Bombay High Court
Roopan Ravindra Dhote And Others vs Union Of India, Through Secretary, ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:4222-DB
1 901-J-1161-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 1161 OF 2018
PETITIONERS : 1 Roopam Ravindra Dhote
Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Post Kuchana, Tq. Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur
2. Shubham Ramesh Donge,
Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Post Kuchana, Tq. Bhadrawati,
Distt. Chandrapur
3. Sau. Rakhee Thakare,
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Rasa Gonsa, Tq. Wani,
Dist. Yavatmal
4. Amol Devrao Dhawas,
Aged about 25 years,
Occ. Agriculturist
R/o Naglon, Post. Kchana,
Tq. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur
Vs.
RESPONDENTS : 1 Union of India, Through Secretary,
Ministry of Coal, New Delhi
2 District Collector, Chandrapur
3 Chairman cum Managing Director,
WCL, Seminary Hills, Civil Lines,
Nagpur
2 901-J-1161-2018.odt
4 Area General Manager,
WCL, Majari Area, Kuchana
Township, Tq. Bhadravati, Dist.
Chandrapur
Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mrs. J.Y. Ghurde, AGP for respondent No. 2.
Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. K.N. Shukul & Mr. Raghav
Tiwari, Advocates for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : 17th APRIL, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith. Mrs. Sirpurkar appears for the petitioners.
Mrs. Chandurkar appears for respondent No. 1, Mr.
Ghurde, learned AGP appears for respondent No.2 and
Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel
appears for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 instructed by
Mr. Shukul, learned counsel.
2. By this petition the petitioners who claim to
be the owners of the land of survey no. 61/5A, 61/5B,
61/5C, 61/5D under saledeeds dated 7.12.2015,
31.12.2015 and two gift deeds dtd. 22.6.15 and
15.5.2015, all situated at village Naglone, Tahsil
3 901-J-1161-2018.odt
Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur seek a direction, to the
respondents 3 and 4 to acquire the same and to grant
appropriate compensation in that regard and also
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs each towards damages or
in the alternative to remove material dumped on the
land of the petitioners and to grant a clear access to
their above mentioned fields. It also seeks compensation
of Rs.5.00 Crores by way of an amendment permitted
by the order dated 30.8.2022 and various other reliefs.
3. It is the contention of Mrs. Sirpurkar,
learned Counsel for the petitioners that though the
respondents 3 and 4, claim to have acquired the
aforesaid lands, under the notification 18.10.2011
(page 17) which was issued in exercise of the power
under Section 9(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act 1957 (hereinafter
for the sake of brevity referred to as the CBA), however,
in fact, there was no such acquisition at all, on account
of the fact that the aforesaid survey numbers were not
included in the said notification for which she invites
our attention to the plot Nos. of village Naglone, as
enumerated in the schedule to the said notification
4 901-J-1161-2018.odt
(p20) which only includes plot/survey Nos. 61/1, 61/2,
61/3 and 61/4. She therefore, submits that the action
on part of the respondents in excavating the entire
surrounding area has led to obstruction of the approach
way of the petitioners to the aforesaid lands owned by
them and as also caused dumping of the overburden on
the said lands, thereby rendering them infertile and
unusable for agricultural activity on account of which
the petitioners are also entitled for grant of
compensation for having been deprived the use of their
own land on account of the aforesaid activity by the
respondents 3 and 4.
4. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel
for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submits, that since the
notification dated 18.10.2011 also indicates boundary
description, it has to be presumed that the entire area
within the boundaries stands acquired and therefore,
mere non mention of the aforesaid survey numbers in
the Notification dated 18.10.2011 would be of no
consequence. He further submits, that it is a settled
position of law that boundaries prevail over a plot
number and therefore, on this ground also, the above
5 901-J-1161-2018.odt
proposition as canvased by him needs to be upheld. For
this he relies upon Raghuvir Kashinath Kerkar Vs.
Drakshyani Vishwanath Kerkar, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom.
