Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Ori) 228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
KUMARI SANJU PANDA, A.C.J., S.K.SAHOO, J.
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Claims Commission and others – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.15569 of 2019, W.P.(C) No. 15571 of 2019
Decided On : 19-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Sundar Kanungo, D. Mohanty, A. Mishra, B.P. Panda, D. Behera.
For the Opp. Parties : Addl. Govt. Adv.

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 of existence prior to that date.

Headnote:(A) Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 4(1), 7(1), and 9(1) - Claims Commission was not empowered to modify compensation rolls approved by the Supreme Court - Structure built after the cut-off date is not entitled to compensation - Report indicating no prior structure existing requires authenticated evidence for claims. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of review - Writ of certiorari does not permit interference unless there's a clear illegality or perversity - Courts should respect the jurisdictional limits set by higher courts in their orders. (Paras 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a subsidiary of a significant corporation, contested compensation awarded to landholders for structures claimed to be built after the Supreme Court's cut-off date, arguing that proper procedures were not followed by the Claims Commission leading to unauthorized compensation claims. The petitioner contended significant procedural missteps by the Commission including the assessment of structures constructed post cut-off and the failure to consider critical evidence regarding the non-existence of structures.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Claims Commission's orders as valid, confirming no errors in their procedures or conclusions regarding the entitlement to compensation based on the status of structures as assessed. The petitioner's claim to modify orders was dismissed.

Issues: The primary issue was whether structures built after the defined cut-off date could be compensated when their existence at a relevant date was in dispute. Another issue pertained to the authority of the Claims Commission in adjudicating modification claims from the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Claims Commission properly adhered to Supreme Court directives and that without definitive evidence supporting claims of fraud or construction post cut-off date, the valid compensation rolls could not be modified or recalled. The refusals to entertain the petition were deemed correct based on established jurisprudence regarding procedural authority and evidence.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges orders of claims commission. (Para 1 , 2)
2. acquisition notifications under the 1957 act. (Para 3 , 4)
3. claims commission's jurisdictional limitations. (Para 5)
4. evidence regarding structures' existence post cut-off. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

The petitioner Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (in short ‘the petitioner company’) has filed the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.15569 of 2019 seeking for a direction to quash the compensation roll under Annexure-3 and the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned Claims Commission, Bhubaneswar in Civil (Misc.) Case No.342 of 2016 under Annexure-6 in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner company for recalling/modifying the order of the Commission passed in Claim Case No. 09 of 2013 which was taken into account by the Commission while recommending the compensation roll prepared by the petitioner company to the Hon’ble Supreme Court for its approval and the same was approved by Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.10.2014 in SLP (C) No. 6933 of 2007.

Similar order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned Claims Commission, Bhubaneswar in Civil (Misc.) Case No.323 of 2016 under Annexure-6 has been challenged by the petitioner company in W.P.(C) No.15571 of 2019.

Since both the impugned orders passed by the learned Claims Commission arise out of similar set of facts, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, those were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order.

2. From the factual backdrop of both the cases, it appears that the petitioner company is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jagriti Vihar, Burla in the district of Sambalpur and it is carrying out mining activities of coal in different areas of Odisha such as Basundhara-Garjanbahal, Orient Area Lakhanpur etc. The Claims Commission (opposite party no.1) was constituted in pursuance of the order dated 19.07.2010 passed in SLP (C) No.6933 of 2007 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. -Vrs.- Mathias Oram and others reported in (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 269. The petitioner company preferred I.A. No.38 of 2016 against the common issue/order of the learned Claims Commission in respect of the present cause of action before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP (C) No.6933 of 2007 in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition vide its order dated 10.07.2017, directed this Court to consider the aforesaid I.A. along with other interim applications which were pending against the orders of the learned Claims Commission. Accordingly I.A. Nos. 40 of 2016, 42 of 2016, 47316 of 2017, 53662 of 2017, 53656 of 2017 and 47966 of 2017 were listed before this Court on 19.01.2018 and liberty was granted to the petitioner company to file separate writ petitions assailing the orders of Claims Commission and accordingly the present writ petitions have been filed.

3. The Central Government issued a preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘1957 Act’) on 13.11.1984 and 24.07.1987 giving notice of its intention to prospect for coal in different revenue villages in the district of Sundargarh. Thereafter, notification under section 7(1) of the 1957 Act was issued with an intention to acquire the lands on 27.05.1987 in respect of village Sardega (Ac.860.18) (Full), Gopalpur (part) (Ac.3060.22), Jhupurunga (Ac.1862.78 (Full), Ratnansara (Ac.1849.75) (Full) and on 26.09.1989 in respect of village Tikilpara (Ac.1743.85) (Full), Bankibahal (Ac.836.33-Full), Balinga (1234.64-Full), Kulda- Ac.542.82-(Full), Siarmal (Ac.862.34-Full), Tumulia (Ac.2381.32-Full), Lalma (RF) (Ac.420.00-Full), Garjanbahal (Ac.798.35-Full), Bangurkela (Ac.1055.96-Full), Karlikachhar (Ac.511.94-Full), Gopalpur(P) (Ac.140.67-part) and Kirips