Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1324 (MP)

Naresh Singh v. Union of India

2008-11-12

A.K.PATNAIK, AJIT SINGH

body2008
ORDER Patnaik, C.J. -- 1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 13561 of 2005 are Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayats in Anuppur District of State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioners in other writ petitions are all owners of land in Kotma Tahsil, District Anuppur which have been acquired by the State Government for the South Eastern Coalfields Limited. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land in Kotma Tahsil for mining of coal by the South Eastern Coal fields Limited (for short 'SECL') under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of these writ petitions briefly are that on 30th March, 1994, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the 1957 Act') gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 3412.610 hectares of land in Kotma Tahsil described in the Schedule to the notification. Thereafter, by notification dated 6th February, 1996, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the 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, objections to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or any rights over the land were invited in writing. On 4th February, 1997, the Central Government issued a notification stating therein that after considering the report of the Competent Authority and after consulting the Government of Madhya Pradesh, it was satisfied that the rights to mine quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away the minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares approximately described in the Schedule to the notification should be acquired. Accordingly, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the 1957 Act, the Central Government declared by notification dated 24th June, 1998 that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away the minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares are acquired. Accordingly, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the 1957 Act, the Central Government declared by notification dated 24th June, 1998 that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away the minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares are acquired. The rights in and over the aforesaid land acquired by the Central Government were thereafter vested in the SECL by an order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the 1957 Act, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 24th June, 1998. 3. The Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Department of Coal then wrote a letter dated 31.8.2001 to the Collector, District Shahdol in which Kotma Tahsil was then located, requesting him to arrange for acquisition of 699.698 hectares of tenancy land and 46.154 hectares of Government land for Amadand Open Cast Mine of Jamuna Kotma Area under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''he 1894 Act') and to take possession of the same as provided under section 17 of the 1894 Act immediately. Pursuant to this request, the State Government issued a notification on 28th February, 2004 under section 4 of the 1894 Act for acquiring the aforesaid land. After considering the objections, the State Government issued a declaration under section 6 of the 1894 Act in respect of the aforesaid land on 23rd May, 2004. Proceedings under section 9 of the 1894 Act were completed on 5th September, 2004 and awards were passed on 30th November, 2004 and a Panchnama was made on 7th January, 2005 handing over symbolic possession of the aforesaid land to the SECL. The SECL deposited compensation to the tune Rs.17,49,00,233/- for the owners of the land and the houses located on the land. Out of2485 owners of land in whose favour awards were passed, 774 persons withdrew the compensation amounting to Rs.6.52 crores. 4. Mr. The SECL deposited compensation to the tune Rs.17,49,00,233/- for the owners of the land and the houses located on the land. Out of2485 owners of land in whose favour awards were passed, 774 persons withdrew the compensation amounting to Rs.6.52 crores. 4. Mr. P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the SECL, raised a preliminary issue regarding the locus standi of the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch to file W.P. No. 13561 of 2005 challenging the acquisition of land when the owners of the land acquired could challenge the acquisition, but as the owners have also filed separate writ petitions challenging the acquisition which are being decided by this order, we do not think it necessary to decide this academic Issue. 5. Mr. AM. Trivedi, learned counsel leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners in all the writ petitions submitted that admittedly Kotma Tahsil is a scheduled area to which the provisions of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution apply as provided in clause (1) of Art. 244 of the Constitution. He submitted that Para 5 (2) (a) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution provides that the Governor may make regulations for the peace and good Government of any area in a State which is for the time being a Schedule Area and such regulations mayinc1ude regulation prohibiting or restricting the transfer of land by or among members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area. He submitted that in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1997 SC 3297 , a plea was raised before the Supreme Court by the State of AP. that section 3 of the AP. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 made under para 5 (2) (a) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution does not apply to Government land in scheduled area; but the Supreme Court rejected this plea holding that in section 3 of the AP. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, the word 'person' who is prohibited to transfer land in scheduled area includes not only natural person but also a juristic person and accordingly, includes the State Government and, therefore, the State Government cannot transfer land in scheduled areas by way of lease for mining purpose in favour of non-tribals as prohibited by Para 5 (2) (b) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. He submitted that in the present case, therefore, the land belonging to the Tribunals in the scheduled areas cannot be acquired by the State Government and transferred to the SECL for mining purposes. 