Bombay High Court
W.C.L. Thr. Chief General ... vs Shravan Gomaji Date, Chandrapur & ... on 14 July, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 995/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Smt. Pushpalata wd/o Harichandra Awari,
Aged Major.
2. Sandeep s/o Harichandra Awari,
Aged Major.
3. Sunil s/o Harichandra Awari,
Aged Major.
All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 1409/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Dadaji Bijram Pathade, Aged Major,
2. Meghraj Dadaji Pathade, Aged Major,
3. Bhojram Dadaji Pathade, Aged Major,
4. Dhanraj Dadaji Pathade,
All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 133/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:13:56 :::
-2-
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Suresh Ishwar Umate, Aged 38 years.
2. Shankar Ishwar Umate, Aged 36 years.
3. Ravikant s/o Ishwar Umate, Aged 32 years.
All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 1408/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Narayan Mukinda Bipte, Aged Major,
2. Sou. Sushila Narayan Bipte, Aged Major,
R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 147/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Sudhakar Narayan Dhawas, Aged Major,
2. Sou. Rekha Sudhakar Dhawas, Aged Major,
Both R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 148/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:13:56 :::
-3-
Respondents:- 1. Shravan Gomaji Date, Aged Major,
2. Mangesh Shravan Date, aged 25 years.
3. Gajanan Shravan Date,
All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 355/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Mahadeo Vithoba Buradkar, aged Major.
2. Madhukar Mahadeo Buradkar, aged 25 years.
Both R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 1360/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Pandurang Bapuji Awari, Aged Major.
2. Ravindra Pandurang Awari, Aged Major.
3. Subhash Pandurang Awari, Aged Major.
Both R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 422/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:13:56 :::
-4-
Respondents:- Anjanabai Madhukar Khamankar, Aged Major,
R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 1029/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Govind s/o Ganpat Askar, aged Major.
2. Gopal s/o Ganpat Askar, aged Major.
3. Ramkrishna s/o Ganpat Askar, Aged Major.
R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 129/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondent:- Sunanda Arun Bipte, Aged Major,
R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 149/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondent:- 1. Natthuji Narayan Bobde, Aged Major,
2. Sunil Natthuj Bobde, Aged Major.
3. Sou. Vanmala Natthuj Bobde, Aged Major.
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:13:56 :::
-5-
All R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
First Appeal No. 1410/2009
Appellant :-
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Through its Chief General Manager, Majri Area,
at & post Kuchna, Tahsil Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
Versus
Respondents:- 1. Maroti Shrawan Papde, Aged Major,
2. Santosh Maroti Papde, Aged Major.
R/o Kunada, Tah. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur.
=========================================
Mr. Ramesh Darda, counsel for appellants.
S/Shri W.G.Charde, N.G.Solao counsel for respondents.
=========================================
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 14
JULY, 2017.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT
All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment
as they give rise to common questions of facts and law.
1. 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
the respondents.
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
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 :-
(d) the expression "person interested" includes all persons
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;
Reading of definition of expression "person interested" would
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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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.
9. 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
case.
The point is thus answered as in the negative.
The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned
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.
JUDGE
nandurkar
