In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compensation claim for lands acquired by Central Coalfields Limited, the High Court dismissed the petition due to the non-appearance of the petitioners, directing them to seek appropriate legal remedies under the relevant statute.
Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.(C ) No. 1575 of 2011
Brishlal Mahto & Ors.
.... .. ... Petitioners
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited & Ors.
.. ... ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Petitioners : None For the Respondents : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection with it and submitted that audio and video qualities are good.
07/ 28.11.2022 .
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners.
Petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the Central Coalfields Ltd. and its officials for quashing the order dated 02.01.2010 passed by Estate Manager, B & K Division, Central Coalfields Ltd, Kargali whereby and whereunder the petitioners' claim for compensation against several Plots of Khata No.237, which were acquired by the Central Coalfields Ltd. in the year, 1983 by terms of notification dated 31.03.1983 has been rejected.
It appears that by terms of Notification dated 31.03.1983, Government of India through its Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, acquired amongst lands belonging to the petitioners.
It appears that several lands of the petitioners were acquired by the respondent company by terms of Notification dated 31.03.1983, details of which are being mentioned herein below:-
(a)That the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 0.90 acre were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Brishlal Mahto, by Hukumnama of 1945. Similarly the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 5.46 acres were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj in favour of Ram Kumar Mishra by Hukumnama of 1945. Thereafter the petitioners came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting paid rent to the State. Description of the said lands are given below:-
| Name of Land Looser | Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brishlal Mahto |
237 | 43 | 0.90 acre |
| (Petitioner No.1) | |||
| Ram Kumar Mishra | 237 | 43 | 5.46 acre |
| (Petitioner No.2) | |||
| Total …....... | 6.36 acres |
-2-
(b) That the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 1.26 acre and Plot No.43, area 5.19 acres, total being 6.45 acres were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Narayan Mishra (Petitioner No.3) by Hukumnama of 1945. Thereafter the petitioner came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting paid rent to the State. Description of the said lands are given below:-
| Name of Land Looser | Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Narayan Mishra |
237 | 142 | 1.26 acre |
| (Petitioner No.3) | |||
| 43 | 5.19 acre | ||
| Total …....... | 6.45 acres |
(c)That the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 7.53 acres were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Majaraj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Ram Kumar Mishra (Petitioner no.1) by Hukumnama of 1945. Thereafter the petitioner came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting paid rent to the State. Description of the said lands are given below:-
| Name of Land Looser | Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Kumar Mishra | 237 | 43 | 7.53 acre |
| (Petitioner No.2) | |||
| Total …....... | 7.53 acres |
(d) That the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 2.67 acres, Plot No.142, area 1.46 acres and Plot No.363, area 1.24 acres, total being 5.46 acres were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Chandni Devi (Petitioner no.4) by Hukumnama of 1945. Thereafter the petitioner came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting paid rent to the State. Description of the said lands are given below:-
| Name of Land Looser | Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chandni Devi |
237 | 43 | 2.76 acre |
| (Petitioner No.4) | |||
| 142 | 1.46 acre | ||
| 363 | 1.24 acre | ||
| Total.......... | 5.46 acre |
-3-
(e)That the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 3.60 acre were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Ram Kumar Mishra (Petitioner no.1) by Hukumnama of 1945. Similarly the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.1504, area 1.86 acres and Plot No.43, area 3.30 acres, total being 5.16 acres, were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Narayan Mishra (Petitioner No.3) by Hukumnama of 1945. Thereafter the petitioners came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting paid rent to the State. Description of the said lands are given below:-
| Name of Land Looser | Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Kumar Mishra | 237 | 43 | 3.60 acre |
| (Petitioner No.2) | |||
| Narayan Mishra | 237 | 1504 | 1.85 acres |
| (Petitioner No.3) | |||
| 237 | 43 | 3.30 acres | |
| Total.......... | 8.76 acres |
(f)That the lands of Khata No.237, Plot No.43, area 3.26 acres, Plot No.332, area 1.76 acres and Plot No.363, area 0.44 acres, total being 5.46 acres were settled by the ex-landlord (i) Sri Hari Charan Chatraj (ii) Maharaj Chatraj, and (iii) Uma Shankar Chatraj, all sons of Harihar Chatraj, in favour of Mohan Ram Hazam (Petitioner No.5) by Hukumnama of 1945. Thereafter the petitioner came in possession and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting paid rent to the State. Description of the said lands are given below:-
| Name of Land Looser | Khata No. | Plot No. | Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohan Ram Hazam | 237 | 43 | 3.26 acre |
| (Petitioner No.4) | |||
| 332 | 1.76 acres | ||
| 363 | 0.44 acres | ||
| Total.......... | 5.46 acres |
It further appears that after settlement of the lands by grant of Hukumnama by the ex-landlord in the year, 1945, petitioners have paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting of the lands under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 have also paid rent to the State Government.
It also appears that under the provision of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 compensation is payable in lieu of acquisition of
-4-
lands and employment is also provided.
It also appears from the writ petition that petitioners have came up before this Hon'ble Court earlier vide W.P.(C) No.2146/2009, which was disposed of by coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the respondent-M/s. CCL to consider the petitioner's claim and pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
If the petitioners' claim is found genuine, the amount must be paid to the petitioners with statutory interest within a period of six weeks.
If the respondent- M/s. CCL finds any ground for refusing the petitioners' claim, they shall pass a speaking order and serve a copy of the same to the petitioners within the aforesaid period.”
On the basis of that the Estate Manager has passed an order on 02.01.2010, refusing the claim of the petitioners under Ref. No.GM(B&K)/Rev/2010/01 whereby the respondents have categorically stated that rent receipts issued in later years bears descending serial nos. though issued from the same foil.
It has also been mentioned in the order that Sri Narayan Mishra's is present age is 72 years. Sri Mishra acquired lands from ex-zamindar in the year 1945 when his age was only 8 years. Similarly Mohan Ram Hazam's present age is 78 years. He acquired lands from ex-zamindar in the year 1945 when his age was 14 years, as such, these are not acceptable.
Similarly Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra's present age is 40 years. He acquired 4.56 acres of land from Bhudan Yagya Committee through Bhudan Case No.4 of 198485 in the year 1983 while his age was only 14 years and in the year 1983 his father Ram Kumar Mishra had more than 15 acres of land in his possession. Moreover earlier also Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra had acquired 10.01 acres of land from Bhudan Yagya Committee through Bhudan Case No.14 of 1982-83. This is unfair managing of land from Bhudan which is primarily meant for landless people, as such, claim has been refused.
Learned counsel for the respondents- CCL, Ms. Swati Shalini has submitted, that counter-affidavit has already been filed by Shri Krishna Singh, S/o Sri Mangal Singh on 07.12.2011 stating therein, that these documents are not genuine, as such, petitioners have legal recourse under Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 before the competent authority, as such, writ petition may be dismissed.
-5-
Though nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners, it appears that petitioners have to establish their case before the competent court of law, as such, petitioners may avail the legal remedy available under the law.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of compensation claim for acquired lands should be entertained in the absence of petitioner appearance.
Brishlal Mahto & Ors.
Central Coalfields Limited & Ors.
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
