Bombay High Court
Smt. Shantabai Wd/O Dhondbaji ... vs Union Of India, Through Its ... on 1 December, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
3-WP1929.20-J-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1929 OF 2020
PETITIONERS : 1) Smt. Shantabai Wd/o Dhondbaji Shende,
Age-60 years, Occupation - Agriculturist,
2) Lakhpati S/o Dhondbaji Shende, Age-40
years, Occupation - Student,
Both R/o At-Singori, Po-Tamaswadi, Tah.
Parseoni, District Nagpur-441102.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1) Union of India, Through its Secretary of
Ministry of Coal, Government of India,
Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2) Coal India Limited, Through Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Coal Bhavan,
Premise No.04, M.A.R., Plot No.Af-Iii,
Action Area-1a, New Town, Rajarhat,
Kolkata-700156 (W.B.)
3) Western Coalfields Limited, Through its
Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal
Estate, Seminary Hills, Civil Lines,
Nagpur-440001.
4) Western Coalfields Limited, Through its
Chief General Manager, Nagpur-Area,
WCL Complex, Kasturbanagar, Jaripatka,
Nagpur-440014.
5) The Project Officer, Bhanegaon-Singori
KHUNTE
3-WP1929.20-J-Judgment 2/5
Open Caste Coal Mines Project, O/o. Sub
Area Manager, Bhanegaon-Singori Sub
Area, Bina, Tah.- Kamptee, Dist. -
Nagpur-441102.
6) Ratnamala D/o Moreshwar Dube, Age -
54 years, Occupation - Agriculturist,
7) Chhaya D/o Moreshwar Dube, Age - 42
years, occupation - Agriculturist,
Both 6 & 7 R/o Nagoba Galli, Chitar Oli,
Mahal, Nagpur-440002.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.G.D.Asole, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms Sushma counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
None present for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 01.12.2021
ORAL J U D G M E N T (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Though respondent Nos.6 and 7 are served, none appears on their
behalf.
KHUNTE
3-WP1929.20-J-Judgment 3/5
3. The whole claim of the petitioners regarding
employment against acquisition of the land owned by them is
based upon the petitioners being owners of the acquired land well
before publication of notification under section 4 of the Coal
Bearing (A & D) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of
1957").
4. It is the contention of respondent Nos.1 to 5 that the
petitioners were not the exclusive owners of the land acquired by
Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) before issuance of declaration
under section 9 of the Act of 1957 and therefore, the petitioners,
who became owners of the land acquired after such a declaration,
are not entitled to assert their rights for seeking one employment
for the land acquired by the WCL. The reason being that, as
submitted by Ms Sushma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
5, once declaration under section 9 of the Act of 1957 is issued,
the land in respect of which such declaration is issued stands
vested in WCL as per section 10 of the Act of 1957. Therefore, it
is also submitted that on the record of the WCL, the property
when it was acquired was jointly owned by the petitioners and
KHUNTE
3-WP1929.20-J-Judgment 4/5
respondent Nos.6 and 7 and other persons and so now there is a
dispute as regards seeking of employment and the same would
have to be sorted out inter se by these parties. It is also submitted
that if the dispute is sorted by these parties inter se and the name
of the person indicated by the parties, WCL would still provide
employment to such person, who has been agreed to be provided
employment mutually by the parties.
5. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioners'
ownership had not been crystallized till the year 2015, when
the suit filed in the year 2004 by the petitioners was
compromised and a consent decree was obtained, the property
acquired would have to be treated as one from the view point
of the WCL and now if any employment is to be made available to
any of the members of such a family, it is for the parties to
mutually agree in between themselves about the name of the
person, who could be provided employment and till that
happens, the petitioners cannot raise any claim against
respondent Nos.1 to 5 for providing separate employment to
the son of petitioner No.1.
KHUNTE
3-WP1929.20-J-Judgment 5/5
6. We thus find no merit in the petition. The petition
stands dismissed.
7. Rule stands discharged. No costs.
(ANIL L. PANSARE, J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J)
Signed By:GHANSHYAM S
KHUNTE
KHUNTE
Signing Date:02.12.2021 10:30
