Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE
North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By The Chief Secy. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the competing claims for land compensation due to mining damage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments concerning estoppel, waiver, and the validity of assessment procedures. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. historical analysis of litigation and failed prior attempts at compensation assessment. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. assessment of feasibility regarding damaged land compensation and reliance on relevant precedents. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. ruling on writ petition maintainability and non-applicability of specific res judicata claims. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. determination of equitable lump sum compensation for continuing environmental damage. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. M. Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2408/2016 and respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in WP(C) No. 7173/2015. Also heard Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7173/2015 and respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 2408/2016 as well as Mr. B. J. Talukdar, le
When land damage caused by industrial activity is of a continuing nature, prior partial compensation does not absolve the tortfeasor of liability for ongoing harm. Where exact quantification of damag....
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 ....
Environmental compensation must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality, ensuring that penalties correlate with actual damage and supported by robust evidence.
It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
A person aggrieved by the order granting mining lease can challenge the same before the appropriate authority of the Central Government. The petitioner-Society did not avail the alternative efficacio....
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....
The court found that a petitioner lacks standing to challenge mining lease rejections when the applicant's prior applications have become ineligible under the amended MMDR Act.
Point of Law : It is well settled that if a person has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Authority, he cannot challenge proceedings, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of said authority in furt....
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
