AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
S.C. Parija, J.",,,
This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the villagers of Manoharpur in the district of Sundargarh, praying for quashing of the letter of Odisha",,,
Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (opposite party no.5), dated 26.7.2016 (Annexure-3), rejecting the claim of the petitioners for providing",,,
employment to one member of each displaced family and the decisions of the Rehabilitation & Periphery Development Advisory Committee (opposite,,,
party no.2), dated 19.1.2016 (Annexure4), deciding to provide one-time cash benefit in lieu of employment for the displaced families, as there is no",,,
scope for employment. Alternatively, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the notification dated",,,
02.3.2010, as per Annexure-1. Â",,,
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners have lost their cultivable as well as homestead lands in the process of,,,
acquisition and they come within the definition of ‘displaced family’, one member of each family is entitled to employment as per the Odisha",,,
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (“the R & R Policy, 2006†for short). It was submitted that the lands of the petitioners having been",,,
acquired for coal mining, which was initially allotted in favour of Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd (“OPGC†for short) and subsequently",,,
has been allotted to Odisha Coal and Power Corporation Ltd. (“OCPL†for short), the project proponent cannot decline to provide employment to",,,
the member of displaced family on the plea that such employment is not possible, as the entire mining activity is to be carried out through a Mine",,,
Developer & Operator/Mine Operator (“MDO/MO†for short). It was submitted that the allotment of the coal blocks initially made in favour of,,,
OPGC and now allotted to OCPL is regulated through Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 and the basic/primary function of the allottee cannot",,,
be entrusted to a third party, so as to deny employment to the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners having lost all their lands, both",,,
agriculture and homestead in the acquisition proceeding, they are left with no source of livelihood and therefore, they are entitled to employment in the",,,
mining operation under the project proponent, who cannot be permitted to avoid their legal liability by offering cash compensation in lieu of such",,,
employment, on the plea that providing employment is not possible. Â",,,
In the alternate, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands as per the notification dated 02.3.2010,",,,
under Annexure-1, is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is not permissible in law. It was submitted that as the lands of the petitioners contain",,,
coal deposits, the same can only be acquired through the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (“1957 Actâ€",,,
for short).  It was submitted that in the instant case, the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands in village Manoharpur by the State Government",,,
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L.A. Act†for short), is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is reiterated that once the land in question",,,
is found to have deposits of coal, the same can only be acquired under the provisions of 1957 Act. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners",,,
has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Naresh Singh & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2009",,,
Madhya Pradesh 26, wherein it has been held that acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in",,,
or over such land comes within the ambit of the 1957 Act and the provisions of the L.A. Act will not apply. Â,,,
Accordingly, it was submitted that if the project proponent is not in a position to provide employment to the petitioners as per the R & R Policy,",,,
2006, the acquisition proceeding initiated in respect of the petitioners’ lands be quashed and fresh proceeding under the 1957 Act be initiated,",,,
providing all benefits to the land losers, as has been prescribed therein.",,,
Learned counsel for the State with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that all the benefits provided under the R &,,,
R Policy, 2006, have been duly extended to the petitioners. Â As regard the claim of the petitioners for providing employment to one member of each",,,
“displaced familyâ€, it was submitted that the R & R Policy, 2006 itself provides that where such employment cannot be provided because of",,,
reason to be explained in writing, cash compensation, as has been prescribed, shall be provided to such families. In the instant case, the project",,,
proponent (OCPL) having given in writing that it has decided to engage MDO/MO for carrying out mining work and therefore, there is no scope to",,,
provide direct employment to the displaced persons. Be that as it may, as per the R & R Policy, 2006, the project proponent has decided to provide",,,
double the compensation amount provided under the R & R Policy, 2006, in lieu of employment. In this regard, it was submitted that the R & R Policy,",,,
2006, provides for cash compensation of Rs.7,47,000/-, whereas OCPL has offered to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of employment. It",,,
was submitted that in view of such fact that OCPL will not be undertaking any mining activity and the entire mining work is to be executed by,,,
engaging MDO/MO, there is no scope to provide employment to the displaced persons, the Rehabilitation & Periphery Development Advisory",,,
Committee (“RPDAC†for short), in its 4th meeting held on 19.01.2016, for Manoharpur Coal Mine Project, Hemgir, decided that there being no",,,
scope for employment, one-time cash benefit in lieu of employment be provided for the displaced families, which cannot be faulted. Â",,,
Coming to the challenge of the petitioners to the land acquisition initiated under the L.A. Act, learned counsel for the State submitted that the",,,