2146 (Para 52). He however, fairly does not dispute
the proposition that if the lands of the petitioners are to
be acquired then they would be entitled for
compensation and so also to all the benefits of the
policies as are applicable in this regard. It is however
his contention that since the land already stood vested
on account of the notification dated 18.10.2011, the
subsequent sale and gift deeds of the year 2015 would
not confer any right upon the present petitioners, to
claim any compensation or for that matter any benefit
of any policy which may be in-vogue. It is also his
contention by inviting our attention in the table to the
schedule to the notification dated 18.10.2011 (p20)
that the area is indicative on account of the fact that
what is stated therein is an approximation of the total
area within the boundaries. It is also contended that no
objection u/s 8 of the CBA has been filed by the
petitioners nor any claim for any compensation u/s
13(7) has been made. He therefore, submits that on
6 901-J-1161-2018.odt
account of the above position, since the lands of the
petitioners are covered under the notification dated
18.10.2011, there is no merit in the petition, which is
required to be dismissed with costs.
5. Mr. Ghurde, learned AGP does not dispute,
that the petitioners are the owners of the lands of
survey 61/5A, 61/5B, 61/5C, 61/5D, on the basis of the
above mentioned saledeeds and gift deeds. He
therefore, submits, that since title to the aforesaid lands
has been derived by the instant documents, all that
needs to be seen is whether these lands are covered by
the notification dtd. 18.10.11.
6. On 30.8.2022, while granting leave to
amend, the following position was recorded:
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Leave to amend the prayer clause in the Petition
is granted. Amendment be carried out within a
period of two weeks from today and amended copy
of the Petition be served upon the Respondents.
The Respondents are at liberty to file reply, if any,
to the amended portion within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
3. On 9th March, 2021 following order came to be
passed. " This Petition is pending since 2018. The
Petitioners, who are the owners of the lands
situated at village Naglon, are making a grievance
in respect of the mining activities of the
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and pray for directions to
7 901-J-1161-2018.odt
the Respondent-Authorities to acquire the lands of
the Petitioners and to pay compensation to them
and also for a direction to the Respondent Nos.2
and 3 to remove the material stated to be dumped
on the lands of the Petitioners and to clear the
access to the Petitioners' lands. 2. It is the
contention of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the
mining activities are being carried out on the lands
acquired by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the
issue of access does not arise as the Petitioners
have separate access to their lands. 3. While the
issue regarding title and acquisition would be
decided, the immediate issues, such as providing
access and clearing the material dumped, needs to
be looked into on an emergent basis, more
particularly in view of the affidavit-inreply filed by
the Respondent No.2 on 22 October 2020. The Sub
Divisional Officer, Warora, on behalf of the
Respondent No.2 - District Collector, Chandrapur,
has stated in the affidavit-in - reply as under : "7. It
is submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer Warora,
Chandrapur on 20.10.2020 visited the land and
found that land in question has become totally
marshy and muddy and it cannot be put under
normal cultivation. A copy of the report submitted
by Sub Divisional Officer, Warora is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure R-2. This has
happened because of mining activity and over
burden of soil put towards the South side of the
said land. It was found that one nala has been
diverted from mining side towards north side of the
land and the said nala meets with another nala
which is coming from north-west side of the land.
The land in reference is between the over burden of
south side and nala of north side. Due to soil
flowing in rainy season the approach road to the
land of the petitioners has become marshy and
muddy and inaccessible to the Petitioners. It
appears that the said land could not be cultivated
due to the change in morphology because of water
stagnation which happened due to mining
activities." 8. It is submitted that the petitioner and
the respondent No.4 WCL can get the land
measured by making appropriate application as per
8 901-J-1161-2018.odt
law to the Deputy Superintendent of land record
Bhadrawati so that exact location and map of the
land can be provided. It is submitted that the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 acquiring body may pay
compensation to the petitioner for acquiring
remaining land admeasuring 4.45 HR or in the
alternative construct approach road going towards
the land of the petitioners as the said lands which
would come under the approach road have been
acquired by WCL and are belonging to WCL.....".
The Respondent No.2 has noted the position as
above but has taken no steps. It cannot be that only
a factual position is pointed out to the Court with
no follow up action.
4. We place the responsibility of taking
action/finding solution in respect of the above issue
on the Respondent No.2 - District Collector,
Chandrapur. The District Collector, Chandrapur
will take note of the above-mentioned affidavit
filed on his behalf by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Warora, and place before the Court the
suggestions/solutions that the District Collector,
Chandrapur deem appropriate, within a period of
three weeks. If necessary, subject to other pressing
commitments, the District Collector may consider
visiting the site.
