AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The dispute concerns land bearing Survey No. 365/1C, admeasuring 0.83 H.R., situated at Mouza Gowari, Tahsil Rajura, District Chandrapur. The said land was sold to petitioner No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2022, and pursuant thereto the name of petitioner No. 1 was mutated in the revenue records as owner and possessor. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Western Coalfields Ltd.) acquired the land under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for the Dhuptala Open Cast Mine (Sasti UG to OC). The petitioners' case is that despite the acquisition they were neither paid monetary compensation nor extended the benefit of employment as land losers under the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012, which provides, inter alia, that one employment may be considered for every two acres of land acquired. The petitioners made a written request seeking compensation for petitioner No. 2 and employment for petitioner No. 1. By communication dated 22.11.2025, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 informed the petitioners that since Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 2022 had been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 against the petitioners, the request for employment and compensation could not be considered and the benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy would be considered only after the decision in that civil suit. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the communication dated 22.11.2025. Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith, and the matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though served, did not appear. The counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and Another, decided on 27.04.2023 in Writ Petition No. 1795/2021. In the present case, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 2022 seeking a declaration, partition and separate possession along with a decree of perpetual injunction, and their application for temporary injunction came to be rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 05.05.2026.
Law Points
Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were justified in rejecting the petitioners' request for employment and monetary compensation under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy solely on the ground that a civil suit filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was pending; and whether, in the absence of any stay or prohibitory order passed by the competent Civil Court, the petitioners' claim falls within the criteria adopted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the decision of the Empowered Committee of the Functional Directors dated 22.01.2026 for considering claims for grant of employment and monetary compensation under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.
Acts & Articles
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 — Section 9, Section 9(1) and Section 8(2) are referred to in the judgment. Section 9 is described as the notification under the Act and its publication is treated as the relevant and cut-off date by the acquiring body for the purpose of benefits under the Policy. Section 9(1) is referred to in the context of the date of publication of the notification and of recorded land owners existing in 7/12 records as on that date. Section 8(2) is referred to in the Standard Operating Procedure modification, in relation to objectors who have not objected under that provision with supporting requisite documents justifying their claims against the recorded owners at the time of Section 9(1).
Judgments Referred
Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and Another, judgment of this Court dated 27.04.2023 in Writ Petition No. 1795/2021, relied on by the petitioners' counsel and fairly conceded by the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to cover the issue; the Court followed it, holding that civil litigation may consume substantial time and directing Western Coalfields Limited to process the proposal and grant employment upon furnishing an appropriate undertaking. Within that judgment, the Court's observations in Writ Petition 1123/2022 were extracted and considered, to the effect that nominees whose names are reflected in the revenue record as owners of the land acquired as on the date of publication of the Section 9 notification should not be denied employment only on the ground of a challenge to their title, and that an undertaking was taken from the petitioners that appointments could be made subject to the final outcome of the Regular Civil Suit, with the direction that if the civil court rejects the claim of the petitioners as exclusive owners or acknowledges the title of the respondent either as absolute owner or as co-owner, the petitioners who may be provided employment under the interim order shall not claim any equity and shall leave the post on the day the verdict is pronounced. The Court also referred to its decision in Writ Petition No. 6869 of 2025 (Sudhakar Ramchandra Urkude and Anr. Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.), in which the decision of the Empowered Committee of the Functional Directors of respondent No. 1 taken in its meeting held on 22.01.2026 was considered and held to be in consonance with the view taken in Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar (supra).
Obiter Dicta
The Court noted that the issue involved is no more res integra. It recorded, while extracting the earlier judgment, its disapproval of the attitude and approach of the WCL noticed in more than one matter, and observed that the title dispute may take years and indeed decades, and that it would neither be in the interest of the petitioners nor WCL nor respondent 2 to keep the vacancy in limbo only on the ground of pendency of the title dispute. The Court further observed that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not appearing despite service. It also observed, in the context of the SOP, that claims and counter claims are to be examined by the Area committee on merit in consultation with the Legal department of the Area, and that where it appears prima facie that a mischievous attempt has been made by a subsequent objector to ensure that the rightful claimant whose land is acquired does not get the succor of employment by filing an ex facie frivolous suit, or the claim of the subsequent objector is not on merit or appears illegitimate, or the claim of the recorded land owners prima facie appears on merit, the Area Committee will submit the proposal for providing provisional R&R benefits to the landowner recorded at the time of Section 9(1) and name depicted in the R&R list with proper deliberations, observations and findings with the recommendations of AGM. The direction that the parties shall render necessary assistance to the Civil Court for expeditious disposal of the suit is ancillary in nature.