petitioners had never challenged the land acquisition proceeding which had been initiated way back in March, 2010. Moreover, all the petitioners have",,,
already received the awarded compensation amount in respect of their acquired land without any objection since long. Further, many of the co-",,,
villagers have also received the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the R & R Policy, 2006, and have vacated their lands and shifted to the",,,
resettlement colony. It was submitted that some of the present petitioners and other villagers of Manoharpur had approached this Court earlier by way,,,
of 46 nos. of writ petitions, praying for a direction to the OPGC (opposite party no. 5), to extend the benefits under the R & R Policy, 2006, and this",,,
Court vide common order dated 18.3.2016, disposed of all the 46 writ petitions granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach OPGC (opposite",,,
party no.5), regarding grant of benefits under the R & R Policy, 2006. No challenge has ever been made to the land acquisition proceeding. Therefore,",,,
the petitioners cannot be now permitted to raise a plea regarding the validity of the acquisition proceeding at this belated stage. Â,,,
As regard the plea of the petitioners regarding application of the 1957 Act for the purpose of acquiring coal bearing land, learned counsel for the",,,
State submitted that the Manoharpur and Dip-side of Manoharpur coal blocks in the district of Sundargarh had been initially allotted by the Central,,,
Government in favour of OPGC under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 (“CMN Act†for short), as the OPGC was a",,,
Government Company. The said allocation had been made under Government Company dispensation as per the provisions of section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the,,,
CMN Act and the mining lease was required to be executed by the State Government and OPGC under the Mines and Minerals (Development and,,,
Regulation) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act†for short) and the mining operation was required to be carried out under the provisions of section 4 of the",,,
MMDR Act 1957, upon execution of the mining lease under the said Act. It was accordingly submitted that when a coal mine is allotted in favour of",,,
an allottee under the CMN Act, who is required to apply for lease before the State Government under the MMDR Act 1957, the private land within",,,
the leasehold area has to be acquired under the L.A. Act and not under the 1957 Act. It is submitted that private land in village Manoharpur was,,,
acquired by the State Government for OPGC under the provisions of the L.A. Act, after disbursement of the compensation as per the award made",,,
and the possession of the land was taken over and the same vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances, as per Section 16",,,
of the L.A. Act, 1894.",,,
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the 1957 Act provides for acquisition of land bearing coal by the Central Government or Government,,,
Company authorized under Section 11 of the said Act. In the present case, the allotment of coal mines having been made under the CMN Act, the",,,
provisions of 1957 Act is not applicable. Â,,,
Sl. No.,Resettlement Benefit,"Provision of Odisha R&R
Policy","Benefits Provided by
OCPL
1,"House Plot in R&R
Colony","Ac.0.10 of homestead
land to each DFs in R&R
colony","Ac.0.10 of homestead
land to each DFs in
Sukhabandh R&R colony
2,"Cash compensation in-lieu
of house plot","Rs.85,000/- to DFs opted
for self-relocation","Rs.85,000/- to DFs opted
for self-relocation
3,"House or House Building
Assistance (HBA)","C onstructed House in the
R&R Colony to each DFs
or Rs.255000/- to DFs
opted for self relocation","Constructed house (RCC
building) of 1060 sqft in
the R&R colony with the
provision of toilet,
bathroom, cowshed and
electricity and water
connections. The cost of
each constructed house is
Rs.15.0 lakh. Rs.6.0 lakh
is paid to 6 DFs each
opted for selfrelocation.
4,Temporary shed,Rs.17000/- to DFs,"Rs.17,000/- to displaced
families opted for self-
relocation
5,Transportation Allowance,"Rs.3400/- or Free
transportation","Rs.3400/- per family as
well as Free
transportation facility for
all families. Required
support is being provided
for demolition of
stricture,salvaging of
materials, staking, loading
and unloading etc.
6,Subsistence Allowance,"Rs.3400/- per months per
DFs for a period of 12
months from the date of
physical displacement.","Rs.3400/- per months to
each DFs for a period of
12 months from the date
of physical displacement.
7,Cooked Food,No provision,"Cooked food is being
supplied to DFs and his
family members for 5
days from the date of
shifting. Such facility has
already been provided to
91 families who have
shifted to R&R colony.
8,Groceries,No provision,"Groceries (Rice, Dal,
cooking Oil, Species,
Potato, Onion, Sugar, Tea,
Amul Powder, Salt etc)
for 25 days is being
supplied to 97 DFs who
have shifted to R&R
colony.
9,Housewarming,No provision,"Housewarming (Griha
Pratista Puja) of each
newly constructed house
in R&R colony is being
organized before formal
handover and shifting of
DFs. All arrangement
(puja items, Prasad,
Brahman etc.) is being
made by the project
authority and bearing
entire cost.
Housewarming ceremony
of 91 houses is being
completed.
Sl.5 No.,Amenities & Infrastructure,Description,
1,Water Supply System,"All the houses and common facilities in the R&R colony have
been supplied with filtered drinking water with overhead tank
facility in each house. A overhead tank of 1.5 lakh litre
capacity and a underground reservoir of 2.5 lakh capacity is
being created in the R&R colony for storage of water for
round the clock supply.",
2,Electricity,"R&R colony is provided with electricity. 7 numbers of
transformers having capacity of 25 KVA (4 nos.), 100 KVA
(2 nos.) and 63 KVA (1 nos.) respectively has been installed
and connection has been provided to all houses and common
infrastructure. The colony is provided with street light facility.
