Allowed

W.C.L. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur v. Shravan Gomaji Date, Chandrapur and 2 Otrs

Bombay HC14 Jul 2017FA/148/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common judgment disposing multiple first appeals, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that applications for enhancement of compensation under Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development Act), 1957 were not maintainable. The Court ruled the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondents were unauthorized occupants of State land receiving compensation under a

What did the court decide?

The appeals were allowed; the impugned awards of the Special Tribunal were quashed and set aside; the amount deposited by the appellant was ordered to be refunded with interest.

W.C.L. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur Vs Shravan… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶2

First Appeal No. 995/2009

¶3

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶4

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Respondents:- 1. Smt. Pushpalata wd/o Harichandra Awari,

¶7

Aged Major.

¶8

Sandeep s/o Harichandra Awari,

¶9

Aged Major.

¶10

Sunil s/o Harichandra Awari, Aged Major.

¶11

All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶12

First Appeal No. 1409/2009

¶13

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶14

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,

¶15

at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,

¶16

District Chandrapur.

¶17

Versus

¶18

Respondents:- 1. Dadaji Bijram Pathade, Aged Major,

¶19

Meghraj Dadaji Pathade, Aged Major,

¶20

Bhojram Dadaji Pathade, Aged Major,

¶21

Dhanraj Dadaji Pathade,

¶22

All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶23

First Appeal No. 133/2009

¶24

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶25

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,

¶26

at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,

District Chandrapur.

-2-

Versus

Respondents:- 1. Suresh Ishwar Umate, Aged 38 years. 2. Shankar Ishwar Umate, Aged 36 years.

¶31

Ravikant s/o Ishwar Umate, Aged 32 years. All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶32

First Appeal No. 1408/2009

¶33

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶34

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,

¶35

at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶36

Versus

¶37

Respondents:- 1. Narayan Mukinda Bipte, Aged Major,

¶38

Sou. Sushila Narayan Bipte, Aged Major,

¶39

R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶40

First Appeal No. 147/2009

¶41

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶42

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,

¶43

at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶44

Versus

¶45

Respondents:- 1. Sudhakar Narayan Dhawas, Aged Major,

¶46

Sou. Rekha Sudhakar Dhawas, Aged Major, Both R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶47

First Appeal No. 148/2009

¶48

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶49

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶50

Versus

¶51

-3-

¶52

Respondents:- 1. Shravan Gomaji Date, Aged Major,

¶53

Mangesh Shravan Date, aged 25 years.

¶54

Gajanan Shravan Date, All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶55

First Appeal No. 355/2009

¶56

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶57

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶58

Versus

¶59

Respondents:- 1. Mahadeo Vithoba Buradkar, aged Major.

¶60

Madhukar Mahadeo Buradkar, aged 25 years.

¶61

Both R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. First Appeal No. 1360/2009

¶62

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶63

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,

¶64

at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,

¶65

District Chandrapur.

¶66

Versus

¶67

Respondents:- 1. Pandurang Bapuji Awari, Aged Major.

¶68

Ravindra Pandurang Awari, Aged Major.

¶69

Subhash Pandurang Awari, Aged Major.

¶70

Both R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶71

First Appeal No. 422/2009

¶72

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶73

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,

District Chandrapur.

Versus

-4-

Respondents:- Anjanabai Madhukar Khamankar, Aged Major, R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶78

First Appeal No. 1029/2009

¶79

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶80

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶81

Versus

¶82

Respondents:- 1. Govind s/o Ganpat Askar, aged Major. 2. Gopal s/o Ganpat Askar, aged Major.

¶83

Ramkrishna s/o Ganpat Askar, Aged Major.

¶84

R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶85

First Appeal No. 129/2009

¶86

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶87

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶88

Versus

¶89

Respondent:- Sunanda Arun Bipte, Aged Major,

¶90

R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶91

First Appeal No. 149/2009

¶92

Appellant :-

¶93

Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶94

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,

¶95

District Chandrapur.

¶96

Versus

¶97

Respondent:- 1. Natthuji Narayan Bobde, Aged Major, 2. Sunil Natthuj Bobde, Aged Major. 3. Sou. Vanmala Natthuj Bobde, Aged Major.

