Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 29 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
F.A(M) No.115 of 2018
Reserved on 21.09.2021
Pronounced on 29.09.2021
1. Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Ram Pratap Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Ratnaprabha Swarnakar, W/o Shri Gopal Swarnakar, Aged About 52
Years R/o Village Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Jamuna Bai W/o Shri Premlal Thawait, Aged About 52 Years R/o
Village Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
4. Ku. Savita D/o Premlal Thawait, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
5. Smt. Sarla Thakur W/o Rai Singh Thakur, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village
Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
6. Arun Kumar Pandey S/o Late Sudarshan Pandey, Aged About 53 Years
R/o Village Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
7. Smt. Nandini Jain W/o Shri Virendra Kumar Jain, Aged About 35 Years R/o
CSEB Colony, Qtr. No. Nf/19, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
8. Smt. Mini Jha W/o Amardeep Jha, Aged About 31 Years R/o Qtr. No.
400/A, Sector - 5, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Managing Director, S.E.C.L.
Gevra Project, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
2. General Manager, S.E.C.L. Gevra Area Project Gevra, Police Station
Gevra, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
3. Collector, District Korba (C.G.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Prescribed Officer / Land Acquisition
Officer, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
5. Chamra Das S/o Sukrit Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Naraibodh,
Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
6. Shiv Prasad S/o Shobhitram, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Naraibodh,
Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
7. Budhwar Sai, S/o Maya Ram, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Naraibodh,
Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
2
8. Khem Sai S/o Budhram, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Naraibodh,
Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
9. Samelal S/o Kejuram Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Naraibodh,
Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
10. Suraj Kunwar D/o Nanki Dau, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Barpali,
Post Gevra, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba
Chhattisgarh
11. (Deleted ) Kunjram (Dead ) As Per Court Or. Dt. 10-05-2019.,
---Respondents
For Appellants: Shri Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2: Shri Vinod Deshmukh along with Shri
Ritesh Giri, Advocate.
For Respondents No.3 & 4/State: Smt. Smita Jha, P.L.
For Respondent Nos.6 to 11: None, though served.
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
C A V Judgment / Order
1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Applicants under Section 20 (1) of
the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (henceforth
referred to as 'the Act of 1957') questioning the legality and propriety of the order
dated 17.08.2017 passed in P.T.T No.05/2017, whereby the Part Time Tribunal
constituted under the Act of 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') has
rejected their applications filed under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957. The
parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the
Court below.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Applicants have initiated
the proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 seeking compensation
with regard to the property in question acquired by Non-Applicants No.1 & 2-
South Eastern Coalfields Limited (henceforth referred to as 'the SECL) by
submitting, inter alia, that they are the owners of it as they purchased the same
from its owners i.e. Non-Applicants No.5 to 11 (name of Non-Applicant No.11-
Kunjram has been deleted as per the order dated 01.05.2019) in the year 2010-
11 under the registered deeds of sale. According to them, they came to know in
the year 2015 that the property in question purchased by them has been
acquired by SECL, Gevra and the amount of compensation is going to be
disbursed to their vendors, which led to filing of the representations before the
competent authority of the said Company i.e. SECL but the same have not been
decided. Therefore, they have been constrained to file the claim before the
Tribunal seeking amount of compensation with regard to the property in question
as acquired by them under the registered deeds of sale.
3. The aforesaid claim has been contested by the SECL on the ground that
since the alleged sales were made after issuance of Notification dated
03.06.2010 under Section 9 of the Act of 1957 and since the property in question
was vested with the Central Government free from encumbrances under Section
10 of the said Act of 1957, therefore, the claim as made is not maintainable and
liable to be rejected. While, the vendors of the Applicants have accepted their
claim and stated that they have no objection if the amount of compensation is
disbursed to them.
4. After considering the pleadings of the parties, it has been observed by the
Tribunal that since there is no dispute between SECL and Non-Applicants No.5
to 11 i.e. the erstwhile owners of the property in question with regard to the
amount of compensation, therefore, the Applicants are not entitled to be
compensated under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 and accordingly, the claim
has been dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the finding of the Tribunal
holding that the Applicants are not entitled to obtain the amount of compensation
under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 is apparently contrary to law. While
referring to the provisions prescribed under Section 17 of the Act of 1957, it is
contended that since there was no dispute with regard to the property in question
between the Applicants and their vendors, therefore, there was no occasion for
the Tribunal to reject their claim. The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, liable to
be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents have
supported the order impugned as passed by the Tribunal.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record
carefully.