The company will bear the electricity charges of common
facilities.",
3,Road,"The R&R colony is provided with blacktop approach and
internal road.",
4,School,"A upper Primary school with a built up area of around 21500
sqft has been constructed in the R&R colony having all the
facilities",
5,Anganwadi,"An Anganwadi Centre has been constructed in the R&R
colony",
6,Dispensary,A dispensary is provided in the R&R colony,
7,Community Centre,"A community centre has been constructed in the R&R
colony",
8,Veterinary Centre,A veterinary centre is provided in the R&R colony,
9,Women Training Centre,"2 numbers of women training centres has been created in the
R&R colony to impart skill training to promote self
employment and sustainable livelihood",
10,"PDS Centre & Market Building
(Weekly Haat)","The R&R colony is provided with PDS centre and Market
building (Weekly Haat)",
company or corporation referred to in clause (a). Under clause (b) of subsection (3), excepting the mining leases granted before 1976 in favour of the",,,
Government, government company or corporation referred to in clause (a) and any sub-lease(s) granted by any such Government, government",,,
company or corporation, all other mining leases and sub-leases in force immediately before such commencement insofar as they relate to the winning",,,
or mining of coal, stand terminated. When a sub-lease stands terminated under sub-section (3), sub-section (4) of Section 3 provides that it shall be",,,
lawful for the Central Government or the government company or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government to obtain a prospecting,,,
licence or a mining lease in respect of whole or part of the land covered by mining lease which stands so terminated. The above provisions in the,,,
CMN Act, as inserted in 1976, clearly show that the target of these provisions in the CMN Act is coal mines, pure and simple. The CMN Act",,,
effectively places embargo on granting the leases for winning or mining of coal to persons other than those mentioned in Section 3(3)(a). Does the,,,
CMN Act for the purposes of regulation and development of mines to the extent provided therein alter the legal regime incorporated in the 1957 Act ?,,,
We do not think so. What the CMN Act does is that in regard to the matters falling under the Act, the legal regime in the 1957 Act is made subject to",,,
the prescription under Sections 3(3)(a) and (c) of the CMN Act. The 1957 Act continues to apply in full rigour for effecting prescription of Sections,,,
3(3)(a) and (c) of the CMN Act. For grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of coal mines, the MMDR regime",,,
has to be mandatorily followed. The 1957 Act and so also the 1960 Rules do not provide for allocation of coal blocks nor do they provide any,,,
mechanism, mode or manner of such allocation.â€",,,
In case of Naresh Singh (supra), the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 4(1) of the 1957 Act gave notice of its intention to",,,
acquire the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares by",,,
notification dated 6th February, 1996. After considering the objections received and report of the Competent Authority and after consulting the State",,,
Government, the Central Government issued notification dated 4th February, 1997, that it was satisfied that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and",,,
search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407. 408 hectares approximately should be acquired. Accordingly, vide",,,
notification dated 24th June, 1998, issued under Section 9(1) of the 1957 Act, the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry",,,
away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares were acquired. Thereafter, the rights in and over the said land acquired by the Central",,,
Government vested in South Eastern Coal-fields Ltd. (‘SECL’ for short), by order of the Central Government issued under Section 11(1) of the",,,
1957 Act.However the Central Government instead of proceeding with the acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of 1957 Act,",,,
directed the concerned Collector to issue necessary notification under the L.A. Act to acquire 699.698 hectares of tenancy land and to take,,,
possession of the same under Section 17 of the said Act immediately. Pursuant to such direction, the State Government initiated the process of",,,
acquisition of land under L.A. Act and the Collector passed the award determining compensation under Section 11 of the said Act. Therefore, the",,,
land-owners, whose lands were so acquired were deprived of their right for determination of just and fair compensation under Section 14 of the 1957",,,
Act.,,,
In the aforesaid factual settings, the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, ultimately directed the Central Government to issue notifications",,,
under the 1957 Act for acquisition of the land and take possession of the land and get the compensation determined in accordance with Section 14 of,,,
the 1957 Act, for onward payment to the land-losers, after adjustment of the compensation already received.",,,
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the allotment of the coal blocks have been made by the Central Government in favour of OPGC under",,,
Section 3 (3)(a)(i) of the CMN Act. Furthermore, the initial allotment of the coal mines made in favour of OPGC was cancelled by the Hon’ble",,,
Supreme Court in Manohar Lal (supra). Subsequent thereto, fresh allotment of the coal mines has been made by the Central Government in favour of",,,
OCPL (opposite party no.6), as per the provisions of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the decision of the",,,
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Naresh Singh (supra), rendered under the factual settings of that case, has no application to the facts of the present",,,
case. For the reasons as aforestated, we do not find any merits in the writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.Â",,,