Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
KUMARI SANJU PANDA, A.C.J., S.K.SAHOO
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Claims Commission – Respondent
| 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
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 subsequent Judgments and Orders from the Civil Courts, which have declared a party as the owner and in possession of the acquired property, ca....
It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The Claims Commission cannot reopen finalized compensation cases or entertain new issues outside its established mandate, as directed by previous court judgments.
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where prior proceedings unde....
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....
A review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise; it must demonstrate clear grounds for review, such as fraud or error apparent on the face of the record.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the landowner must prove that possession was not taken and compe....
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
