AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client took over mining operations in Talabira-I Coal Mine under vesting order dated 23rd March, 2015 made in exercise of power under section 6 of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Second Ordinance, 2014. He submits, the ordinance received ratification in Parliament, to become Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015.
Impugned is order dated 18th April, 2018 made by Collector, Sambalpur. By it there was direction upon his client to pay at ratio of 80:20 along with Hindalco (opposite party no.1), compensation and ex-gratia for removal of waste dumped on private land. He submits, the order is erroneous on face of it since, inspection made by the Tahasildar clearly reported the ratio to be the reverse between his client and Hindalco. He submits, private opposite parties had moved this Court earlier vide W.P.(C) no.5380 of 2016 disposed of by order dated 2nd May, 2016, pursuant to which impugned order was made by the Collector. He relies on sub-section (3) in section 14 to submit, Hindalco is responsible for accumulation of waste on private land since long before. His client entered into the picture in year 2015 as aforesaid. As such sub-section (3) in section 14 mandates prior liability to be met by the prior allottee.
Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of Hindalco. He draws attention to inspection report dated 10th October, 2017 made by the Tahasildar. He demonstrates from the table giving land schedule and illegally dumped area, to show that dumped area by petitioner is 80% of the land area and as such the Tahasildar made obvious error in expressing view that his client should pay at ratio 80:20.
Ms. Pattnaik, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and supports Mr. Patnaik in his contention of there being apparent error in the Tahasildar’s report.
Ms. Majhi, learned advocate appears on behalf of private opposite party and submits, under interim order herein, ratio directed in impugned order to be paid by Hindalco, has been paid with interest till 7th September, 2022. Mr. Das submits, under direction made by paragraph-3 in order dated 29th August, 2022, his client complied in making the deposit.
Petitioner is subsequent allottee. On perusal of earlier writ petition of private opposite parties it appears, same was made against State and Hindalco. Annexure 4 in the writ petition is letter dated 10th June, 2015 of Sub-Collector, Sambalpur addressed to Hindalco. Text of the letter is reproduced below.
“One Ranjit Kumar Majhi, Rajesh Kumar Bhoi and Lalit Kumar Biswal of village Khinda have filed grievance petition before the Collector, Sambalpur for removal of O.B. dumped material from their rayati land, this matter was inquired by the Tahasildar Rengali and confirmed the fact of dumped O.B. over plot No.884 Khata No.238/113 of village Khinda.
Further in this regard the matter was heard in the presence of the representative of Hindalco namely Anil Das Land Officer and grievance petitioners. The Hindalco while operating at Khinda the O.B. dumped material slipped into the rayait land from the O.B. dumped stock. The rayati land is located beside the O.B. dumped area of that mines. It is the responsibility of the M/s Hindalco to removal the material from the rayati land.
In view of the above you are directed to remove the dumped material from the rayati land of the grievance petitioner within a period of 15 days and report compliance.”
There is no disclosure to show that petitioner on taking possession of the mine, caused inventory of waste that already stood dumped by Hindalco on private land. The Tahasildar made inspection in October, 2017, followed by impugned order dated 18th April, 2018 made by the Collector. In the circumstances, the writ Court cannot determine the quantity of waste that already stood dumped by Hindalco for purpose of enforcing liability of Hindalco as prior allottee under sub-section (3) in section 14.
In facts and circumstances aforesaid impugned order cannot be interfered with. Registrar (Judicial), on receiving application from private opposite parties will pay out the deposit and accrual, if any, to them and obtain due acknowledgement of receipt. Petitioner is directed to pay the interest to private opposite parties within three weeks from date. Needless to say petitioner has liberty to find remedy against Hindalco, if so advised and if permissible in law. It is made clear that ratio of liability attributed either by the Tahasildar the Collector will not prejudice petitioner in event it initiates action against Hindalco.
The writ petition is disposed of.
............................................