Ratio Decidendi
The claim of a landowner whose name is recorded in the revenue records as owner of the acquired land as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 cannot be refused consideration, whether for monetary compensation or for employment under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, merely on the ground that the title to the land is under cloud by reason of the pendency of a civil suit. The pendency of civil litigation is not a valid ground to reject the proposal, since the title dispute may take years or decades and keeping the vacancy in limbo is in the interest of no one. Such benefits may be processed and provisional employment granted upon the recorded landowner furnishing an appropriate undertaking and an indemnity bond or declaration, under which the employment is treated as provisional and contingent upon the outcome of the pending civil suit, and if the civil court decides the claim of the objector against the recorded landowner as exclusive owner or acknowledges the objector's title either as absolute owner or as co-owner, the person provided provisional employment shall not claim any equity and shall leave the post on the day the verdict is pronounced. This is the course adopted in Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and Another, and it is in consonance with the decision of the Empowered Committee of the Functional Directors of respondent No. 1 dated 22.01.2026 modifying Point No. 5 of the modalities of the Standard Operating Procedure for disbursement of land compensation and R&R benefits.
Final Ruling
The petition was allowed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to process the proposal of the petitioners in accordance with the SOP for disbursement of land compensation and R&R benefits as adopted in the meeting dated 22.01.2026, and to issue the appointment order, unless there is any other legal impediment, the exercise to be carried out within eight weeks from the date of the order. It was clarified that the proposal shall not be rejected on the ground of pendency of the civil suit. The petitioners were directed to file an undertaking before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the appointment shall be subject to the final result in the civil suit and that in the event it is held that the petitioners were not the owners of the aforesaid land and/or some other persons are entitled to employment, the petitioners shall not claim any benefit on the principle of equity. The undertaking was to specify that the employment, which may be granted to the petitioners, shall be treated as provisional and contingent upon the outcome of the pending civil suit. The parties were directed to render necessary assistance to the Civil Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. Rule was made absolute in the above terms, with no order as to costs. For the parties, this means that the communication dated 22.11.2025 rejecting their request is displaced, the proposal for compensation and employment is to be processed within eight weeks, and any employment granted would be provisional and liable to be given up if the civil suit goes against them.
Plain-Language Gist
The petitioners' land was acquired by Western Coalfields Ltd., but their claim for compensation and for a job under the company's Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy was turned down only because relatives had filed a civil suit disputing their title. The Bombay High Court held that a pending title suit is no reason to refuse or delay such benefits, and directed the company to process the claim and issue the appointment order within eight weeks, provided the petitioners give an undertaking that the job is temporary and will end if the civil court ultimately holds that they are not the owners. The civil suit will continue and the petitioners must help in its early disposal.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
JUDGMENT (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) Heard Mr. D.Y. Chatap, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. I.V. Tambi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though served by the usual mode, have chosen not to appear before this Court.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking challenge to the Communication dated 22.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the written request made by the petitioners seeking employment and monetary compensation under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited, 2012 (for short, “the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy”), has been rejected.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:
The dispute in the present writ petition pertains to land bearing Survey No. 365/1C, admeasuring 0.83 H.R., situated at Mouza Gowari, Tahsil Rajura, District Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as “the aforesaid land” for the sake of brevity).
The aforesaid land was sold to petitioner No. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2022. Pursuant thereto, the name of petitioner No. 1 was mutated in the revenue records as the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 acquired the aforesaid land under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for the Dhuptala Open Cast Mine (Sasti UG to OC) of Western Coalfields Ltd. It is the specific case of the petitioners that despite the acquisition of the aforesaid land, they have neither been paid monetary compensation nor extended the benefit of employment as land losers under the applicable Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.
The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy applicable to respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Western Coalfields Ltd. contains a provision for employment, which, inter alia, provides that one employment may be considered for every two acres of land acquired.
In view of the aforesaid policy, the petitioners made a written request to consider petitioner No.2 for compensation and petitioner No.1 for employment. However, by communication dated 22.11.2025, respondent Nos.1 and 2 informed the petitioners that, since Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 2022 had been filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioners, the petitioners’ request for grant of employment and compensation could not be considered and that the benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy would be considered only after the decision in the said civil suit.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 22.11.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Mr. D.Y. Chatap, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not at all justified in rejecting the petitioners’ request for employment and monetary compensation under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy solely on the ground that a civil suit was pending at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4. He submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are bent upon stalling the process of granting employment to the petitioners and have raised such objections with that intention.
Mr. D.Y. Chatap, learned counsel for the petitioners, has further placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court on 27.04.2023 in the case of Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and Another [Writ Petition No. 1795/2021], which will be referred to at a later stage.
Mr. I.V. Tambi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has supported the impugned Communication dated 22.11.2025 issued by the respondent – Western Coalfields Limited. However, he fairly concedes that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another (supra).