6. In reply, Mr. P.S. Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the SECL, submitted that in Samatha v. State of A.P. and others (supra), the Supreme Court, on an interpretation of the AP. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, held that even Government land in scheduled area cannot be transferred by the Government to non-tribals for mining purposes but the provisions in section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are differently worded than the AP. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. He submitted that in Balco Employees Union v. Union of India and others, AIR 2002 SC 350 , the Supreme Court interpreted sub-section (6) of section 165 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and held that it does not contain any provision prohibiting giving of tribal lands by way of lease to non-tribals and distinguished the provisions of section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 from the provisions of section 3 (1) of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. 7. Sub-section (6) of section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which is relevant for deciding these cases is quoted herein below: "165. Right of transfer. 7. Sub-section (6) of section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which is relevant for deciding these cases is quoted herein below: "165. Right of transfer. -- (1) *** *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** *** (4) *** *** *** *** (5) *** *** *** *** (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the right of Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which this Code applies shall-- (i) in such areas as are predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify, not be transferred nor it shall be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified in the notification; (ii) in areas other than those specified in the notification under clause (i), not to be transferred or be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing. Explanation -- For the purposes of this sub-section the expression 'otherwise' shall not include lease. *** *** *** *** 8. It will be clear from a plain reading of sub-section (6) of section 165 0 the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, quoted above, that this provision cannot and does not prohibit the acquisition of land belonging to an aboriginal tribe under law, such as the 1957 Act or the 1894 Act, and it applies only to the transfer of a right of a Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe by way of sale, lease, mortgage, etc. to a person not belonging to the aboriginal tribe. Moreover, sub-section (6) of section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 does not prohibit, in any manner, the Government to transfer any land belonging to aboriginal tribe acquired by it under law such as 1957 Act or 1894 Act to a Government Company such as SECL. In fact, in Samatha v. State of A.P. and others (supra), cited by Mr. In fact, in Samatha v. State of A.P. and others (supra), cited by Mr. Trivedi, the Supreme Court has held in Para 117 at page 3344 of the AIR 1997 SC that transfer of Government land to a Government Company is excluded from the prohibition in para 5 (2) (b) of the fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India and section 3 (1) (a) of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the acquisition of land of the tribals in the scheduled areas and the transfer of such land to the SECL in the scheduled area are not prohibited by sub-section (6) of section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 9. Mr. Trivedi next submitted that under clause (3) of Art. 243-ZC of the Constitution, Parliament has been empowered by law to extend the provisions of Part IX-A of the Constitution to the scheduled areas referred to in clause (1) of Art. 244 of the Constitution subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in such law and in exercise of this power, Parliament has enacted, 'The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996' (for short 'the 1996 Act). He submitted that section 4 of the 1996 Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Part IX to the Constitution, the Legislature of a State shall not make any law under that Part which is inconsistent with any of the features mentioned in clauses in section 4 and clause (i) of section 4 provides that the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be consulted before making the acquisition of land in the Scheduled Areas for development projects and before re-settling or rehabilitating persons affected by such projects in the Scheduled Areas. He submitted that the Gram Sabhas or the Panchayats of the Scheduled Areas have not been consulted before making acquisition of land in question in Kotrna Tahsil, which is a scheduled area, and hence the acquisition of land for mining of coal by SECL is in violation of the provisions of section 4 of the 1996 Act read with clause (3) of Art. 243-ZC of the Constitution. 10. Section 4 (i) of the 1996 Act is quoted below : "4. Exceptions and modifications to Part IX of the Constitution. 10. Section 4 (i) of the 1996 Act is quoted below : "4. Exceptions and modifications to Part IX of the Constitution. -- Notwithstanding anything contained under Part IX of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State shall not make any laws under that Part which is inconsistent with any of the following features, namely -- *** *** *** *** (i) Tha Gram Sabhas or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be consulted before making the acquisition of land in the scheduled areas for development projects and before re-settling or rehabilitating persons affected by such projects in the scheduled areas; the actual planning and implementation of the projects in the scheduled areas shall be coordinated at the State level." It will be clear from the language used in section 4 of the 1996 Act that the embargo therein is not on Parliament but on Legislature of a State but the acquisition of land in the scheduled areas in the present case for mining by SECL is under law made by Parliament, namely, the 1957 Act of the 1894 Act and section 4 (i) of the 1996 Act does not apply to such acquisition. The contention of Mr. Trivedi is thus wholly misconceived. 