shukla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla, learned counsel, appears for respondent No. 2. Dr. Shukla also appears for respondent No. 7 in WPC No. 2541/2020. As no notice is issued, respondent No. 7 in WPC No. 302/2022, 560/2022, 698/2022 and 1247/2022 is not represented.
2. The subject matter of challenge essentially is acquisition of land for Parsa Coal Block, situated in villages Tara, Janardanpur of District Surajpur and villages Fatehpur, Ghatbara, Hariharpur, Salhi of District Sarguja in the State of Chhattisgarh, under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for short, CB Act) for respondent No. 2.
3. The respondent No. 2 operates thermal power generating stations of total capacity of 7580 MW in the State of Rajasthan and supplies electricity to the entire State of Rajasthan and caters to 37% of need of power to the State. The coal from the Parsa Coal Block is earmarked for captive use for the power plants of respondent No. 2 situated and operating in the State of Rajasthan.
4. At the outset, it will be appropriate to take note of the reliefs prayed for in WPC No. 2541/2020. The same is as follows:
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash section 4(1) notification, section 7(1) notification, section 9(1) notification issued under the Coal Bearing Area Acquisition and Development Act, 1957.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash Section 11(1) Vesting Order issued by the Central Government with regard to Parsa Coal Block.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to declare that after enactment of RFCTLARR Act 2013 use of Coal Bearing Area Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 is not permitted.
Or in alternate
That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to declare the Coal Bearing Area Acquisition and Development Act 1957 can only be used for Coal Bearing Land Acquisition for Central Government PSUs.
10.5 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to declare that Coal Bearing Area Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 could not be invoked in cases where acquired land ultimately reaches to a private company for mining.
10.6 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to declare that inclusion of Coal Bearing Area Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 in Schedule 4 of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 is ultra vires.
10.7 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to order a criminal investigation into complaints of creating of fake Gram Sabha documents.
10.8 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order/relief that this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including grant of cost of the instant litigation.
5. In WPC No. 1247/2022, WPC No. 698/2022, WPC No. 560/2022 and WPC No.302/2022, essentially, prayers are same. Prayers are mad
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