5. To enable the Respondent No.2 - District
Collector, Chandrapur, to file an affidavit on the
above aspects, stand over to 30 March 2021." 4.
The aforesaid order was not complied with and,
therefore, on 3 rd January, 2022 another order was
passed, which reads thus : " Heard. 2. We have
gone through the order dated 9 th March, 2021 and
also the reply filed on 15 th April, 2021 by
respondent No.2 - District Collector, Chandrapur.
The reply apparently disobeys the directions given
by this Court in the order dated 9 th March, 2021.
While this Court had expected respondent No.2 to
play a proactive role in getting the land acquired by
WCL and due compensation paid to the petitioners,
the expectation is apparently shattered by the stand
taken by respondent No.2 in the said reply.
9 901-J-1161-2018.odt
Respondent No.2 in paragraph No.6 of the reply
has stated something about the position of law (this
is on the backdrop that this position of law is
known to everyone) and then has stated that
respondent No.2 is not an Authority to acquire the
land under "the said Act", which is the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
and that the appropriate Authority for acquisition
of the petitioners' land is respondent Nos.3 and 4
i.e. WCL. For such kind of position, now being
taken by respondent No.2, neither the petitioners
nor this Court would require any advice and that
too from respondent No.2, the District Collector,
Chandrapur. This Court, by placing responsibility of
taking action/finding solution in respect of the
issue raised in this petition upon respondent No.2,
wanted respondent No.2 to assist the cause of
justice by coming out with his own suggestions and
solutions so that the issue involved in the petition
could be resolved to the satisfaction of all the
stakeholders. But instead of giving any suggestions
and solutions, respondent No.2 has only spoken
about the position of law and his inability to do
anything in the matter by saying that he is not the
Authority to acquire the land and the appropriate
Authority is the WCL. 3. We must say it here that
no one had expected respondent No.2 to act as an
Authority to acquire the land and no one could
have said that respondent No.2 should take steps
for acquisition of the land and what was expected
by this Court from Respondent No.2, he being the
representative of the State Government at the
district level and also guardian of rights and
welfare of the citizenry of his district, to coordinate
between the petitioners and WCL and try to
workout an amicable settlement or some solution
acceptable to everybody. But that is not done by
respondent No.2. 4. In fact, in the first half, when
this case came up for hearing, learned AGP
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 wanted to
take some time for seeking instructions, but this
Court then made a request to her to get in touch
with District Collector, Chandrapur for placing
before this Court his suggestions, but the learned
10 901-J-1161-2018.odt
AGP did not contact the District Collector,
Chandrapur thinking that the latest affidavit filed
by respondent No.2 was sufficient in the matter. In
fact, this affidavit, according to us, prima facie
violates the directions given by this Court and in
ordinary course of circumstances would warrant
issuance of notice for initiation of contempt
proceedings against the District Collector,
Chandrapur, but before doing that, now we would
like to give one more opportunity to respondent
No.2 to comply with the directions issued by this
Court on 9 th March, 2021 and this is being done at
the request of the learned AGP. 5. Meanwhile, we
also request learned Counsel Shri Kartik Shukul for
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to seek appropriate
instructions from Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 6. Stand
over to 17 th January, 2022." 5. The documents
placed before us indicate that pursuant to the order
dated 3rd January, 2022, there were meetings and
communications between the Respondents. The
additional affidavit has been filed by Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 mentioning therein that the property
in issue i.e. Plot No.61/5 falls within the existing
acquired boundary as well as within the notified
area and within the notified boundary of Plot No.
61 (composite). The total area including Plot No.
61 (composite) as shown in the acquisition plan
dated 24th May 2011 has been already acquired
vide notification dated 22nd October, 2011. It is
then submitted that the land having been already
acquired, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have
principally agreed to pay compensation at par with
other land owners to the legitimate owners who
held the land prior to the date of Section 9 (1)
Notification i.e. prior to 22nd October, 2011.
Thereafter the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 are
referred, to submit that once the land is notified
under Section 9(1), the rights, title, interest and
physical possession of land vests absolutely with
the Central Government and, therefore, any
division of the subjected land and alteration of
boundaries is bad in law and not tenable.