11. Mr. Trivedi next submitted that the acquisition of land in this case admittedly is for mining of coal by the SECL and for such acquisition of land for mining of coal, the 1957 Act is applicable as it is a Special Act providing for acquisition by the State of un worked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. He argued that the 1894 Act, which is a General Act for acquisition of land thus stood impliedly repealed by the 1957 Act in so far as acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land is concerned. He referred to the different provisions of the 1957 Act to show that it contains an exhaustive Code with regard to acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. He submitted that the provisions of the 1957 Act and the provisions of the 1894 Act are in conflict with each other. He submitted that the provisions of the 1957 Act and the provisions of the 1894 Act are in conflict with each other. In this context, he referred to the provisions of section 14 of the 1957 Act to show that the amount of compensation for acquisition of land under the Act can be fixed by agreement and where no such agreement can be reached, the compensation is to be determined by a Tribunal. This provision, Mr. Trivedi submitted, was different from section 11 of the 1894 Act under which the Collector was to make an award for compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act. He also referred to the provisions of section 28 of the 1957 Act to show that notifications issued under the 1894 Act, in cases where the land acquisition proceedings were pending were to be treated as notifications issued under the 1957 Act and argued that this would go to show that for acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land could be only under the 1957 Act. 12. Mr. Nair, on the other hand, submitted that there is no conflict between the 1894 Act and the 1957 Act and argued that the 1894 Act equally applies to acquisition by the State of un worked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. He cited the decision in Savitri Cairae v. U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another, (2003) 6 SCC 255 , in which the Supreme Court having found that the purpose for acquisition of land both under the Parliament Act and the State Act is the same and the order of acquisition to be passed by the State, held that it is immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired but if a higher compensation is payable under one of the Acts, such higher amount would be payable to avoid discrimination in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. He further submitted that for finding out whether there is implied repeal of the 1894 Act by the 1957 Act in respect of acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land, the questions to be asked are (i) whether there is a direct conflict between the two provisions, (ii) whether the Legislature intends to lay down exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the earlier law, and (iii) whether the two laws occupy the same field. In support of this contention, he cited the decision in Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal v. State of Gujarat and another, (2003) 12 SCC 274 . According to Mr. Nair, if these tests are applied, then it cannot be held that there is implied repeal of the 1894 Act in respect of acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. 13. Mr. Nair alternatively submitted that the Supreme Court has held in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others. (1997) 1 SCC 134 , that the Court will have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution and it will even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement, that the person interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable and that there are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong and quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. He submitted that these observations of the Supreme Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another (supra), were relied on by the Supreme Court in Girias Investment Private Limited and another v. State of Kamataka and others, (2008) 7 SCC 53 , and it was held therein that though the rights of an individual whose property is sought to be acquired must be scrupulously respected, an acquisition for the benefit of public at large is not to be lightly quashed and extra-ordinary reasons must exist for doing so. He submitted that even if the Court comes to a conclusion that the acquisition of land in the present case for mining of coal should have been made under the 1957 Act and not under the 1894 Act, the Court should not quash the acquisition particularly when the majority of the 2485 persons, whose lands have been acquired, have not come to the Court and only 31 of them have come to the Court and 773 land owners have already received compensation. He further submitted that compensation for the land which has been acquired has been deposited by the SECL with the State Government as far back as on 1st January, 2005. 