Smt. Nandini Jain Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Present petition has been filed against the illegal, arbitrary and discrimination action on the part of the respondent authorities in not granting employment to the petitioner No.2 under SECL in lieu of land acquired, in spite of several requests made by the petitioners. The respondents No.1 & 2 have also not paid the compensation towards acquired land to the petitioner No.1 which is contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioners have been deprived from their property without payment of adequate compensation and is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to provide employment to the petitioner No.2 on account of acquisition of land of petitioner No.1 forthwith.

¶24

10.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, directing the respondent authorities to pay the compensation towards acquired land to the petitioner No.1 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of acquisition of land to its actual payment.

¶25

3

¶26

10.3. That any other relief/order which may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶27

Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner No.1 is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.. 221/8 and 276/1 admeasuring area 0.239 and 0.12 hectare situated at Village Naraibodh, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba and the aforesaid land was purchased by the petitioner No.1 through registered sale deed dated 29.12.2011 from one Suruj Kunwar. The said land was acquired by the respondent No.1 for mining purposes by issuing acquisition notice dated 03.06.2010 which were drawn in the name of Suruj Kunwar and the compensation was also paid to him. After coming into knowledge of the petitioner and other identically placed owners of the lands acquired, application under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Execution and Development) Act, 1957 was filed before the Tribunal for compensation in respect of the land acquired. Vide order dated 17.08.2017, the Tribunal has rejected the aforesaid application under Section 14(2) of the Act by holding that the Tribunal is not competent to pass any award for payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of the acquired land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and other identically placed landowners filed appeal before this Court in FA (M) No.115/2018 and vide order dated 29.09.2021, the appeal was allowed in favor of the petitioner and the identically placed land owners holding that they are entitled to receive compensation with regard to their respective shares as determined and payable under the Act, 1957. After

¶28

4

¶29

the said order, the petitioners made several requests before the respondent authorities but till date no employment has been proved to the petitioner No.2 in lieu of the land acquired.

¶30

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned action on the part of the resp0ndent authorities in not providing employment to the petitioner No.2 in lieu of acquired land is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the land owned by the petitioner NO.1 was acquired by the SECL authorities for mining purpose, but till date the authority has ot provided employment to the family member of the petitioner No.1 which is contrary to the policy of SECL. It is further submitted that the petitioner NO.2 is entitled for employment under the MP Rehabilitation Policy 1991 and the Chhattisgarh Model Rehabilitation Policy 2007 sine acquisition has been made in 2010, the petitioners are entitled for salary until regular employment is provided as per clause 11 of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 along with arrears. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the lands of the petitioner No.1 has been acquired by the SECL but till date not a single penny has been given towards compensation of the acquired land which is violative of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. He submits that while passing the order in FA(M) NO. 115/2-18 dated 29.09.2021 it has been held that the petitioner and other identically placed land owners are entitled to receive the compensation with regard to their respective shares as determined an d payable under the Act, 1957. He submits that similarly situated petitioners in identical case bearing WPC No. 3076/2016 this Court has

¶31

5

¶32

granted the relief which reads as under:

¶33

“64.The member of the affected family is entitled for resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy framed in that behalf by the Government and as such, the policy framed for rehabilitation of a land oustee must be just, fair, reasonable and consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 15.

¶34

Right of the land losers to get employment as per the rehabilitation policy is extremely important right and that has to be considered in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy in force on the date of acquisition of their land and subsequent change in policy will not take away their accrued right, if any, that has accrued to them by acquisition of their lands. Thus, the benefit of rehabilitation and employment to land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and denial of employment is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation / employment strictly in accordance with the policy applicable on the date of acquisition of their land i.e. the date of acquisition and such consideration should be made by SECL within 45 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶35

Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 contended that the claim of the petitioner No.1 seeking permanent employment in SECL for her son is not justified because the land in question was acquired by the notification under Section 9(10 of the Coal Bering Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 on 03.06.2010 and at the time of the said notification, Suruj Kunwar (respondent No.5) was the original land owner of the said land. It is contended that the sale of land in question

¶36

6

¶37

was made on 29.12.2011 ie. much after issuance of notification dated 3.06.2010 under Section 9 of the Act of 1957. therefore, the claim of the petitioners in respect of the employment is not maintainable. He further contended that the claim of the petitioner No.1 seeking permanent employment in SECL for her son, petitioner No.2 Tushar Jain is not justified. This is because the petitioner No.1 was not the bonafide owner of the land in question on the date of acquisition under Section 9 of the CBA Act, 1957 and therefore she cannot be treated as displaced perron in the light of the CI R & R Policy. This policy has been unanimously adopted, accepted and approved by the Ex-Officio Chairman of the DRRC ie. the Collector, Korba in the meeting held on December 2010.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts of the case and after perusing the order passed by this Court in FA(M) No. 115/2018 dated 29.09.2021 wherein it has been held as under:

¶39

“11. According to the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the amount of compensation payable under this Act may be tendered or paid to the persons who are interested and entitled for that unless restricted or prevented by any one or more of the contingencies as provided in sub-section (2) of the aforesaid provision. Since the title of the Applicants acquired under the above mentioned sales were not disputed by their vendors nor of their entitlement to receive the amount of compensation, therefore, in view of the said background, the Tribunal had no option but to disburse the amount of compensation payable to the Applicants with regard to their respective shares.”

¶40

Therefore, instead of keeping this petition pending, the petition may be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file appropriate

¶41

7

¶42

application before the respondents No.1 & 2/SECL raising all the grievances which have been raised in the present petition long with relevant documents within 15 days from today and in turn the respondents authorities shall decide the representation in an objective manner in accordance with law/rules/regulations within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they may be at liberty to file petition afresh before this Court.

¶43

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶45

suguna

Smt. Nandini Jain v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nandini Jain v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India

Shri Suryabhan Paratap Singh Chandrakar Vs Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat Rakhi

Manoj Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harish Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajesh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishwa Ratan Sinha Vs the State of Chhattisgarh