Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 665 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2010-06-24

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
ORDER : Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of finally at this stage itself. 2. The writ petitioner i.e. Central Coalfields Limited, which is a Government Company within the meaning of Article 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment dated 21.4.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II, Hazaribagh, in Land Reference Case Nos. 50 to 61/19993, 64 to 66/1993 and 68/1993 and the Award made pursuant thereto, whereby the Court below after enhancing the rate of compensation fixed by the Collector has fixed the market value of the lands acquired @ Rs. 2,888/- per decimal or Rs. 2,88,886/- per acre besides solatium, interest and other benefits. 3. The facts in brief are as under: The lands in question were acquired by the Government for the petitioner i.e. the Central Coalfields Limited and the Collector at his own level decided the compensation, which the Awardee did not feel just and proper and consequently they preferred objection before the Collector for enhancement of compensation. The collector referred the entire matter with objection u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Civil Court for re-fixing the compensation in accordance with law. The lands in question situate in village Sirka within Ramgarh police station of Hazaribagh district (now Ramgarh district) and the same was acquired for Central Coalfields Limited and notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4.1.1989, which was published in the local Gazette on 1.2.1989. A corrigendum was also published on 16.1.1930. The claimants claimed compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per decimal besides solatium and other benefits and they adduced evidence both oral and well as documentary in support of their claim. The claim of the claimants was contested by the State and thereafter on consideration of the evidence and materials on record, the Court below i.e. Subordinate Judge-II, Hazaribagh, by the impugned judgment enhanced the rate of compensation fixing the rate at Rs. 2,888/- per decimal. 4. The petitioner challenges the said impugned judgment on the ground that the lands in question were acquired for the Central Coalfields Limited, but no notice or Information was given to it before passing the impugned judgment. 2,888/- per decimal. 4. The petitioner challenges the said impugned judgment on the ground that the lands in question were acquired for the Central Coalfields Limited, but no notice or Information was given to it before passing the impugned judgment. The Central Coalfields Limited was not even impleaded as a party in the said proceeding, though the lands were acquired for it and burden of payment of compensation was on the petitioner. 5. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelagangabai and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in, AIR 1990 SC 1321 submitted that since the land was acquired for the purpose of the petitioner Company and the burden of payment of compensation was on it and, therefore, an opportunity to place its case before the Court was required to be given to the petitioner and since no notice was given to it and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is illegal and not binding on the petitioner. 6. Though counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondents State as well as the claimants, but no where it has been denied that prior to passing the impugned judgment and award enhancing the compensation the Central Coalfields Limited was either impleaded as a party or was given any prior notice to place its case. The claimants have only stated that the Central Coalfields Limited has filed this writ application only to delay the payment of compensation to them. 6. After considering the rival submission made on behalf of the parties and on consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, wherein in paragraph the Supreme Court held as under : “Admittedly the land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent-Corporation and the burden of payment of the compensation is on the Corporation. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. In this background the High Court has held that it was mandatory for the court of reference to have caused a notice served on the respondent-Corporation before proceeding to determine the compensation claim. Since no notice was given to the respondent-Corporation and it was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the court, the judgment rendered in the reference case was illegal and not binding on the Corporation. We are in agreement with this view. Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Karnanataka reads as follows: “20. Service of notice.- The court shall thereupon cause a notice, specifying the day on which the court will proceed to determine the reference, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely: (a) the Deputy Commissioner; (b) all persons interested in the reference; and (c) if the acquisition is not made for Government, the person or authority for whom it-is made. In view of the clear language used in Clause (c) of Section 20, mentioned above, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to be heard before the reference could be determined. The High Court has also relied upon the decision in Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LR's., (1980) 3 SCR 235 : AIR 1980 SC 1118 , wherein the expression "person interested" was interpreted liberally so as to include an authority like the Corporation in the present case, but in view of the further provision specifically mentioning in Clause (c) the authority for whom the acquisition is made it is not necessary to interpret Clause (b) of Section 20 in the present appeal. We accordingly confirm the direction of the High Court as contained in the impugned judgment that the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, should re-open the proceedings in the LA. Case No. 64 of 1979 and decide the matter afresh after giving the Corporation a chance to lead its evidence on the question of valuation. Since the matter is an old one, the respondent-Corporation is hereby directed to appear in the said case within 3 weeks from today without waiting for any further notice. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed. Since the matter is an old one, the respondent-Corporation is hereby directed to appear in the said case within 3 weeks from today without waiting for any further notice. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 21.4.2005 passed by the Subordinate Judge-II, Hazaribagh, in Land Reference Case Nos. 50 to 61/19993, 64 to 66/1993 and 68/1993 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh after giving the petitioner a chance to lead its evidence on the question of valuation. Since the matter is old one and, as such, the Court below is directed to dispose of the reference as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This writ application stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Application allowed.