Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumari Vishwakarma vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4189 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJKUMARI VISHWAKARMA W/O
RAMSUNDAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
VILLAGE DHOTI TAHSIL AND DISTT.
SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KESHPATI D/O KADMI VISHWAKARMA
(MOTHER) W/O AATMARAM VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DHOTI
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMESH KUMAR S/O SUKHLAL
VISHWAKARMA AND KADMI VISHWAKARMA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE LURI
POST PODI NAUGAI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. UTTAL D/O LATE DADU VISHWAKARMA
W/O KUNJLAL VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHAMOURA P.S. AND
TAHSIL MADA DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. BITTAN D/O LATE DADU VISHWAKARMA W/O
TRILOK VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE PRATAPUR TAHSIL MADA
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. CHHOTELAL VISHWAKARMA S/O KEDARNATH
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUNDARAM SINGH-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE NORTHERN
COALFIELDS LIMITED DISTT. SINGRAULI M.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 9/19/2022
5:57:52 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TEJBALI VISHWAKARMA S/O VISHVANATH
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJBALI VISHWAKARMA S/O VISHVANATH
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MANGALDEEN VISHWAKARMA S/O SHIVSAHAY
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAMJI VISHWAKARMA S/O SHIVSAHAY
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MOTILAL VISHWAKARMA S/O SHIVSAHAY
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. JAGJIVAN LAL S/O KEDARNATH
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RAMNARAYAN VISHWAKARMA S/O JHARIHAR
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RADHESHYAM VISHWAKARMA S/O
RAMPRASAD VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 30
YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE
STATION BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. BRIJESH KUMAR S/O RAJNATH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 9/19/2022
5:57:52 PM
3
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SMT. RUKAN DEVI W/O DAN BAHADUR
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE NAVANAGAR, POLICE STATION
BAIDAN, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. BHAGIRATHI VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE HANSU
VISHWAKARMA R/O VILLAGE NAVANAGAR P.S.
BAIDAN TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TIWARI-ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR
NO. 1)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 24.08.2022
passed by Part Time Tribunal under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and
Development Act, 1957, Singrauli, District Singrauli, M.P..
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a claim petition under
Section 18 of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
is pending before the Tribunal in which the present petitioner filed an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. submitting interalia that, there is a Judgment
and decree dated 20.10.2022 in Civil Suit No. 192-A-1998, on the basis of
which, the present petitioners who are grand sons of the erstwhile owner Dadu,
have their respective shares in the property in question.
Learned counsel submits that by virtue of the decree, the petitioners have
interest in the property in question and therefore, their impleadment was
necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 9/19/2022
5:57:52 PM
Heard submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This Court is of the considered view that in operatives paragraph of the
impugned order, the Tribunal has protected the interest of the present petitioner,
while observing that the compensation which is admissible to late Dadu shall be
deposited in the Tribunal and the liberty shall be extended to the legal heirs to
seek declaration in their favour by approaching competent Civil Court,
therefore, has rejected the application.
In the considered view of this Court, since the interest of the petitioners
have already been taken note of by the Tribunal, thus, no interference is
warranted so far as the present petition is concerned, accordingly, the writ
petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE
R
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 9/19/2022
5:57:52 PM