14. Mr. Trivedi, however, submitted that physical possession of the land acquired continues with the land owners and that the compensation determined for acquisition of the land is on the lower side and in any case, the tribals whose land has been acquired were entitled to compensation as agreed upon or as determined by the Tribunal under section 14 of the 1957 Act. He further submitted that the Government of M.P., Rehabilitation Department, has declared a policy on 25th September, 1991 whereunder persons/families likely to be oustees due to mineral projects were entitled to be employed by the SECL on priority basis and for land for residential purposes and other facilities by way of rehabilitation but none of these benefits for rehabilitation have been extended by the SECL to the oustees. He referred to the provisions of Art. 275 of the Constitution wherein it is provided that these shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India as grants-in-aid of the revenues of a State such capital and recurring sums as may be necessary to enable that State to meet the costs of such schemes of development as may be undertaken by the State with the approval of the Government of India for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes in that State or raising the level of administration of the scheduled areas therein to that of the administration of the rest of the areas of that State. He also stated that in Samatha v. State of A.P (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the Cabinet while exercising powers under Art. 298 of the Constitution should equally be cognizant to the constitutional duty to protect and empower tribals and has further observed that exploitation of mineral resources is undoubtedly for the development of the nation but the competing rights of the tribals are required to be balanced by the State. He referred to Para 113 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Samatha v. State of A.P (supra), as reported in the AIR, in which it is observed that the executive is enjoined to protect social, economic and educational interest of the tribals and when the State leases out the lands in the scheduled areas to the non-tribals for exploitation of mineral resources, it transmits the correlative these constitutional duties and obligation to those who undertake to exploit the natural resources-to also improve the social, economic and educational empowerment of the tribals. He also cited judgment in Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, (2007) 2 SCC 640 , in which the Supreme Court referring to Art. 39 (b) of the Constitution has impressed upon the necessity for ensuring equitable distribution of resources. He argued that coal is of course the most important known sources of energy and thus a vital national resource but individuals and particularly tribals whose lands are acquired for mining of coal must be rehabilitated and resettled. 15. We have considered the contentions of Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Nair and we find that the 1894 Act is a law for acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for companies. Section 4 of the 1894 Act provides that whenever it appears to the Appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette. Section 5-A of the 1894 Act states that any person interested in ally land which has been notified under section 4 may object to the acquisition of land. Section 5-A of the 1894 Act states that any person interested in ally land which has been notified under section 4 may object to the acquisition of land. Section 6 of the 1894 Act provides that when the Appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, that any particular land is needed for public purpose or for any company, it may issue a declaration to that effect. Section 7 of the 1894 Act provides that after such declaration made under section 6, the Appropriate Government shall direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land. Section 9 of the 1894 Act provides for notice to the persons interested in the land by the Collector stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and claims for compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. Section 11 of the 1894 Act provides for enquiry an award of compensation by the Collector and section 16 states that when the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Section 17 of the 1894 Act enumerates the special powers of the Appropriate Government and Collector in cases of urgency and provides for taking possession of any land needed for any public purpose and for dispensing with the inquiry under section 5-A in case of urgency. 16. On examining the 1957 Act, we find that it provides for acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. Section 4 of the 1957 Act provides that whenever it appears to the Central Government that the coal is likely to be obtained from land in any locality, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give notice of its intention to prospect for coal. Section 6 of the 1957 Act provides for compensation for any necessary damage done under section 4 of the 1957 Act. Section 6 of the 1957 Act provides for compensation for any necessary damage done under section 4 of the 1957 Act. Section 7 of the 1957 Act confers powers on the Central Government to give notice of its intention to acquire the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land if the Central Government is satisfied that the coal is obtainable in the whole or any part of the land, notified under sub-section (1) of section 4. Section 8 of the 1957 Act says that any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued may object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land. Section 9 of the 1957 Act states that when the Central Government is satisfied after considering the report if any made under section 8 that any land or any rights in or over such land should be acquired, a declaration shall be made to that effect. Section 9-A of the 1957 Act provides for special powers in case of urgency and states that if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary to acquire immediately the whole or any part of the land notified under sub-section (1) of section 4 or any rights in or over such land, the Central Government may direct that the provisions of section 8 will not apply and if it does so, a declaration shall be made under section 9 in respect thereof instead of issuing notification under section 7. Section 10 of the 1957 Act provides that on publication in the Official Gazette of the declaration under section 9, the land or the rights in or over the land, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section 11 of the 1957 Act empowers the Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights over land in a Government Company instead of the Central Government. Section 12 of the 1957 Act empowers the Competent Authority to require any person in possession of the land acquired to surrender or deliver possession of the land within such period as may be specified in the notice. Section 12 of the 1957 Act empowers the Competent Authority to require any person in possession of the land acquired to surrender or deliver possession of the land within such period as may be specified in the notice. Section 14 of the 1957 Act provides for method of determining compensation and states that where the amount of any compensation payable under the Act can be fixed by agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement and where no such agreement can be reached, the award of compensation shall be made by the Tribunal after hearing the parties. Section 17 of the 1957 Act provides for payment of compensation. 