11 901-J-1161-2018.odt
6. Thus, the modified stand is now taken by the
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the property in issue
has already been acquired and it falls within the
notified boundary of the plot No. 61 (composite). It
is also the case of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that
the Petitioners, after notification dated 22nd
October, 2011, could not have purchased the
property in issue in view of the provisions of the
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
Act, 1957.
7. To our mind, the stand taken by the Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 is known to the Respondent Nos.3 and
4 to be not tenable. Admittedly, in the Notification
dated 24th May, 2011, survey number 61
(composite) is not included. What is included is
survey Nos. 61/1, 61/2, 61/3 and 61/4 but not
Survey No. 61/5. Even otherwise having heard
both sides and having put certain queries, what
transpires is that the Survey No. 61/5 is not the
part of the Notification dated 24th May, 2011 and
is thus not acquired under the law. There is no
dispute that the amount of compensation has not
been offered by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the
previous owner so also the Petitioners. The learned
Counsel Mr. Shukul has made a statement that
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 will be happy to pay the
amount of compensation to the Petitioners, if the
previous owner has no objection. However, upon
enquiry, he has stated that the Respondent Nos.3
and 4 of their own have not offered such
compensation to the Petitioners or previous
owners.
8. We have taken note of previous orders and the
modified stand taken by the Respondent Nos.3 and
4. We have requested Mr. Shukul to take
instructions from the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as to
whether they intend to acquire the land in issue, to
which, upon instructions, he submits that the
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would not acquire the
land as it is not required.
9. This stand is taken by the Respondent Nos.3 and
12 901-J-1161-2018.odt
4 knowing fully well that the land in issue has
become uncultivable because of the marshy and
muddy position of the ground. The Petitioners have
no approach road to go to their field and that
alternative road is not feasible. According to the
Respondent No.2 there is no better solution
available than to acquire the Petitioners' land by
the Respondent - WCL. In fact, in the meeting
dated 7/1/2022, the General Manager of the
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 informed the Respondent
No.2 - Collector that the process of acquisition of
the land in issue will be completed in two months.
Despite such status, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4
have now taken a stand that the Petitioners' land is
not required and, therefore, the WCL would not
acquire the land. This stand, in our view, amounts
to exploitation of the Petitioners.
10. In view of above, we have shown our
inclination to direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to
remove the material dumped upon the Petitioners'
land within seven days, to which the learned
Counsel Mr. Shukul urged to expand the time limit.
We have then requested Mr. Shukul to take
instructions from the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as to
how much time would it take to remove the
dumped material, but while doing so, we have also
opined that more the time sought would indicate
the quantum of material dumped upon the
Petitioners' land. Mr. Shukul took instructions and
reverted back with a statement that the boundaries
of the property in issue i.e. Survey No.61/5 will
have to be demarcated and the exact location of the
land will have to be identified by the concerned
and thereafter the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 will
issue tender for removal of the dumped material.
11. The changed stand, in our view, speaks
volumes about conduct of the Respondent Nos.3
and 4. On the point of identification of land, Mr.
Pathan, the learned AGP has drawn our attention
to the reply filed by the Respondent No.2. In
paragraph No.4 following pleadings have been
made : " It is submitted that, during the course of
13 901-J-1161-2018.odt
visit it is observed that, Survey Nos.61/5A, 61/5B,
61/5C and 61/5D are located in the middle
positions of other subdivisions of Survey Nos. 61/1,
61/2 and 61/3. It is further observed that, the
boundaries of Survey Nos.61/5A, 61/5B, 61/5C
and 61/5D are as below : a) On East side = Survey
No.61/1. b) On West side = Survey No.61/4. c) On
South side = Survey No.64 and d) On North side =
Nala. The copy of map showing the four boundaries
of the Petitioners' land is annexed as Annexure-R-2
herewith this reply."
12. He has then referred to the Spot Inspection
Report dated 17th March, 2021. The General
Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Respondent
No.2 - Collector, Chandrapur, Sub Divisional
Officer, Warora, Tahsildar, Bhadrawati, Deputy
Superintendent of Land Records, Warora etc. have
inspected the spot. The learned AGP would submit
that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are, therefore,
fully conversant with the location of the land in
issue. Mr. Shukul, however, would maintain that
the Survey No.61/5 requires measurement and
proper identification for removal of the material.