¶98

-5-

¶99

All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur. First Appeal No. 1410/2009

¶100

Appellant :- Western Coal Fields Limited,

¶101

Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area, at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur.

¶102

Versus

¶103

Respondents:- 1. Maroti Shrawan Papde, Aged Major,

¶104

Santosh Maroti Papde, Aged Major.

¶105

R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.

¶106

=========================================

¶107

Mr. Ramesh Darda, counsel for appellants.

¶108

S/Shri W.G.Charde, N.G.Solao counsel for respondents.

¶109

=========================================

¶110

CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J. DATED : 14th JULY, 2017.

¶111

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶112

All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they give rise to common questions of facts and law.

¶113

These appeals challenge the awards passed by the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development Act, 1957 (for short Act, 1957). By the awards impugned in these appeals, the tribunal directed the appellant to pay interest under Section 17 (3) of the Act, 1957 to the claimants i.e. respondents in these appeals. The interest was to be paid on the amounts of compensation paid to

¶114

-6-

¶115

the respondents.

¶116

The respondents filed applications under section 14 of the Act 1957 claiming enhancement of compensation to be paid for the plots and houses acquired by the appellant under the provision of the Act, 1957. Section 4 of Act, 1957 notification was issued on 2/4/1994 and second notification declaring vesting of the acquired plots was issued on 15/8/1998. According to the respondents, compensation was paid to all of them at different rates for the plots and houses acquired under these notifications by the appellant but, same was inadequate. Therefore, as provided under section 14 of the Act 1957, each of the respondents preferred separate applications before the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1957 and sought enhancement of the compensation. Their applications were partly allowed and only interest Under Section 17 (3) of the Act 1957 was granted by the Tribunal and accordingly awards were passed. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant decided to challenge the same and this is how the appellant is before this Court in all these appeals.

¶117

I have heard Shri Darda learned counsel for appellant and Shri Solao learned counsel for respondents in all these appeals. I have gone through the paper books of the appeals which contain relevant documents, such as applications filed under section 14, specimen reply, and written statement and so on. I have also perused the impugned awards. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is : Whether the applications filed under section 14 of 1957, Act were maintainable before the Tribunal?

¶118

-7-

¶119

Shri Darda learned counsel for the appellant submits that these applications were not at all maintainable because the respondents never claimed that they were owners of the acquired plots and admittedly the acquired lands belonged to the State Government. He further submits that if the respondents were not the owners of the acquired plots and houses they were not the persons interested to receive the compensation. He also submits that compensation that was paid to the respondents was only in pursuance of resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the appellant and never by admitting them to be the owners.

¶120

Shri Solao, learned counsel for respondents submits that in First Appeal No. 1139/2007 learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 6.8.2009 held that the facts of that case being covered by the judgment of another bench of this court rendered in Appeal No. 166/96 decided on 8/5/2009, the appeal was liable to be dismissed summarily. He submits that, in appeal No. 166/1996 decided on 8/5/2009, this Court has upheld the similar awards as are impugned in these appeals. He submits that facts of the appeals are covered by those two orders and therefore all these appeals deserve to be dismissed with costs.

¶121

Under the provisions of the Act, 1957, when the lands are acquired for the purpose of coal mining, the acquisition has to be made under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 and the compensation is payable under Section 13(5) of the Act 1957. These provisions of the Act, 1957 lay down that compensation must be paid to the persons interested, further prescribing the procedure for

¶122

-8-

¶123

quantification of the compensation that must be paid. The expression “person interested” used in Sub-Section 5 of Section 13 is significant. It denotes that compensation is payable to only that person who is interested in the land under acquisition. The expression “person interested” has been defined under Section 2 (d) in the following terms :-

¶124

(d) the expression “person interested” includes all persons

¶125

claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land, or of the acquisition, extinguishment or modification of any rights in or overland, under this Act;

¶126

Reading of definition of expression “person interested” would

¶127

make it clear to us that the expression includes all those persons who have some or the other legal interest in receiving the compensation. It does not take into account those persons who are unauthorized occupants or encroachers. This appears logical for the reason that a right a tresspasser or an enchrocher would have be no more than adherance to due process of law in removing him from the property. It would not extend to lay a claim for compensation for the land acquired, as if he himself is the owner. At the most such a person, if at all he could say so, can ask for sometime to vacate the encroached land so that he can safely move himself, others in his family and his belongings to some other place. But, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that he has some interest in compensation. Interest in claiming compensation for compulsory acquisition of land can flow only from title to the land or some right to retain the land, for and on behalf of the owner, which attributes or characteristics are not possessed by an encrocher.

