Bombay High Court
Mahadeo S/O Sadashiv Nannaware ... vs Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur ... on 5 July, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1
5-7-2022-WP-3547-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3547 of 2020
Mahadeo S/o Sadashiv Nannaware and another
Versus
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Coal Estate, Nagpur,
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, and another
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders
and Registrar's order
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Petitioners.
Smt. M.R. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondents.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 5th JULY, 2022
1. We have heard this matter for quite some time.
2. It appears to us that the petitioner No.2 is now dependent
upon the petitioner No.1, especially after she lost her husband on
2-7-2016. The death of her husband was an unfortunate event. He
died after being attacked by a wild beast. We find that the petitioner
No.2 does not have any independent source of income. Therefore, she
would certainly be covered by the definition of 'family' prescribed in
the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Ltd. 2012
(for the sake of brevity, hereafter referred to as "the R & R Policy").
3. It is contended that on 8-2-2004, the date of which Section 9
notification under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 was issued, the petitioner No.2 was
dependent on her husband and her husband having not been
nominated for getting the employment, the petitioner No.2 would now
not be entitled to get any employment. Reliance is placed upon the
5-7-2022-WP-3547-2019.odt
R & R Policy, which deals with the eligibility criteria under
sub-clause (B) of clause 6. It is argued that only a family or person
shall be termed as 'displaced' and hence eligible for resettlement
benefits if such family or person has been a permanent resident and
ordinarily residing in the project area on the date of publication of
notification under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 read with Section 11 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. In our view, this definition only deals with the eligibility of
a person to seek employment under the R & R Policy and it has got no
connection whatsoever with a person who could be considered to be a
part of the family. In order to decide whether a person is a member of
family or not, it is only the definition of 'family' given in sub-clause (b)
of clause 4 of the R & R Policy which would clarify the issue in such
cases. This definition does not lay down that a member of the family,
who is dependent upon the land-owner, must be a person who is
dependent on the land-owner on the date of issuance of notification
under 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957. The question of dependency of a person on the land-owner
would have to be decided only when the time has arrived for
providing of employment.
4. In the present case, the respondents, on their own, never
offered any employment to the dependent-son of the petitioner No.1,
who was the husband of the petitioner No.2. On 8-2-2004, the date on
which Section 9 notification was issued, the son of the petitioner No.1,
was alive and he was otherwise eligible for getting the employment
under the R & R Policy. The R & R Policy also deals with the aspect of
compensation and rehabilitation entitlement option. A careful perusal
of this Policy with regard to providing of compensation to the
land-owners whose lands are acquired by the respondents for the
purposes of mining, shows that the land-owners are required to be
5-7-2022-WP-3547-2019.odt
paid compensation not only in terms of money but also in terms of
providing of employment. In other words, the compensation provided
under the R & R Policy has two parts; the first part relates to the
monetary compensation and the other part relates to providing of
employment. This being the nature of compensation provided to the
land-owners whose lands are acquired under the R & R Policy, there is
an obligation upon the respondents to not only pay the monetary
benefits but also to offer the employment to one of the members of the
family of the land-owners. It appears to us that this second part of the
obligation under the R & R Policy has not been fulfilled by the
respondents. It is contended that there is a possibility of the petitioner
No.1 of not nominating his son in the year 2004, when the time was
ripe for meeting such obligation. We do not think that any application
seeking employment is necessary to be made by the land-owner.
When the obligation is upon the acquiring body, it is for the acquiring
body to discharge it. As stated earlier, the obligation has twin aspects;
the first aspect is of monetary compensation and the second aspect is
providing of employment. It is, therefore, necessary for the
respondents to take into consideration the nature of compensation
that it provides to the land-owners whose lands are acquired by the
respondents under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 read with Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. Smt. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, has
placed reliance upon the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No.7235 of 2018 ( Mr. Dhanraj
Anandraojji Panchbudhe and others v. Coal India Limited and
another), decided on 11-3-2021. In that case, the family member, the
daughter of the land-owner, who was interested in seeking
employment, was not found to be residing with the land-owner and
5-7-2022-WP-3547-2019.odt
she was also a married person on the date on which Section 9
notification was issued. The issue involved in that petition was of a
discrimination made against a married daughter in the definition of
'family', which was challenged. Keeping in view such facts of the case
and such nature of challenge, the Division Bench, for the purpose of
that petition only, held that in order to be eligible to receive the
employment, the person must not only be the dependent but he or she
must also be residing with the land-owner at the time of issuance of
Section 9 notification. The Division Bench also made it clear in
Para 11 that it was not necessary to lay down any wider proposition of
law more necessary than the facts of that case. Therefore, we do not
think that this judgment would help the respondents at this juncture.
6. In the present case, we have already found that the petitioner
No.2, presently dependent upon the petitioner No.1, would be covered
by the definition of 'family' given under the R & R Policy. In addition
to that, the obligation of providing of employment has remained to be
fulfilled by the respondents.
7. We, therefore, request the learned counsel for the
respondents to take instructions in the matter.
8. Stand over for two weeks.
9. Steno copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel
for the respondents to act upon.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Lanjewar
Digitally Signed By :P D
LANJEWAR
Signing Date:05.07.2022
16:51