17. This discussion of the provisions of the 1894 Act and the 1957 Act would show that the 1894 Act is a prior General Act for acquisition of land needed for public purpose and for companies and provides the manner in which the acquisition of such land shall be made and the manner in which the compensation will be determined and paid to the owners of land acquired and when possession of the acquired land shall be taken. The 1957 Act is a later special Act for acquisition by the Central Government for itself or for Government Companies land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land and similarly provides the manner in which such land or rights in such land will be acquired, the manner in which compensation will be determined and paid to the owners of land or rights and when possession of such acquired land will be taken. Hence the intention of Parliament in enacting the 1957 Act was that for acquisition of land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or o frights in or over such land, the 1894 Act would no longer apply and instead, the 1957 Act would apply. 18. This intention of Parliament will also be clear from section 28 of the 1957 Act which is extracted herein below : "28. Notifications under Act 1 of 1894 in which proceedings are pending to be treated as notification under this Act. 18. This intention of Parliament will also be clear from section 28 of the 1957 Act which is extracted herein below : "28. Notifications under Act 1 of 1894 in which proceedings are pending to be treated as notification under this Act. -- (1) Every notification issued before the commencement of this Act, whether by the Central Government or by a State Government, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), in which lands were stated to be needed for the prospecting of coal seams for the development of collieries to be worked by the Union of India shall be deemed to have been issued by the Central Government under section 4 of this Act as if this Act had been in force on the date of the notification. (2) Every notification issued before the commencement of this Act, whether by the Central Government or by a State Government, under section 6 of the said Act in which lands were stated to be needed for the development of coal shall be deemed to have been issued under section 9 of this Act as if this Act had been in force on the date of the notification. (3) Any objection preferred under section 5-A of the said Act in respect of any land covered by any notification issued under section 4 of the said Act shall be deemed to be an objection preferred under section 8 of this Act to the relevant Competent Authority and may be disposed of by him as if the objection had been made in relation to a notification issued under section 7 of this Act in respect of such land or of any rights in or over such land; and the Central Government may at any time make a declaration under section 9 of this Act in respect of the land or any part thereof or any rights in or over such land or part. (3-A) Where in respect of any land covered by any notification issued under section 4 of the said Act, no objection has been preferred under section 5-A thereof within the period specified in that section, then it shall be demed that a notification has been issued under section 7 of this Act in respect of such land or of any rights in or over such land and that no objection to the acquisition of the land or any rights in or over the land had been preferred under section 8 of this Act, and accordingly the Central Govemri1ent may at any time make a declaration under section 9 of this Act in respect of the land or any part thereof or any rights in or over such land or part. (4) Subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the provisions of this Act (including provisions relating to compensation) shall apply in relation to any such notification as is referred to in sub-section (1) or subsection (2) as they apply in relation to any notification issued under section 4 or section 9, as the case may be, of this Act." A reading of the aforesaid section 28 of the 1957 Act would show that notifications and declarations issued under the 1894 Act under which proceedings for acquisition of land for prospecting or development of coal were initiated have to be treated as notifications and declarations under the 1957 Act and all such acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act but pending at the time of commencement of the 1957 Act were to continue only under the 1957 Act and not under the 1894 Act. 19. Thus, it is crystal clear that the 1894 Act which was a General Act for acquisition of land for public purpose and for companies was partially repea1ed by the 1957 Act which was a Special Act for acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. As stated in Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Tenth Edition 2006 by Justice G.P. Singh : "A prior General Act may be affected by a subsequent particular or Special Act if the subject -matter of the particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by the general provisions of the earlier Act. As stated in Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Tenth Edition 2006 by Justice G.P. Singh : "A prior General Act may be affected by a subsequent particular or Special Act if the subject -matter of the particular Act prior to its enforcement was being governed by the general provisions of the earlier Act. In such a case the operation of the particular Act may have the effect of partially repealing the General Act, or curtailing its operation, or adding conditions to its operation for the particular cases." 