13. We may note here that the Petition has been
filed in the month of February-2018. The
Petitioners have pleaded that the Respondents have
acquired the adjoining land of all the three sides of
survey No. 61/5, but for the reason best known to
them, did not acquire the land owned by the
Petitioners. The Petitioners have blamed
Respondents for blockage of the pathway,
obstruction to cultivation and using the land as a
dumping ground. The Petitioners have made
several representations dated 29/2/2016,
25/5/2016 and 15/11/2016 in this regard. It is
also pleaded that mining work has begun from
June 2016 and since then no cultivation has been
undertaken on the petitioners' land. Thus the
trigger point appears to be 29/2/2016. The above
facts are noted, because during the course of
argument Mr. Shukul has taken a defence that the
present status of the land has been disclosed after
14 901-J-1161-2018.odt
the interim order dated 9th March, 2021 was
passed by this Court.
14. According to us, the litigant like Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 ought to have taken note of the
pleadings made by the Petitioners and ought to
have redressed the grievance of the Petitioners of
its own. We do not expect the authorities of WCL to
litigate like a private party. The Respondent - WCL
has acquired entire land except the Petitioners'
land. The location of the Petitioners' land is clearly
spelt out in the reply filed by the Respondent No.2.
The Officers of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have
inspected the land in issue. Thus, the land in issue
is identifiable.
15. We, accordingly pass following directions : (i)
The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall remove the
entire material dumped upon the Petitioners' land,
as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, on or
before 31st October, 2022. (ii) The Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 shall, if required, get the land
measured from the appropriate authority and may
also take assistance of the Petitioners to identify the
land. (iii) The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall restore
the land to its original status so as to enable the
Petitioners to cultivate the land. (iv) The
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall clear the access to
the Petitioners' land, as directed vide order dated
9th March 2021. (v) The Respondent No.2 shall
quantify the material dumped upon the land of the
Petitioners and submit report to that effect on or
before 30th September, 2022. (vi) The Respondent
No.2 shall monitor the entire process and submit
status Report of the land on or before 14th
November, 2022. (vii) We may consider, in due
course, granting compensation to the Petitioners in
the form of damages considering the stand taken by
the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, the period for which
the Petitioners' land has been unauthorizedly used
by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, and while fixing
the amount of compensation, we may take into
account, inter alia, the tender value and the time
that would be required to remove the material
15 901-J-1161-2018.odt
dumped upon the Petitioners' land.
7. Thereafter further time was sought to
remove the material. A report on behalf of respondent
No. 2 thereafter filed alongwith the Pursis 2.5.2023
Stamp No. 12/23 indicated that the overburden on the
land of the petitioners, has been cleared and a clear
access had been provided to the lands.
8. Yesterday we have heard the learned counsel
for the respective parties extensively. At the outset, it
was tried to be contended that the lands of survey 61/5
was not in existence at all on account of which we had
called for the original records, from the learned AGP.
The revenue records in respect of the land of survey No.
61 (original khasra no. 96) such as P1, P2 Adhikar
Abhilekh, 7/12 extracts and the mutation register were
made available to us. The original area of survey nos.
96/1 and 96/2 was respectively 14.35 and 16.31
totaling 29.66 acres. In fact Hissa Form No. 4 for
village Naglon, records survey No. 61, to be
admeasuring 9.70 and 3.00 Hectors i.e. total 12.70
hectors which by the order of the SDO Warora dtd.
