Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 154 (JHR)

Amrit Singh v. Central Coal fields Limited

2014-01-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.-The appellant herein was the respondent no. 6 in WPS No. 4819/2003 which was allowed in favour of the petitioner-Central Coalfields Limited (1st respondent herein). By the judgment impugned dated 17th December 2003, learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 15th June 2003 issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (Respondent No. 6 herein) directing the writ petitioner to help the appellant to remove the slurry from the plot nos. 836P, 837, 839P, 840 and 841P. It also quashed the Memo issued by the Deputy Collector Incharge, Bokaro to officer-in-charge, Gumla Police Station directing the writ petitioner to give all possible assistance to the appellant in removing the slurry from the plots in question. 2. The appellant had earlier preferred a Public Interest Litigation being CWJC No. 4304/90 before the Patna High Court seeking issuance of writ / order / or direction upon the chairman of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board to stop flow of slurry from the Swang Coal Washery alleging that the same were being made at the raiyati land of the petitioner. He also sought direction to prohibit the respondents from creating obstruction against the petitioner from removing the slurry deposited in his raiyati land. The petitioner / appellant herein, in the said writ petition claimed to have the Registered Power of Attorney executed by Sri Sahdeo Nayak and Sri Chandradeo Nayak who had given the power of right, title and interest in respect of the said plots in favour of the petitioner. The public interest litigation was dismissed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court by judgment and order dated 18th November 1991, by observing that the writ petitioner had sought to achieve indirectly which could not be achieved directly and that the public interest litigation was filed with object of personal gain which the writ court refused to allow. It categorically observed that the petitioner cannot claim any direction from the Court forbidding the respondents from obstructing the petitioner from removing sludge / slurry from the plots in question. Incidentally, while dismissing the said PIL, the Division Bench at the end, made a passing observation i.e., if the petitioner persists in doing so without authorization from the Central Government in accordance with law, the authorities may be justified in taking appropriate action against the petitioner. 3. Incidentally, while dismissing the said PIL, the Division Bench at the end, made a passing observation i.e., if the petitioner persists in doing so without authorization from the Central Government in accordance with law, the authorities may be justified in taking appropriate action against the petitioner. 3. Perhaps, taking a cue from the observation made, the appellant herein approached the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India stating that the respondent Central Coalfields Limited has been depositing slurry for the last 15 years on his rayati land which he may be allowed to remove. Consequent thereupon, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board issued an order dated 15th June 2003 directing the Central Coalfields Limited to help the appellant in removing slurry from his land. 4. The writ petitioner-Central Coalfields Limited being aggrieved by the said direction, challenged the same in the writ petition from which the impugned judgment arises. 5. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition however chose to make an observation in relation to right, title and interest of the appellant over the land in question and that he was not entitled to remove slurry from those plots of the land, which was completely beyond the scope of the writ petition. In this background, the appellant had preferred the instant appeal. 6. According to the appellant, he has been a power of attorney holder and is lessee of the plots in question which is said to have been leased in his favour by the original owner namely, Sahdeo Nayak and Chandradeo Nayak. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the report of the Circle Officer, Gomia which is part of Annexure-6, also recognizes possession of the appellant over the said piece of land and seven acres of the said land have been used for cultivation. According to the appellant, he is paying rent to the State Government in respect of the said lands. It has been asserted by referring to the letter which is annexed as a part of Annexure-6 issued by the Dy. Chief Sales Manager, Central Coalfields Limited in favour of the appellant that the lands of Khata No. 80 of Plot Nos. According to the appellant, he is paying rent to the State Government in respect of the said lands. It has been asserted by referring to the letter which is annexed as a part of Annexure-6 issued by the Dy. Chief Sales Manager, Central Coalfields Limited in favour of the appellant that the lands of Khata No. 80 of Plot Nos. 836P, 837, 838, 839P, 840 and 841P totalling 6.05 acres were examined by the CCL Revenue Department and it was found to be acquired under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for only mining rights and not surface rights. Therefore, according to the appellant, Central Coalfields Limited cannot prevent the appellant from removing slurry which is being deposited on his rayati land since long. It has been submitted that when the Circle Officer has found possession of the appellant over the lands in question, the learned Single Judge committed a serious error of jurisdiction in making observations relating to the right, title and interest over the land in question of the appellant while passing the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the writ petition was in relation to challenge to issuance of order dated 15th June 2003 issued by the State Pollution Control Board by the Central Coalfields Limited wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, made observations which are not sustainable in law as well as on facts. Therefore, the impugned judgement requires to be interfered with. 7. The respondent-CCL who was writ petitioner, has claimed right, title and interest over the said plots on the basis of notification dated 03rd November 1971 issued under the Act of 1957. Learned counsel appearing on their behalf has submitted that the appellant had no semblance of right, title and interest over the land in question in order to claim right to remove slurry from the land which belong to CCL. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge while taking note of the observation made in the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the public interest litigation preferred by the appellant before the Patna High Court, has rightly found that the petitioner had no right, title and interest over the land in question. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge while taking note of the observation made in the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the public interest litigation preferred by the appellant before the Patna High Court, has rightly found that the petitioner had no right, title and interest over the land in question. It is submitted that the State Pollution Control Board or the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India were therefore not justified in issuing direction upon the writ petitioner - CCL to help the appellant to remove slurry from the land alleged to be his rayati land. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error of law or facts requiring interference by this Court. On the part of the State Pollution Control Board, it has been stated that upon instruction of the MOEF, Government of India, it is obligatory on its part to issue such direction upon CCL to help the appellant remove the slurry as it was causing pollution. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the relevant materials on records including the impugned judgment. It transpires from perusal of the observation made by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court passed in CWJC No. 4304/90, which is quoted in the impugned judgment itself, that the appellant had unsuccessfully sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court to direct the respondent Bihar State Pollution Control Board for stopping flow of slurry from the Swang Coal Washery by the Central Coalfields Limited, as also preventing them from creating any obstruction in removing slurry deposited on his alleged raiayati land. It further appears that the learned Division Bench in fact found that the public interest litigation was filed for personal gain and the petitioner was a native of Punjab and he carries on business in coal slurry. That the appellant was a dealer in slurry and briquettes made out of the slurry deposited on the self same plots and the petitioner had moved before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in C.O. No. 15309(W)/1988 in connection with the same land. That the appellant was a dealer in slurry and briquettes made out of the slurry deposited on the self same plots and the petitioner had moved before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in C.O. No. 15309(W)/1988 in connection with the same land. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment also found that though, the appellant had stated that he is registered power of attorney holder of one Sahdeo Nayak and Chandradeo Nayak, but curiously enough, neither the copy of registered power of attorney nor the document of transfer has been annexed on his behalf. In the aforesaid background, learned Single Judge observed that the Central Government without application of mind with regard to the procedure for granting permission for mining activity and without hearing the Central Coalfields Limited, had issued the letter directing the Central Coalfields Limited to remove the slurry from the land alleged to be the raiyati land of the appellant and acting on such letter of the Central Government, the State Pollution Control Board had issued the similar direction. 9. Even at this stage, the appellant has failed to produce any valid document showing any right, title and interest over the land in question which he claims to be possessing on the basis of power of attorney executed by the same person namely, Sahdeo Nayak and Chandradeo Nayak. Even before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner / appellant had failed to produce any document to show his right, title and interest over the said plots. On the contrary, the Central Coalfields Limited (1st respondent herein) had made categorical assertion that the land was acquired as far back as in 1971 under the provisions of the Act of 1957. From perusal of the direction issued by the Ministry of Forest and Environment and order dated 15th June 2003 issued by the State Pollution Control Board, it does not appear that any fact finding inquiry relating to the right, title and interest of the appellant was conducted before issuance of direction upon the Central Coalfields Limited to help the appellant in removing the slurry treating it to be his raiyati land. The observation of the Patna High Court have been profusely quoted in the impugned judgment which together with the attendant facts, show that the appellant has been unsuccessfully trying to establish his right, title and interest over the land in question without any valid document to establish the same. The report of the Circle Officer and the rent receipts cannot be determinative of the right, title and interest of the appellant over the land in question. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid background and the context of the issues raised, while allowing the writ petition and quashing the direction issued by the State Pollution Control Board, made an observation that the respondent no. 6 / appellant herein have not acquired any right, title and interest over the land in question to claim that he was entitled to remove slurry from those plots of the land. 10. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the rival parties, we do not find any error in the impugned judgement. The present appeal therefore being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.