Disposed

Setram v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2018WPC/3367/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court held that the petitioner's remedy for compensation adequacy and interest lies before the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Area Act, 1957. Regarding rehabilitation policy applicability, the petitioner was directed to move a fresh representation to SECL, to be decided by a reasoned order. The petition was disposed of with these directions and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Tribunal under Section 14 for compensation; directed to submit fresh representation to SECL regarding rehabilitation policy.

Setram Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 3367 of 2018

¶5

Setram S/o Mukut Ram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Pali, Tehsil- Katghora, Police Station And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Of India Through, Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, New Delhi

¶9

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-CumManaging Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Chief General Managar, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kusmunda, Area, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Collector Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner	Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/UOI	Mr. B. Gopakumar, Assistant Solicitor General
For Respondent/SECL	Mr. Sudhir Bajpayee, Advocate
For Respondent/State	Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. GA

¶15

Order On Board By

¶16

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶17

10/12/2018

¶18

Heard.

¶19

There is no dispute that the petitioner's land has been acquired

¶20

¶21

for the benefit of SECL under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). The dispute which subsists between the parties is in respect of adequacy of compensation and the interest payable on the amount of compensation. The second contest between the parties is about application of rehabilitation policy from the date on which the land was acquired or under the new policy which came into effect in the year 2012.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue concerning applicability of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy is governed by the order passed by this Court in the matter of Ku. Rattho Bai & Another Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Others {(WPS No.432/2011, decided on 23.7.2015}, while the same is disputed by the respondents.

¶23

Insofar as the issue concerning adequacy of compensation and payment of interest is concerned, the petitioner has remedy of moving before the Tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Act.

¶24

Let the petitioner move before the Tribunal within a period of one month from today. On such application for grant of adequate compensation, the claim of the petitioner shall be decided on merits without raising plea of limitation.

¶25

For other relief in respect of applicability of rehabilitation policy and grant of employment under the said policy to a member of the petitioner's family or his dependents, the petitioner may move fresh representation before the respondent/SECL within a period of one

¶26

¶27

month, who in turn, shall decide the same, in accordance with law within a period of 3 months thereafter. The representation shall be decided by a reasoned order expressly dealing with the issue as to whether the order passed by this Court in Ku. Rattho Bai (referred to above) is applicable or not.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above stated terms.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Shyna

Setram v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Setram v. Union of India

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

Ku. Poonam Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Anjani Kumar Khare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. R. N. Netam Vs Subrat Sahoo

Girish Dewangan Vs the Election Commission of India

Raja Naresh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Syed Zia Jafar Vs Chairman Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin BANKand3O