Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagendra Kumar Shah (Advocate) vs Northern Coalfiels Limited on 19 May, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 19th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 10958 of 2022
Between:-
NAGENDRA KUMAR SHAH (ADVOCATE) S/O SRI
BAL MUKUND SHAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O MAIN ROAD BILAUJI, BAIDHAN, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINAYAK PRASAD SHAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NORTHERN COALFIELS LIMITED THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
SINGRAULI DISTRICT- SINGRAULI (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER NIGAHI PROJECT
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LIMITED SINGRAULI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
SINGRAULI DISTRICT SINGRAULI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.D.SINGH,GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
AGARWAL passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
This Public Interest Litigation is filed by an Advocate claiming himself to
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
be resident of Main Road Bilauji, Baidhan, District Singrauli seeking a direction
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
to the respondents to secure fundamental rights of the villagers of Village
Banauli, Post Nigahi, District Singrauli under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India so as to seek employment for them in lieu of the land acquired in the year
1982.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the villagers had made a
representation as contained in Annexure P/4, to the Collector, District Singrauli
raising their grievance that the land contained in Survey No.101/11 measuring 2
acres under New Settlement Land No.341, 342, 343, 344, 345 is the land of the
signatories of the representation and it is their ancestral property, which was
recorded in the name of Late Indramani S/o.Sunder. The aforesaid property
was partitioned and the land owners' right was acquired by the signatories in the
year 1978-1979. Each one of them has received compensation from the National
Coalfields Nigahi Project, District Singrauli in their names. However, their
grievance is that despite giving several representations for giving them
employment and a plot in lieu of their land, no action has been taken by the
General Manager of the National Coalfields Limited and, therefore, they have
made a representation that the proceedings of the year 1982 be superseded and
the author of the representation (Annexure P/4) be granted employment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another versus State of Himachal
Pradesh & Others in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P (C) Diary
No.13202/2020 decided on 6.4.2022 as well as Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 in support of his
contention that the affected people i.e. signatories of Annexure P/4 are entitled
Signature Not Verified
SAN
to relief under the said Policy.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.3/State in his turn
submits that this writ petition is not a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner is
a resident of Village Bilauji, Baidhan, District Singrauli whereas the claimants are
residents of Village Banauli, Post Nigahi, District Singrauli. Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited 2012, will not be applicable to the
facts & circumstances of the present case. The land was admittedly acquired in
the year 1982. The compensation was paid to the then owners as has been
accepted in Paragraph No.2 of Annexure P/4. Once they had accepted the
compensation then there is no ground for now claiming employment without
bringing on record the Policy of the year 1982 to show that the persons
represented by the petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation are to be governed
by the provisions as contained in Rehabilitation And Resettlement Policy of
Coal India Limited, 2012. He submits that this writ petition has been filed for
cheap popularity & publicity and has nothing to do with the public interest.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, it is evident that as per Rehabilitation And Resettlement Policy of Coal
India Limited, 2012 (Annexure P/3), it is provided that in addition to the
compensation for land, the Coal Companies provide Rehabilitation And
Resettlement (R&R) Package for project affected persons to compensate for
loss of livelihood. Paragraph No.3 of the Rehabilitation And Resettlement
Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 provides that it will come into effect from
the date of approval by the CIL Board and is applicable to all cases in which
the land is taken after the date of approval by the C.I.L.Board.
Thus, it is evident that for the land, which was taken in the year 1982, the
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 is not
Signature Not Verified
SAN
applicable.
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
At this stage, reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on
the Annuity Scheme of CIL, 2020, which provides for one time monetary
compensation in lieu of direct employment. The scope of Annuity Scheme is
provided in Clause B, which provides that "this Annuity Scheme shall be
implemented in lieu of the employment claimed by the eligible affected family
against the land acquisition. All such entitled affected families shall opt for
annuity and forgo the job benefit or one time monetary compensation in lieu of
employment against the acquired land by entering into agreement with Project
Authority". Clause D provides for entitlements for annuity, which reads as
under:-
"D.Entitlements for Annuity:
The following category of beneficiaries may opt for
Annuity in lieu of Job/Employment or one time monetary
compensation.
1. All land owner whose land is acquired will be eligible
for compensation for land as specified in the First schedule of
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 or, determined as per the clarification
given by MoC vide letter No.43020/25/2015-PRIW-I
dt.4.8.2017 and Letter No.43020/25/2015-PRIW-I dt. 30.3.2018
respectively or, Negotiated Land Value in case of Direct
purchase of land whichever is applicable.
II. An affected family whose land or other immovable
property has been acquired & possessed by the company and
eligible for employment as per respective State Policy.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
III. An affected family, may be a non-title holder, whose
primary source of livelihood was dependent on the land
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
acquired for more than three years prior to the date of
acquisition and stand affected by the acquisition of land, as
certified by the State Government authorities.
IV. The Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers who have lost any of their forest rights recognized
under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 due to
acquisition of land as authenticated by the District Authority of
the concerned State Government."
Thus, it is evident that to claim a benefit of annuity under the Annuity
Scheme of CIL, 2020, a person should fulfill the requirements as provided in
Clause D as have been enumerated above.
The petitioner has failed to bring out their case even within the parameter
of the said Annuity Scheme of CIL, 2020 to point out that it shall be applicable
to them when the land was acquired in the year 1982.
As far as the judgment of Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra &
Another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (supra) is
concerned, it has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi
versus State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569 wherein it is held that
in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have
deprived its citizen of their property without the sanction of law. In the said
judgment, earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus
Mukesh Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 404 is quoted, which says that the right to
Signature Not Verified
SAN property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
also a human right. In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others versus Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation 2012 (13) SCR 20, it is held by the
Supreme Court that when functionary of the State takes over possession of the
land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law and the appellants
had asked repeatedly for grant of benefit of compensation then it is incumbent
upon the State either to comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition or
requisition or any other permissible statutory mode.
All these authorities, on which learned counsel for the petitioner is placing
reliance, are in regard to those cases of land acquisition where the land was
acquired without following the permissible statutory mode but has failed to
show that the case of the villagers represented by the petitioner in this Public
Interest Litigation is one of the land acquisition without following permissible
Statutory Rules. This aforesaid legal pronouncements are distinguishable on
their on facts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the Single
Bench Decision of this Court dated 3.3.2022 in Writ Petition
No.10603/2016 (Suraj Singh versus Northern Coalfield Limited &
Others) to point out that the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and
has held that since land owner had 4.84 acres of land, the rights on which were
acquired by the legal representatives on his death, therefore, as per
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, one
employment is to be granted per 2 acres of land, therefore, after sanctioning the
provisional appointment for one person, another appointment should be
considered against remaining 2.84 acres of land and disposed of the petition.
However, facts of that case are different. In that case, admittedly, the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
land acquisition took place after 2012 and, therefore, the Rehabilitation And
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 was applicable.
In the present case, the land was acquired in the year 1982 and the
compensation was paid as admitted in Paragraph No.2 of Annexure P/4. There
is no material on record as to what was the Policy in the year 1982? Whether it
provided for employment or not? Whether employment was given or not?
What was the extent of infraction of the policy?. Once compensation was
admittedly received for the land and it is not the case of the affected persons
that the land was acquired without following due procedure then at this distance
of time, seeking indulgence to provide employment without bringing any
relevant policy on record, is nothing but misuse of the process of law for which
a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable.
Accordingly, this writ petition deserves to and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (VISHAL DHAGAT)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.05.25 13:38:05 IST