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue involved in the present writ petition is no more res integra, as in a similar set of circumstances, this Court, vide its judgment dated 27.04.2023 in the case of Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another (supra), has held that civil litigation may consume substantial time and accordingly directed Western Coalfields Limited to process the proposal and grant employment upon furnishing an appropriate undertaking. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read thus:
"5.We do not appreciate the attitude and approach of the WCL, and which we have noticed in matters more than one. It is an admitted position that as on the date of the issuance of the Notification under Section 9 of the Act, and which is the relevant date, the name of Mrs. Mirabai Gaurkar is recorded as the owner of the subject land and as a fact, WCL has paid the monetary compensation to Mrs. Mirabai Gaurkar. The Rehabilitation Policy entitles the land owner to, apart from the monetary compensation, employment. WCL, in our considered view, could not have refused to consider the claim of Mrs. Mirabai Gaurkar on the specious ground that her title to the subject land is under cloud in view of the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit 172/2016.
6.We have considered a similar situation in Writ Petition 1123/2022 and we may extract the relevant observations therein.
"5.It is not in dispute that in the revenue record, names of petitioners 1 to 4 are shown as the owners of the agriculture land acquired, as on the date of the publication of Section 9 notification which is ordinarily treated as the relevant and cut off date by the acquiring body for the purpose of benefits under the Policy.
6.We see no reason why the nominees of the petitioners whose names are reflected in the revenue record as the owners of the land acquired, as on the date of the publication of Section 9 notification, should be denied employment only on the ground that there is a challenge to their title. The title dispute may take years and indeed decades. It would neither be in the interest of the petitioners nor WCL nor respondent 2 to keep the vacancy in limbo only on the ground of pendency of the title dispute.
7.We are conscious of the fact that if respondent 3 succeeds in the title dispute, he may as well lodge claim for employment. We therefore, sought an undertaking from the petitioners which is duly filed. We may extract the relevant portion of the said undertaking.
"2.It is submitted that the petitioners have already made prayer in the petition that the respondents 1 & 2 to accept the nomination form, affidavit and complete other formalities as per Rules for the purpose of employment to petitioners 4 to 7 subject to decision of this petition or subject to the final decision of aforementioned RCS no. 117/2015. The petitioners reserve their rights to avail/prefer statutory remedies as per law. The petitioners who are desirous of employment hereby reiterating and giving undertaking that their appointments can be made subject to final outcome of the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit. Other petitioners have no objection for the same. In the event if it is held that the petitioners are not eligible or they have no share in the suit property or any other person are entitled for the employment in place of the present petitioners, in view of acquisition of land in question, in that event the petitioners shall waive their right of employment and will discontinue the employment upon final decision of aforesaid RCSNo. 117/2015 that may be reached to its finality as per law. The petitioners shall not claim any equity or, any permanency or a like service benefits if the petitioners are appointed provisionally subject to final decision of aforesaid RCS No. 117/2015 that may be reached to its finality as per law." They further undertake to follow the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioners are ready to abide by any condition as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.
8.In addition to the undertaking, we direct that if the civil court rejects the claim of the petitioners as the exclusive owners of the property or put it differently, acknowledges the title of the respondent 3 either as an absolute owner or as co-owner, the petitioners 5 to 7, who may be provided employment under the interim order, shall not claim any equity and shall leave the post on the day on which the verdict is pronounced."
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to not follow the similar course.
We have also decided Writ Petition No.6869 of 2025 (Sudhakar Ramchandra Urkude and Anr. Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.), wherein the petitioners had placed on record the decision of the Empowered Committee of the Functional Directors of respondent No.1 – WCL, taken in its meeting held on 22.01.2026. The said decision has also been placed on record by the respondents in the present petition at record page No.105 (Annexure-R1). The aforesaid decision is in consonance with the view taken by this Court in Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Anr. (supra). In the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.6869 of 2025, we have held as under:
“16.Mr. D.Y. Chatap, learned counsel for the petitioners, has filed an additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioners on 27.03.2026. In the said affidavit, the petitioners have stated on oath that a meeting of the Empowered Committee of the Functional Directors of respondent No.1 – WCL was held on 22.01.2026, wherein Item No.381/1 was considered and an important decision was taken.