26.7.2012 was corrected to 12.25 hectors. There are 4
16 901-J-1161-2018.odt
sale deeds in respect of the original land of khasra 61
(i) dated 14.4.79 for the area admeasuring 1.21 HR in
favour of Pandhari Jairam Dhawas, another saledeed
(numbered as 61/2),
(ii) dtd. 28.5.1979 of area 1.41 HR in favour of Ganu
Dharma Dhawas (numbered as 61/3)
(iii) dtd 28.5.79 admeasuring 0.81 HR in favour of
Ganpati Babuji Gote (numbered as 61/4)
iv) dated 28.5.79 of land admeasuring 4.45 HR by
Indirabai in favour of Shridhar Selote. The revenue
records indicate the recording of these entries, in the
mutation register as well as the 7/12 extracts, as far
back as 1979. In fact, the 7/12 register, in respect of
survey 61/5 indicates an entry in the name of Namdeo
s/o Gangaram Dhawas which was prior in point of time
to 19.6.1983 as it stood deleted on that date by
mutation entry no. 22. The State has also supported
the stand of the petitioners regarding existence of the
aforesaid lands. If an arithmetical calculation is done in
regard to the area of the original Khasra nos. 96/1 and
96/2 in comparison with the four sale deeds in respect
of Survey Nos. 61/1, 61/2, 61/3, 61/4 it would be
17 901-J-1161-2018.odt
apparent that the original land owners were still left
with land admeasuring 4.30 HR approximately which
has been sold by them subsequently and has been
renumbered as survey 61/5. The respondents 3 and 4
have filed their submissions, on 4.2.2022, in which vide
para 4 they have not disputed the existence of the land
of survey no. 61/5. All that is being disputed, is that
the entitlement of the petitioners for the benefits arising
out the said lands as it is being contended that only the
erstwhile owners and not the petitioners would be
entitled to such benefits on account of the notification
u/s 9(1) of the CBA dtd. 18.10.2011 as the aforesaid
land, stood included in the said notification.
9. It is therefore, apparent that the existence of
the land survey 61/5 (which stands divided into S.No.
61/5A, 61/5B, 61/5C & 61/5-D) now becomes an
undisputed position. The transfer of these land into 4
parcels by the aforesaid salededs and gift deeds is also
recognized by the respondent No.2 State on account of
the entries in the revenue records.
10. It is therefore necessary to consider whether
the lands of survey no. 61/5A to 61/5D were included
18 901-J-1161-2018.odt
in the notification dated. 18.10.2011. A perusal of the
notification dated 18.10.2011 (p19) would indicate that
not only it describes the approximate total area, which
is to be acquired, from the villages of Palsagaon,
Shivjinagar, Naglone and Patala, but it specifically
mentions the survey numbers of these villages, which
are to be acquired. Though boundary description of
these villages have been given beneath, in our
considered opinion, since specific survey numbers are
indicated in the said notification, it cannot be said that
all the lands, in the boundaries stand acquired, even if,
they are not mentioned by individual survey numbers in
the said notification. This is so for the reason, that
under Section 4 of the CBA the notification under
Section 4(1) has to give brief description of the land
and state its approximate area. Section 7(1) of the CBA
further mandates, that consequent to the preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) and the prospecting
done thereafter, if the Central Govt is satisfied that coal
is obtainable in whole or any part of the land notified
under sub Section 1 of Sec. 4, it may within a period of
2 years from the date of the said notification or such
19 901-J-1161-2018.odt
further time not exceeding a year in aggregate which is
required to be notified in the gazette, give notice of its
intention to acquire the whole or any part of the land or
of any rights in or over such land as the case may be.
Sub-Section 2 of Section 7 further mandates that if no
notice to acquire land or any rights in or over such land
is given under Sub Section 1 of Section 7 within the
period allowed thereunder, the notification issued
under Section 4(1), shall cease to have any effect on the
expiration of 3 years from the date thereof. Section 8(1)
thereafter provides a right to the land owner or a
person interested in any land which is the subject of the
notification under Section 7 to lodge an objection
within 30 days of the notification regarding the
acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of
any rights in or over such land, which objection in terms
of Section 8(2), has to be made to the competent
authority in writing who is then bound to give such
objector an opportunity of being heard either in person
or by legal practitioner and thereafter, make such
enquiry, if any, as the competent authority seems
necessary and then thereafter to submit a report to the
20 901-J-1161-2018.odt
Central Government. Section 9 speaks about declaration
of acquisition by the Central Govt. upon being satisfied
after consideration of the report under Section 8 that
any land or rights in or over such land should be
acquired, to make a declaration to that effect. It would
therefore, be obvious that for the purpose of making the
provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 9 effective, it is
necessary, for the notification under Section 4(1) or for
that matter under Section 7(1) of the CBA, to ensure
that the particular survey number is mentioned therein,
for only in such a case, can the owner of the survey
number acquire knowledge about the intent to acquire
land and thereupon lodge objection, if any. If this is not
so, then the entire object and purpose of sec 8, of the
CBA would be rendered redundant resulting in an
owner of a land being deprived of the statutory right to
object under Section 8. We are, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the notification under Section
7(1) of the CBA has to include the concerned survey
number, which the Central Govt proposes to acquire
and failure to include such number in such notification,
or in the subsequent declaration under Section 9(1),
21 901-J-1161-2018.odt
would result in the land which is not so included in the
said notifications, being excluded from acquisition.
