¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
eq-U;k- ,-ds- iVukbd rFkk U;k- vthr flag
A.K. Patnaik, C.J. and Ajit Singh, J.
ujsk flag rFkk vU; fo- Hkkjr la?k rFkk vU;
Naresh Singh and others v. Union of India and others
fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 13561 lu~ 2005 1/4ykdsfgr eqdnek1/2 1/4tcyiqj1/2(
fu.khZr fnukad 12-11-2008A
Writ Petition No. 13561 of 2005 (PIL) (Jabalpur);
Decided on 12.11.2008.
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165 (6) -- acquisition of land by Government is not prohibited -- such land of Tribal may further be transferred to Government Company by the Government. AIR 1997 se 3297 and AIR 2002 se 350 followed. [Para 9
(2) Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 -- S. 4 (i) -- embargo on making inconsistent law is on legislature of a State and not on Parliament -- acquisition of land of Scheduled area under Act of Parliament -- provision does not apply. [Para 10
(3) Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 -- Ss. 1 and 28 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S. 1 -- acquisition of land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land -- provisions of 1894 Act would no longer apply -- acquisition would be governed by 1957 Act. [Paras 17 & 18
(4) Repeal -- prior general Act -- may be affected by subsequent particular or Special Act. Principles of Statutory Interpretation Tenth Edn. 2000 by Justice G.P. Singh relied on. AIR 1990 se 548 followed. [Paras 19 & 20
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ petition in respect of land acquisition proceedings -- High Court has to weigh public interest. vis-a-vis private interest. (1997) 1 SCC 134, (2008) 7 SCC 53 and (2003) 6 SCC 255 followed. [Para 22
Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 13561 of 2005 are Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats in Anuppur District of State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioners in other writ petitions are all owners of land in Kotma Tahsil, District Anuppur which have been acquired by the State Government for the South Eastern Coalfields Limited. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land in Kotma Tahsil for mining of coal by the South Eastern Coal fields Limited (for short 'SECL') under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The relevant facts for disposal of these writ petitions briefly are that on 30th March, 1994, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the 1957 Act') gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 3412.610 hectares of land in Kotma Tahsil described in the Schedule to the notification. Thereafter, by notification dated 6th February, 1996, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act gave notice of its intention to acquire the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares. By notification dated 6th February, 1996, objections to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights over the land were invited in writing. On 4th February, 1997, the Central Government issued a notification stating therein that after considering the report of the Competent Authority and after consulting the Government of Madhya Pradesh, it was satisfied that the rights to mine quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away the minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares approximately described in the Schedule to the notification should be acquired. Accordingly, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the 1957 Act, the Central Government declared by notification dated 24th June, 1998 that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away the minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares are acquired. The rights in and over the aforesaid land acquired by the Central Government were thereafter vested in the SECL by an order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the 1957 Act, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 24th June, 1998.
3. The Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Department of Coal then wrote a letter dated 31.8.2001 to the Collector, District Shahdol in which Kotma Tahsil was then located, requesting him to arrange for acquisition of 699.698 hectares of tenancy land and 46.154 hectares of Government land for Amadand Open Cast Mine of Jamuna Kotma Area under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''he 1894 Act') and to take possession of the same as provided under section 17 of the 1894 Act immediately. Pursuant to this request, the State Government issued a notification on 28th February, 2004 under section 4 of the 1894 Act for acquiring the aforesaid land. After considering the objections, the State Government issued a declaration under section 6 of the 1894 Act in respect of the aforesaid land on 23rd May, 2004. Proceedings under section 9 of the 1894 Act were completed on 5th September, 2004 and awards were passed on 30th November, 2004 and a Panchnama was made on 7th January, 2005 handing over symbolic possession of the aforesaid land to the SECL. The SECL deposited compensation to the tune Rs.17,49,00,233/- for the owners of the land and the houses located on the land. Out of2485 owners of land in whose favour awards were passed, 774 persons withdrew the compensation amounting to Rs.6.52 crores.
4. Mr. P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the SECL, raised a preliminary issue regarding the locus standi of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.