17.It was resolved that, in cases where no stay or prohibitory order has been passed by any Civil Court or other competent Court, the claims for payment of compensation and grant of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits, including employment, shall be processed upon obtaining an undertaking and an indemnity bond/declaration from the eligible landowners whose names appear in the 7/12 revenue record as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
18.The petitioners have also placed the aforesaid decision on record as Annexure-A1 at record page No.165, which reads thus:
“ITEM NO.381/1 SUB: Proposal for modification in the modalities of the SOP
relating to disbursement of Land Compensation and R&R benefits to eligible landowners existing in 7/12 records as on date of publication of Section 9(1) of CBA (A&D) Act, 1957 in line with the orders of Hon’ble High court, Bombay and Hon'ble Supreme Court where Registered civil suit is pending in the court of law.
i)Shri Sachin Kumar Patil, General Manager (L&R) explained the proposal to the Committee.
ii) In consideration of the proposal and after deliberation, the Empowered Committee of Functional Directors headed by CMD, WCL agreed to the proposal and accorded approval for following modification at Point No. 5 in the modalities of the Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) for disbursement of Land Compensation and R&R benefits to eligible landowners approved at 694th meeting of FDs held on 02.12.2016 in line with the orders of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay and Hon'ble Supreme Court where Registered civil suit is pending in the court of law as brought out in the agenda note:
Point No. 5 of the SOP for disbursement of Land Compensation
and R&R benefits be substituted as follows:
A. In the cases where subsequent objectors / claimants have not raised their claims timely earlier during course of acquisition as per settled procedure, or they have not objected under section 8(2) of CBA (A&D) Act 1957 with supporting appropriate requisite documents justifying their claims against the recorded owners at the time of section 9(1) and in the cases where no stay or prohibitory order is further issued by Civil court or any other Court and the payment of land compensation and/or R&R benefits is pending, only such cases will be taken into consideration.
Such cases shall be separately examined by Area committee on receipt of application submitted by recorded land owners at the time of Section 9(1) notification and if their name are included in R&R list, with a Legitimate bond and undertaking that if the civil court decides the claim of the objector against the recorded land owner (applicant) as the exclusive owners of the property or put it differently, acknowledges the title of the objector either as an absolute owner or as co-owner, the applicants provided provisional employment under the interim order, shall not claim any equity and shall leave the post on the day on which the verdict is pronounced, and also that all penalties, recovery imposed by company in that situation will be unconditionally binding to him/them.
Such claims and counter claims are to be examined by Area committee on merit in consultation with Legal department of Area.
And if it appears prima facie that the mischievous attempt had been made by subsequent objector that to ensure the rightful claimant whose land is acquired does not get succor of employment by filing ex facie frivolous suit or it appears to the Area committee that the claim of subsequent objector is not on merit or appears illegitimate or the claim of recorded land owners prima - facie appears on merit, then Area Committee will submit the proposal for providing provisional R&R benefits to the landowner recorded at the time of Section 9(1) and name depicted in R&R list with proper deliberations, observations and findings with the recommendations of AGM.
B. On receipt of such proposals, after its technical vetting, the same will be placed before standing committee for further deliberations and standing committee in consultation with HOD (Legal) will recommend the proposal for placing before competent authority for providing provisional employment subject to condition that if the civil court decides the claim of the objector as the exclusive owners of the property or put it differently, acknowledges the title either as an absolute owner or as co-owner, the landowner who has been provided provisional employment under the provisional order, shall not claim any equity and shall leave the post on the day on which the verdict is pronounced, and also that all conditions and penalties or recovery imposed by company in that situation will be unconditionally binding to him. In order to safeguard the interest of company the draft of such bond/ declaration deed as per appropriate legal proceeding may be get finalized by IR Dept and Legal department of Company.
C. If required by statute or advised by Legal Dept/Panel advocate, the concerned court shall be intimated suitably.
iii) General Manager (L&R) and General Manager (HR&IR) to take necessary action in the matter.”
19.Thus, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have now taken a decision in consonance with the view adopted by this Court in the judgment rendered in Mirabai Namdeo Gaurkar and Another (supra), as well as in a catena of other judgments.”
It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 2022 seeking a declaration, partition and separate possession, along with a decree of perpetual injunction. The application for grant of temporary injunction filed therein came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.05.2026. Thus, in the absence of any stay or prohibitory order passed by the competent Civil Court, the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the criteria adopted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide their decision dated 22.01.2026 for considering the petitioners’ claim for grant of employment and monetary compensation under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.
Accordingly and for the reasons set out in the aforesaid judgment, we allow the petition in the following terms:
We direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to process the proposal of the petitioners in accordance with SOP for disbursement of land compensation and R & R benefits as adopted in the meeting dated 22.01.2026, and to issue appointment order, unless there is any other legal impediment. This exercise shall be carried out within eight weeks from today.
We clarify that the proposal shall not be rejected on the ground of pendency of civil suit.
We further direct the petitioners to file an undertaking before respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the appointment shall be subject to final result in civil suit and in the event it is held that petitioners were not the owners of the aforesaid land and/or some other persons are entitled to employment, the petitioners shall not claim any benefit on the principle of equity.
The undertaking shall specify that the employment, which may be granted to the petitioners, shall be treated as provisional and contingent upon the outcome of pending civil suit.
The parties shall render necessary assistance to the Civil Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.