20. An example of such partial implied repeal of an earlier general statutory provision by later particular provision is the case of Municipal Board, Bareilly v. Bharat Oil Co. and others, AIR 1990 SC 548 . The relevant facts of this case briefly were that in exercise of powers under sections 131 to 135 of the U .P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the Government of the United Provinces framed octroi rules which were published by notification dated 25th October, 1925 and these rules were included in the Municipal Account Code (Chapter X Rules 131 to 231) published by the Government of U.P. But several decades thereafter, separate rules for assessment and collection of octroi in the Bareilly Municipality were framed by the Government of U.P. in exercise of the powers conferred by section 296 of the said Act. On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the octroi rules contained in Chapter X are general rules framed by the State Government in respect of matters referred to in section 153 in exercise of power under section 296 and are general for all municipalities, but the 1963 rules are framed for the Municipal Board, Bareilly expressly superseding the general rules in so far as they apply to the Municipal Board, Bareilly. The Supreme Court further held that by framing the 1963 Rules, the Government evinced its intention to cover the field which was covered by the 1925 Rules in so far as the Bareilly Municipality was concerned and the subject-matter dealt with in the 1963 Rules was the same as dealt with in 1925 Rules and hence the intention to supersede the earlier rules was clearly expressed and Rule 131 of the 1925 Rules has no longer any application in the matter of levying octroi by the Municipal Board, Bareilly and the said rules stood repealed in so far as the Municipal Board, Bareilly is concerned. 21. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the 1894 Act and the 1957 Act cover the same field and-same subject matter, namely acquisition of land by the State for public purposes and for companies; but Parliament in enacting the 1957 Act for acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land has clearly evinced its intention that with commencement of the 1957 Act, the 1894 Act will no longer apply and would stand repealed in respect of acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land. Hence, acquisition of land in the present case for mining of coal by SECL should have been done under the 1957 Act and not under the 1894 Act. 22. Nonetheless, in exercise of our power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to quash the entire proceedings for acquisition. This is because the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 4 (1) of the 1957 Act had already given 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 and after hearing objections had also issued notification on 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 and had also issued a notification dated 24th June, 1998 under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the 1957 Act that the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for, win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 3407.408 hectares have been acquired. What the Central Government failed to do is to issue a notification under section 7 of the 1957 Act giving notice of its intention to acquire the land and instead requested the Collector by letter dated 31st August, 2001 to issue notifications to acquire 699.698 hectares of tenancy land under the 1894 Act and to take possession of the same under section 17 of the 1894 Act immediately and pursuant to this request, the State Government issued notifications under section 4 and issued declaration under section 6 of the 1894 Act in respect of the land on 23rd May, 2004 and initiated proceedings under section 9 of the 1894 Act and the Collector made the award determining the compensation under section 11 of the 1894 Act. As a consequence, the land owners whose lands were acquired were deprived of the determination of compensation in the land so acquired by agreement or failing such agreement by the Tribunal under section 14 of the 1957 Act. Hence, the appropriate relief we should grant in these writ petitions is to direct the Central Government ~ to issue notifications under section 7,9 and 9-A of the 1957 Act acquiring the land in question under the 1957 Act and to direct vesting of the lannd in the SECL under section 11 of the 1957 Act and to take possession of the land under section 12 of the 1957 Act and to determine the compensation payable to the land owners by agreement and failing such agreement through the Tribunal in accordance with section 14 of the 1957 Act. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), and as has been reiterated in Girias Investment Private Limited and another v. State of Karnataka and others (supra), the Court will have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution and even if it finds that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance of some legal requirement or that the persons interested are entitled to particular amount of compensation, the Court should appropriately mould the relief and redress the wrong instead of quashing the acquisition proceedings. Similarly, as observed in Savitri Cairae v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another (supra), it is immaterial under which Act the acquisition has been made, but the land owner should be given higher compensation to avoid discrimination. 23. The lands required for mining of coal by the SECL in the present case, moreover, are located in the scheduled areas and are owned by the tribals. Art. 244 (1) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution make provisions to ensure that the tribals residing in the scheduled areas are not exploited and their rights over the land are protected. This is because tribals living in scheduled areas are dependent on the agricultural land for their living. Any project of the Central Government or the State Government or of any Corporation or Government Company owned by the Central Government or the State Government which deprives the tribals in the scheduled areas of their land by acquisition either under the 1894 Act or the 1957 Act must ensure that such tribals are rehabilitated and resettled with an alternative source of living in accordance with the policy of the Appropriate Government. 