8. The question which arises for determination in this Appeal is as to whether
the Tribunal has committed an illegality in dismissing the claim of the Applicants
despite the fact that the vendors of theirs have raised no dispute with regard to
their entitlement to receive the amount of compensation as provided under
Section 17(2) of the Act of 1957 ?
9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Applicants have purchased
the property in question from its vendors i.e. Non-Applicants No.5 to 11 under the
registered deed of sales as under:-
Sl. Names of Date of Names of Description of properties
No Applicants/Purchasers Purchase Vendors with area (in hectares)
1. Sanjay Kumar Singh/ 10.09.2010 Chamra Das Khasra No.364-0.040
Applicant No.1 Non-Applicant part of Khasra No.374-
No.5 0.040
Khasra No.440/3-0.174
2. Smt Ratna Prabha 25.03.2011 Shiv Prasad and Part of Khasra No.86-0.049
Applicant No.2 Lagan Bai, both Khasra No.255/1-0.016
son and Khasra No.454/1- 0.142
daughter of 459/1 0.036
Shobhit Ram part of Khasra No.512/1
Non-Applicant 0.008
No.6.
3. Smt Jamna Bai and 25.03.2011 Budhwar Sai Khasra No.127/7 0.202
Ku. Savita Non-Applicant part of Khasra No.212/8
Applicants No.3 & 4 No.7 0.049
4. Smt Sarla Thakur 04.05.2011 Khemsai Khasra No.346/5 0.016
Applicant No.5 Non-Applicant 460/4 0.113 517/1(x) 0.121
No.8
5. Arun Kumar Pandey 21.02.2011 Samaylal and 430/2 0.283
Applicant No.6 Jageshwar both
sons of Kejuram
Patel
Non-Applicant
No.9
6. Smt Nandini Jain 23.12.2011 Surju Kunwar Khasra No.221/8 0.239
Applicant No.7 Non-Applicant part of 276/1 0.012
No.10
7. Smt Mini Jha 16.12.2010 Kunjram 436/4 0.044
Applicant No.8 Non-Applicant
No.11
Note: His name
is deleted from
the cause title of
the memo of
Appeal as per
order dated
01.05.2019
10. It, thus, appears that the Applicants have purchased the property in
question under the aforesaid registered deeds of sale from their respective
vendors. It, however, appears to have been purchased after its acquisition by
SECL as it was acquired and vested with the Central Government vide
Notification dated 03.06.2010 which was issued under Section 9 of the Act of
1957. Although at the time of its acquisition, the Applicants were not the owners
of it, but nevertheless, their interests have not been disputed as evidenced by the
bare perusal of the written statements filed by their vendors, who have
undisputedly sold their interest over the property in question acquired by the said
SECL. Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is to be noted at this juncture, which reads
as follows:-
"17. Payment of compensation.--(1) Any
compensation payable under this Act may be
tendered or paid to the persons interested
entitled thereto, and the Central Government
shall pay it to them unless prevented by some
one or more of the contingencies mentioned in
sub-section (2).
(2) If the persons interested entitled thereto
shall not consent to receive it or if there be any
dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount of
compensation or the title to receive it or the
apportionment thereof, the Central
Government shall deposit the amount of
compensation with the Tribunal:
Provided that any person admitted to be
interested may receive such payment under
protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
[Provided further that every person who
claims to be an interested person (whether
such person has been admitted to be
interested or not) including the person referred
to in the preceding proviso shall be entitled to
prefer a claim for compensation before the
Tribunal:
Provided also that no person who has
received the amount otherwise than under
protest shall be entitled to prefer any such
claim before the Tribunal.]
(3) When the amount of compensation is not
paid or deposited as required by this section,
the Central Government shall be liable to pay
interest thereon at the rate of five per centum
per annum from the time the compensation
became due until it shall have been so paid or
deposited."
11. According to the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the amount of
compensation payable under this Act may be tendered or paid to the persons
who are interested and entitled for that unless restricted or prevented by any one
or more of the contingencies as provided in sub-section (2) of the aforesaid
provision. Since the title of the Applicants acquired under the above mentioned
sales were not disputed by their vendors nor of their entitlement to receive the
amount of compensation, therefore, in view of the said background, the Tribunal
had no option but to disburse the amount of compensation payable to the
Applicants with regard to their respective shares.
12. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the Applicants are entitled to
receive the amount of compensation with regard to their respective shares as
determined and payable under the Act of 1957. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
Priya/Anjani