¶128

-9-

¶129

In the present appeal, it can be seen that none of the respondents pleaded that he or any of them had any interest in receiving the compensation or that the respondents were the persons interested in compensation in terms of Section 13 (5) of the Act, 1957. Admittedly, the lands which were acquired and involved in these appeals were the lands belonging to the State Government. Their total area was of 11.55 Hectors out of which, the portion ad-measuring 8.55 Hector was under encroachment. The plots and houses of these respondents are from this portion of land, which admeasures 8.55 Hector. The respondents did not produce any document of their having some legal interest or legal right in these acquired lands. If it was so, the applications filed by the respondents under Section 14 of the Act of 1957 could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. These applications were not maintainable before the Tribunal and I find them to be so. The Tribunal, without considering the material aspects of this case and discussed earlier, however, entertained the applications and even proceeded to pass the awards impugned herein, albeit patently wrongly and illegally.

¶130

There is one more reason for recording a finding that the applications filed under Section 14(2) of 1957 were not maintainable. The compensation that has been granted to all the respondents was under the resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the appellant. It was never under the provisions of the Act, 1957. It was not shown by the respondents that the compensation that they received was under the provisions of Act, 1957 and not under the resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the appellant.

¶131

-10-

¶132

Therefore, the application under section 14 of the Act, 1957 was not maintainable and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such applications. The Tribunal would have jurisdiction only when the compensation is awarded in recognition of a legal right or is not awarded though rightfully due, under the provisions of the Act, 1957. For something given gratuitously, as for example, a sum of money paid on humanitarian considerations constituting foundation of a rehabilitation and resettlement policy like the one followed by the appellant, no claim under Section 14 of Act, 1957 seeking more from the policy maker can lie, for a gratuitous getter takes what he gets under the policy and if he thinks the policy is arbitrary, the remedy lies elsewhere, surety not under Section 14 of the Act, 1957. It would then follow that, no interest could have been awarded by the Tribunal. This view also receives support from the view taken by this court in the bunch of First Appeals starting with first appeal No. 1348/2009 decided on 28/10/2016.

¶133

So far as concerned the order passed by this Court on 6/8/2009 following the decision of this court dated 8/5/2009 rendered in First appeal No. 166/96, I must say, both the said orders were based upon facts peculiar to those cases. The facts of the present case are different and clearly show that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned awards, which does not appear to be the case with those appeals decided on 6/8/2009 and 8/5/2009. Therefore, those orders would be of no help to the respondents in the present

¶134

case .

¶135

-11-

¶136

The point is thus answered as in the negative.

¶137

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned

¶138

orders are hereby quashed and set aside. The amount deposited in this court by the appellants be refunded to the appellants with interest, if any.

¶139

JUDGE

¶140

nandurkar

W.C.L. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur v. Shravan Gomaji Date, Chandrapur and 2 Otrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

W.C.L. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur v. Shravan Gomaji Date, Chandrapur and 2 Otrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer (v.I.D.C.) Minor Irrigation Division, Washim Vs Kesharbai Rajaram Bang (Died) Thr. Lrs. Rupchand S/O Rajaram Bang and Another

Executive Engineer (v.I.D.C.) Minor Irrigation Division, Washim Vs Santosh S/O Narayan Tayade and Another

Executive Engineer (v.I.D.C.) Minor Irrigation Division, Washim Vs Madhukar S/O Kisan Bhagat and Another

Swarupchand Motilal Jain (Bohra) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

W.C.L. Thr. Chief General Manager, Chandrapur Vs Dadaji Bijram Pathade, Chandrapur and 3 Otrs

W.C.L. Thr., Chief General Manager, Chandrapur Vs Maroti Saharawan Papde, Chandrapur and 1 Anor