Government of India v. Raja Soubhagya Chandra Dev)
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 1672 of 2019 Jagannath Pradhan and others ….. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and others Vs. ….. Petitioners Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate (O.Ps. 1 to 4) and Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA (O.P.5) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
Decision
ORDER 18.04.2023 Order No. 04. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. H. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for opposite party no.5. 3. The petitioners, who are the recorded tenants of various plots, have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to re- determine the award as per the bench mark value fixed by the Government or as per the rate of compensation awarded in favour of the villagers of Jamkani, or to refer the matter to the Coal Tribunal at Dhenkanal, now at Jharsuguda, for determination on proper compensation in respect of the acquired land. 4. Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though multiple prayers have been made in the present writ petition, but, as a matter of fact, the petitioners seek direction to the opposite Page 1 of 5 parties to refer the matter to the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the District Judge-cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda for determination of proper compensation in respect of the acquired land. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 71 (Government of India v. Raja Soubhagya Chandra Dev). 5. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. H. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 contended that the land in question, having been acquired by the State Government, was handed over to the opposite parties no.1 to 4, who have paid the compensation amount. In the event it is decided to refer the matter to the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the District Judge-cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda for determination, then the procedure as envisaged under law shall be followed and the opposite parties no.1 to 4 will adhere to the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that out of several plots, plot nos. 08, 38, 61, 62, 65, 67, 93, 96, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 145, 145/1137 of Khata No. 15 of the petitioners in Mouza-Chingriguda measuring Ac 5.190 decimal had been acquired along with vast track of land in the said mouza and other adjoining villages. The kissam of the land was recorded as Berna Pani-II, Mala Sadharana, etc., which are Class-I agriculture land. The said lands were acquired for mining of coal as per the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. Ultimately, the acquired lands were vested with the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. The Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. I.B. Valley area is carrying on the operation of mining of coal in the said area. Though the acquisition was made on 17.07.1989, but neither the compensation nor other benefits were provided to the petitioners. On 11.05.2015, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Coal Bearing Areas Page 2 of 5 (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued for surface right. On 28.04.2016, the notification under Section 7(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued. On 09.12.2016, the notification under Section 9 (1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued. On 04.02.2017, the notification under Section 11 (1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued. 7. On 07.04.2018, the Estate Manager, I.B. Valley area, MCL issued the notice under Section 12 of the Coal Bearing Act 1957 to the petitioners to receive the compensation in respect of the area Ac. 5.190 decimal, as the said land was acquired on 14.04.1990. The petitioners intimated to the Estate Manager that the date of acquisition notification is not correct and the compensation awarded has not been assessed in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlements Act, 2013, but the same was not taken note of. Rather, on 29.06.2018, the Estate Officer issued the 2nd notification correcting the date of acquisition notification as 17.07.1989 in place of 14.04.1990 and the petitioners were requested to receive the compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlements Act, 2013. Though similar notices had been served on other villagers, but the same were not received by the petitioners. Consequentially, the petitioners raised protest before the General Manager, regarding the rate of compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land and for higher compensation. The General Manager of MCL, in turn, advised to the petitioners to file representation before the Staff Officer (L&UR) of I.B. Valley area. Accordingly, on 11.10.2018, the petitioners submitted their representation to the Staff Officer regarding the low valuation and to refer the matter to the Coal Tribunal at Dhenkanal, now at Jharsuguda, for determination of proper and adequate compensation of Page 3 of 5 above acquired land of village Chingriguda. Due to the inaction of the opposite parties no.1 to 4 in not taking effective steps for re-determination of compensation or to refer the case to the Coal Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 8. Pursuant to the notice issued to the opposite parties, the opposite parties have entered appearance and filed their respective counter. The opposite parties no.1 to 4 have stated that the compensation amount has been assessed and determined in respect of village Chingriguda under 1st Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlements Act, 2013 after getting clarification from the Ministry of Coal on 04.08.2017. The basic compensation of the land has been assessed considering preceding 3 years’ sale/purchase transaction and Bench mark value of village Chingriguda from the date of Section 4(1) notification, i.e. dated 09.11.2015, for which surface rights have been acquired. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that compensation should be assessed at par with another revenue village, i.e. Jamkani or Belpahar is not admissible to them. As such, the sale statistics of Jamkani (part of Belpahar revenue mouza) is much higher than that of Chingriguda revenue mouza. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is not admissible. 9. The opposite parties no.1 to 4 have also filed an additional affidavit, wherein it has been stated that since there is dispute with regard to determination of compensation amount in respect of the acquired land, the said dispute can be adjudicated by the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the District Judge-cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda. Therefore, it has been contended that without indulging in any controversy with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner so as to get the compensation, the matter should be referred to the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the District Judge- Page 4 of 5 cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda. 10. In view of the pleadings available on record, since the parties have agreed to refer the matter to the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e., the District Judge-cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda, in the considered opinion of this Court, the interest of justice would be best served if adhering to the provisions contained in Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the District Judge-cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda adjudicates the matter on a reference being made by the competent authority. Needless to say, since it is year old case and the petitioners are deprived of getting their legitimate claim long since, the referral authority, without causing any further delay, shall refer the matter to the Competent Adjudicating Authority, i.e. the District Judge-cum-CBA (O) Tribunal, Jharsuguda, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month, so that the Tribunal shall do well to dispose of the same in compliance of the provisions of law governing the field, as expeditiously as possible. 11. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Page 5 of 5