11. The principle that boundaries should prevail
over the survey number, would not be attracted in the
instant case, as this is not a dispute between two
individuals regarding the extent of area held by each
one, but is an action, which results, in deprivation of
the legal right to own and possess immovable property,
which cannot be taken away unless due process of law
has been followed, as such a right, has been guaranteed
under Article 300A of the Constitution. Since the
respondents 3 and 4 specifically admit to the existence
of the land of survey no. 61/5 A to D, as indicated
above, in case, they wanted to acquire the same, the
notification under Section 9(1) of the CBA dated
18.10.2011, ought to have included the said lands,
which as indicated above, are not so included. The
vesting as contemplated by Section 10 of the CBA
would therefore, be restricted to lands which are
specifically mentioned by their survey numbers in the
notification under Section 9(1) of the CBA and not
otherwise.
22 901-J-1161-2018.odt
12. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel
for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been unable to point
out any provisions in the CBA which indicates any
restriction for transfer of lands as included in
notification under Sections 4(1) and 7(1) of the CBA.
The restriction, from transfer, would therefore, be
applicable consequent to the publication of notification
under Section 9(1) of the CBA and not otherwise.
13. It is therefore, apparent that since the lands
of survey Numbers 61/5A, 61/5B, 61/5C, 61/5D are
not included in notification under Section 9(1) of the
CBA, they have not vested in the Central Government
and the petitioners continue to hold title to the same on
the basis of the two sale deeds and two gift deeds
referred to above.
14. The position has also come on record, that at
one point of time, the petitioners were cultivating the
said fields, which is also reflected from the entries in
that regard, in the 7/12 extract, the original of which is
produced for our inspection by the learned AGP, which
is from the years 1995-96 to 2016-17 and indicate
cultivation by taking rabbi and kharip crops by the
23 901-J-1161-2018.odt
petitioners. The dumping of overburden upon the said
lands by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, is no longer a
matter of dispute in view of the report of the
respondent No. 2 filed on record alongwith the Pursis
dated 02.5.2023 which indicates, that the material
dumped in the petitioners land was measured on
21.9.2022 and came to 2,16,924.73 CuM. Such a huge
quantity of overburden running into lakhs of CuM
cannot come overnight over the lands and therefore, it
will be reasonable to presume that it has been dumped
into the lands of the petitioners over a substantial
period of time. The clearance of the lands of this
overburden is a position which has occurred on
21.9.2022 as per the report by the SDO, Warora which
is filed alongwith the Pursis dated 02.5.2023.
15. The above discussion would therefore,
indicate that the lands of survey number 61/5A 61/5B
61/5 C 61/5 D, are not the subject matter of the
notification dated 18.10.2011 and therefore, continue
to be owned and possessed by the petitioners, on
account of the removal of the overburden as indicated
above, and are not affected by any of the provisions of
24 901-J-1161-2018.odt
the CBA. This would also indicate to us that for a
substantial period of time in view of the report by the
SDO alongwith the Pursis dated 2.5.2023, their
agricultural cultivation was obstructed on account of
the overburden dumped by the respondents 3 and 4
upon the said lands.
16. Though it is sought to be contended by the
learned Counsel for the petitioners that the acquisition
of the aforesaid lands, could be directed by adverting to
Section 82 in Chapter XI of the RTFFLR Act, it is
however apparent, that the RTFFLR Act is not
applicable to acquisitions under the CBA, in view of the
fact that the said enactment is included at Sr. 11 in the
IVth Scheduled of the RTFFLR Act. Though Dr.
Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner had
adverted to two communications by the Government of
India in the Department of Ministry of Coal dated
04.10.2018 and 30.03.2018 to contend, that the
provisions of the RTFFLR Act are being adopted by the
Ministry of Coal for determining the compensation,
which are taken on record and marked as X and Y, for
the purposes of identification, however, we find that
25 901-J-1161-2018.odt
these communications cannot be considered as a
substitute for the notification RTFFLR 105 (3) of the
RTFFLR Act so as to make it applicable for acquisitions
under the CBA. Though learned counsel for the
petitioners has also relied upon the Notification dated
28.08.2015 to contend that the RTFFLR Act has been
made applicable to proceedings under the CBA, we
however, find ourselves unable to agree with the same
as the said Notification has been issued in exercise of
the powers under Section 113 of the RTFFLR Act, which
cannot be a substitute for Notification under Section
115(3) of the said Act. The plea, therefore, that the
RTFFLR Act, is applicable for the purpose of acquisition
under the CBA, is rejected.
17. The only relief which the petitioners, would
be entitled, since it is not now disputed that the
possession and access of the lands aforesaid stand
restored to the petitioners as on 21.9.2022, would be
compensation for they being deprived of its use for
some period of time. It is, however, also material to
note, that the exact period for which the petitioners,
were deprived of the use of the aforesaid land has not
26 901-J-1161-2018.odt
come on record with any sufficient clarity. In this
regard learned counsel for the petitioners invites our
attention to the reports of the SDO filed alongwith the
pursis to contend that the land is not suitable for
cultivation and therefore, the petitioners are entitled
for substantial compensation, for having being deprived
of the use of the land. She also invites our attention to
the photographs filed on record along with the pursis
dated 20.02.2025 contending, that there are huge
dumps on all four sides of the land which makes it
water-logged in rainy season and therefore
uncultivable. She further invites our attention, to the
report of the Committee, which is filed along with the
pursis dated 20.02.2025 which also indicates that the
lands in question are surrounded by dumps which have
height of approximately 30 mtrs. on the western and
southern side, which in the rainy season, flow into the
lands in question thereby making them unclutivable.
The report also suggests measures to be taken for
making the land cultivable, however the cost for the
same, is directed to be calculated separately from the
appropriate authority, which also indicates that the
27 901-J-1161-2018.odt
road which was created also needs repair.
18. Mr. Shukul, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the other hand relies upon
the report regarding the calculations about damages,
standing on account of excess rain fall in the Tahsil of
Parseoni in the month of July, 2024 to contend, that
the similar yardstick be adopted for the purpose of
determining the compensation, by adopting which the
compensation payable according to him would be not
more than Rs. 19,80,896/- to the respondents of all the
four lands.
19. The issue of determining compensation,
compensation is a vexed one and would require
multiple parameters to be considered, to be tested on
the touchstone of cross-examination which cannot be
determined in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. At the same time, it cannot be
denied that the petitioners, have been deprived of the
use of their lands at least from 2016 till 2022 in which
year it is claimed that the over burden was removed and
access was provided, We however find that the
situation of unutilization of the land in question still
28 901-J-1161-2018.odt
continues today and the threat of the overburden,
flowing into the land on continuous rain fall is a
continuous one, looming over the petitioners. The
difficulty in cultivation due to inundation and the over
flowing of the over burden into the land in question, is
also one which would add insult to the injury. In that
view of the matter, as of now, we fix the tentative
compensation to be paid to the petitioners, for non-
utilization of the lands in question, for the aforesaid
duration, at Rs.25,00,000/- per field, to be deposited by
the respondents Nos.3 and 4 in this Court within a
period of a week from today, which upon such deposit
shall be paid to the petitioners. We, however, make it
clear, that the actual compensation which the
petitioners claim, would be required to be determined,
in appropriate proceedings to be initiated by the
petitioners, as there are claims and counter claims and
contrary positions indicated in the reports too,
regarding the cultivability of the fields in question, the
expenses which would be required to restore them for
cultivation and so also the very question, whether they
are restorable, on all counts, the compensation would
29 901-J-1161-2018.odt
be different. We, therefore, dispose off the petition in
the above terms, leaving it open for the petitioners to
pursue their claims for determining the compensation
for non-utilization of their lands in question, before the
appropriate Court / authority as deemed fit and proper
by the petitioners.
Rule accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Belkhede / Deshmukh / MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/04/2025 17:23:11
