Jharkhand High Court
Mangar Mahto vs Chief Managing Director on 7 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
W.P.(S) No.833 of 2013
-------
1. Mangar Mahto
2. Suresh Mahto ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Chief Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited,
Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
2. General Manager, Kedla Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh Area, Hazaribagh.
3. Revenue Officer, Central Coalfields Limited
Hazaribagh Area, Hazaribagh.
4. Personnel Officer, Central Coalfields Limited,
Hazaribagh area, Hazaribagh.
5. Project Officer, Kedla Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields Limited, Kedla, P.S. Mandu, Ramgarh.
6. Survey Officer, Kedla, Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields limited, Ramgarh.
7. State of Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No.1212 of 2013
-------
Pusni Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coalfields Limited through the Chief
Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi.
2. General Manager, Kedla Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh Area, Hazaribagh.
3. Revenue Officer, Central Coalfields Limited
Hazaribagh Area, Hazaribagh.
4. Personnel Officer, Central Coalfields Limited,
Hazaribagh Area, Hazaribagh.
5. Project Officer, Kedla Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields Limited, Kedla, P.S. Mandu, Ramgarh.
2
6. Survey Officer, Kedla, Open Cast Project, Central
Coalfields limited, Ramgarh.
7. State of Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
-------
For the Petitioners :Mr. Mahesh Tiwari Adv.
For the Res-CCL : Mr. A. K. Das, Adv.
Ms. Swati Shalini, Adv.
For the Intervener : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 17.08.2021 Pronounced on 7/10/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. Since both these writ applications are
interconnected and common issue is involved; as such
same are heard together and being decided by this common
judgment.
3. Both these petitions have been preferred by the
respective petitioners praying therein for a direction upon
the respondent authorities to provide employment to the
eligible candidates of the petitioners' family under the
Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy of the CCL and to pay
compensation to the respective petitioners.
4. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel for the
petitioners in both the cases submits that the land in
question was acquired by CCL and as per the resolution of
resettlement policy the land looser was entitled to be
employed in lieu of land acquired for mining purpose.
He further submits that in the year 2010, CCL
started mining works over the aforesaid land as such; the
petitioners requested them not to continue mining work
without paying any compensation. When the respondent-
CCL did not agree to the same; respective petitioners made
separate application to the Project Officer CCL, Kedla
raising their grievance and thereafter, a trilateral meeting
was convened amongst the CCL Management, respective
petitioners and the Officer-in-Charge to settle the grievance
of the petitioners. Thereafter on 10.03.2012, the Deputy
General Manager, Kedla requested the government
authority to make a thorough enquiry into the matter and
intimate the CCL authority about the outcome of the same.
Mr. Tiwari further contended that in pursuance
to the aforesaid letter and in compliance to the letter under
memo no.472 dated 26.03.2012 issued by Circle Officer,
Mandu; the Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector
submitted a detailed report to Circle Officer reporting
therein that 18 persons were provided employment for the
lands acquired by CCL in different plots and finally
concluded that land of the petitioners are different from the
land for which employment were already provided to the
other persons. Thereafter, a meeting was convened by the
CCL Management and the petitioners in presence of Circle
Officer wherein CCL agreed to provide employment and
compensation.
When neither any compensation was given nor
was any employment provided, petitioners sought detailed
information under the RTI Act regarding employment given
to persons with respect to the lands in question acquired
by the respondent. Pursuant thereto; CCL furnished list of
21 persons who were provided employment in Plot No.810
and other plots of different Khatas. Subsequently also
employments were provided to three other persons namely,
Smt. Sumita Kumari, Shri Rajesh Mahto and Shri Bhola
Prasad Mahto against the lands of Plot No.810/5 and
810/6 of village Kedla.
He contended that the respondents with an
ulterior motive trying to make out a case of disputed
question of fact. It is an admitted fact that when the
representation was given by these petitioners to the Project
Officer, a letter was addressed by G.M., CCL to the District
Commissioner, Ramgarh for authentication of tenancy right
of these petitioners. He contended that the respondents
from the very beginning were knowing the fact that the
petitioners were the rightful claimant; however, for the
reason best known to them they simply denied the specific
report of the Circle Officer, Mandu who has reported that
the land of the petitioners are different from the land
against which 18 employment have been given to other
persons.
He lastly submits that the respondents have also
taken plea of delay and laches and tried to make out a case
of disputed question of fact by planting interveners; so that
these cases should not be decided by this Court. He
reiterated that in view of the specific report of the Circle
Officer, Mandu there can be no doubt that the petitioners
are rightful owner and as such they are entitled for
compensation and employment as per the R&R Policy.
5. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the
respondent-CCL submits that the land in question is
admittedly recorded as 'Gairmazarua' land and it has been
recorded as 'Jungle Jhari' (forest) and therefore for
converting the land into a 'Korkar' land; firstly the
permission of the Central Government under the Forest
Conservation Act is required to be obtained along with the
permission of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 64
of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. He further submits that
the petitioners have no subsisting right, title and interest
over the land in question and as such have no authority to
restrain CCL from carrying out its work on the acquired
land.
He further draws attention of this Court towards
paragraph No.12 of the counter affidavit (filed in W.P.(s)
No.833/2013) and submits that employment under
different package deals has been provided to the nominees
of tenants under the R&R Policy for the land in question. In
Plot No.810/2 and 810/3, employment was provided to
Smt. Dhuji Devi (wife of Heman Mahto) and Sukhari Mahto
son of Gyanu Mahto (brother of the petitioner No.1) in the
year 1984 itself under the package deal. Similarly in plot
No.810/53 and 810/55 employments were provided to Sri
Bhuneshwar Mahto and Sri Umesh Mahto in the year
2011.
He contended that the reason for deferring these
appointments is obvious that the petitioners are not legally
entitled though efforts were made by the respondent-CCL
to settle the grievance but since it is a disputed question of
fact, the same cannot be decided under the Writ
jurisdiction.
Mr. Das further submits that no land
compensation has been paid to any of the
petitioners/tenant due to non submission of authenticated
documents issued by the State Authority and for that writ
application is not maintainable, inasmuch as, in terms of
Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as Act),
the Tribunal has already been functioning to make
adjudication of the dispute relating to compensation under
Section 14(5) and 14(6) of the Act 1957.
He further submits that the intervener who has
filed I.A No.3659 of 2015 is the example that it is a case of
disputed question of fact though said I.A. has not been
allowed, however the fact remains that there are claims and
counter claims for the land in question. It is true that a
letter was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh by
General Manager, CCL requesting to get the matter
examined and authenticate the tenancy right of the
petitioner but there was no response to the said letter, as
such merely on the report of a Circle Inspector; right, title
and interest cannot be decided.
He lastly submits that when a Tribunal is
functioning since beginning to settle the claim of
compensation; the petitioners should first get the matter
settled before the Tribunal with regard to the compensation
and only then the case of the employment will arise.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the documents annexed with the respective
affidavits and the averments made therein; it appears that
the land in question in both these writ applications were
acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 vide notification No.1754 dated
15.05.1996 and Notification No.343 dated 05.02.2004
(Annexure A and A/1 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(S)
No.1212/13); as such, at the outset it can be said that the
claim of these petitioners is belated claim.
7. It is an admitted case of the parties that no
compensation has been paid to either of the petitioners and
admittedly; the Tribunal which has been constituted in
terms of Section 14(2) of the Act is functioning to make
adjudication of the dispute relating to compensation under
Sections 14(5) and 14(6) of the Act, 1957. This Court is of
the view that the compensation and appointment are two
sides of the same coin. If the right, title and interest of any
person over a piece of land is proved then only he is
entitled for compensation and likewise as per R&R policy
only the bona-fide land losers can claim for employment.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that
filing of interlocutory application itself transpires that there
are claims and counter claims. Further, there is specific
averment made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit
that employment has been provided to Shrimati Dhuji Devi
wife of Heman Mahto and Sukhari Mahto son of Gyanu
Mahto who is brother of the petitioner No.1 in W.P.(S)
No.833 of 2013 with respect to the land in question. The
law is no more res-integra, inasmuch as, any disputed
question of fact cannot be decided under the writ
jurisdiction.
Heavy reliance has been made by learned
counsel for the petitioners with regard to the report of
Circle Inspector but it is also a fact that right, title and
interest can only be decided by a Court of competent
jurisdiction. Moreover the Deputy Commissioner who was
requested to authenticate the ownership and tenancy right
vide departmental letter dated 02.08.12 was never
responded.
9. In this view of the matter, without going into the
issue of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners,
interest of justice would be sufficed by giving liberty to the
petitioners to approach the appropriate tribunal
constituted under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1957 as this
Court refrains from exercising extraordinary writ
jurisdiction at this stage. Since the prayer of the petitioners
made in both these writ applications primarily relates to
providing employment to petitioners' family under the land
looser scheme; the same would be dependent upon the
outcome of the matter relating to the compensation of the
petitioners.
Several orders of the Co-ordinate Bench has
been placed before this Court during course of argument
and in all these cases this Court has directed to get the
issue of compensation decided first and then the case of
appointment will arise. The moment the issue of
compensation will be decided by the concerned Tribunal,
issue of employment will automatically be decided.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, both these
writ applications are hereby disposed of by giving liberty to
the petitioners to approach the concerned Tribunal to get
the issue of compensation decided first and if it is found
that they are the rightful claimant for compensation then
only under the R&R policy they will be entitled for
employment.
11. With the aforesaid observations, both these writ
applications stand disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi.
Fahim/- A.F.R/N.A.F.R.