24. The Government of Madhya Pradesh, Rehabilitation Department has formulated a policy in September, 1991 for rehabilitation of persons who become oustees due to mineral projects situated in the State. The policy of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Rehabilitation Department of September, 1991 is extracted herein below : "Government of Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Department No. F/5-8:90:28 Bhopal, 25 September, 1991 It has been decided by the State Government that the following policy may be enforced for rehabilitation for the persons who become oustees due to the mineral projects situated in the State : 1. Eligibility : The person/family likely to be oustees due to mineral projects will be eligible for the facilities on the following basis : (a) Whose whole lands have been acquired. (b) Whose 1/3 agricultural land and residential have been acquired. (c) Whose only residential lands have been acquired. (d) Who are living without residential facility in the area which is effected by this scheme. 2. Definition of oustees family: (a) The oustees family means, husband, wife, minor children and other who are dependent on the family such as, widow mother, widow sister, sister daughter, or old father. (c) Whose only residential lands have been acquired. (d) Who are living without residential facility in the area which is effected by this scheme. 2. Definition of oustees family: (a) The oustees family means, husband, wife, minor children and other who are dependent on the family such as, widow mother, widow sister, sister daughter, or old father. (b) The boys of oustees family, who become adult on the date of issue of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, will be treated as separate family. 3. Employment facility : (a) One person of that each family, whose residential land and more than 1/3rd land have been acquired will be eligible for getting employment by SECL on first priority basis. (b) One person of each family, whose non-irrigated land more than 3 acres and irrigated land more than 2 acres have been acquired will be eligible to get employment by SECL on second priority. (c) One person of such family, whose agricultural land and/or residential land have been acquired, will be eligible for getting employment by SECL on priority basis. (d) One person such as family whose 2/3 agricultural land has been acquired, will be eligible for getting employment by SECL on availability basis. (e) Landless oustees of concerned area, whose essential livelihood have been affected will be provided training through the medium of self employment plan with the help of the State Government, SECL will evaluate the need for training shall be arranged by SECL. 4. Distribution of land : Every oustees family will be provided ten decimals of residential land. For this purpose the State will provide land to SECL which will pay its cost. 5. Other facilities : In the residential facility, normal facilities like road, street lights, school buildings, health centers, facility for drinking water well, entertainment, water tanks, play grounds, gardens and shopping centers will be provided by SECL. 6. Assistance : For temporary residential facility, every oustee family will receive from the SECL Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as immediate resettlement assistance, SECL will also arrange for training of entitled individuals of such families. 7. In areas affected by mining projects, a joining committee will decide the entitlement of all those who were engaged in business, commerce or other forms of livelihood and have been adversely affected because of projects. 7. In areas affected by mining projects, a joining committee will decide the entitlement of all those who were engaged in business, commerce or other forms of livelihood and have been adversely affected because of projects. This committee will include representatives SECL and of the State Government nominated by the Collector. People falling in this category will trend through the medium of self employment, plan, etc. SECL will evaluate the need for the training for such individuals with the assistance of the State Government and will arrange for it. 8. Other Terms and Conditions : (a) If the Department of Coal, Govt. of India, decides an additional compensation or facility in any mining project will be applicable to all the resettlement plans, in addition to what has been listed above. (b) The Government can change or modify this policy in consultation with SECL. (c) In any other related company desires, it can with the approval of the State Government implement this policy in mining projects other than those of SECL. In the name and as per the order of The Governor of Madhya Pradesh. Sd/ (S.H. Sharma) Deputy Secreatry, Govt. of M.P. Rehabilitation Deptt." The State Government and the SECL will ensure that the persons, who are eligible to the rehabilitation facilities indicated in the policy of September, 1991 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, quoted above, are granted the said facilities. 25. In the result, we direct the Central Government to issue notifications under the 1957 Act for acquisition of the land and take possession of the land in question, as discussed in Paragraph 22 of this judgment, and get the compensation determined in accordance with section 14 of the 1957 Act and pay the same to the land owners. Any amount of compensation already received by the owners of the land will be adjusted against the compensation so determined under section 14 of the 1957 Act. SECL will deposit the compensation less the amount already deposited with the Appropriate Authority accordingly. We further direct that the State Government and the SECL will provide the rehabilitation facilities to the eligible persons in accordance with the policy of September, 1991 of the State Government. The writ petitions are allowed with the aforesaid reliefs. There shall be no orders as to costs. Interim orders passed in these writ petitions are vacated.