Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 250 (JHR)

Union Of India v. Baijnath Prasad

2017-02-06

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
ORDER D.N. Patel, J. (Oral) – These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal Nos. 50 of 1995 to 58 of 1995, 60 of 1995 to 62 of 1995, 64 of 1995 and 65 of 1995.The learned Single Judge has modified the order passed by the Ist Additional Judicial Commissioner,Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 115 of 1993 and other Reference Cases. The order of the learned Single Judge is dated 10th November, 2004, whereby market price of the land in question was likely reduced,maintaining solatium granted by the Ist Additional Judicial Commissioner,Tribunal, Ranchi in Reference Case No.115 of 1993 @ 30%. Similarly the rate of interest was also maintained by the learned Single Judge which is 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years, up to the date of the payment .Thus except reduction in the market price, rest of the compensation has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Appellants'' main contention was that when the appeals were admitted there is no provision of solatium nor any there is any provision of payment of interest under the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition & Development) Act 1957. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 was under challenge before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India mainly on the ground that there is no provision of solatium and interest and on other grounds. 3. Central Government has admitted that they are ready to pay solatium @ 30% and Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India has also granted interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for subsequent years, till the actual payment is made, whereas, in the Act, 1957, interest payable is @ 5 %.This rate of interest has been enhanced by the Central Government vide notification dated 12.5.1989. 4. It has been observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6184-6213 of 2002 dated 26th March, 2015 as under :- "Our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 12th May, 1989 of the Government of India addressed to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. the contents of which deserve verbatim reproduction. 4. It has been observed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6184-6213 of 2002 dated 26th March, 2015 as under :- "Our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 12th May, 1989 of the Government of India addressed to the Chairman, Coal India Ltd. the contents of which deserve verbatim reproduction. "You are aware that the amount of compensation determined for payment under the Coal Bearing Areas(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, does not work out to exactly the same amount as is admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In fact, as the things stand today, the amount of compensation payable under the CA Act is much less as compared to the entitlement under the L.A. Act. The disparities between the two Acts, with regard to payment of compensation became specially accentuated after the L.A. Acts was amended in 1984 providing for payment of- (a) solatium at the enhanced rate of 30% of the fair market value of the land to compensate for compulsory nature of the land acquisition. (b) higher interest @ 9 per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year on the amount of compensation including solatium, so determined for payment and (c) an exalation amount preliminary to cover the rise in price of land @ 12% per annum of the market value of the land for the period commencing on the date of publication of Notification under Section 4(i) of the L.A. Act till the date of award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. As per schedule of the Act, payment of additional amount under this sub-clause is restricted to a maximum period of three years only. (2) The department of Rural Development (Ministry of Agriculture), Government of India, have been putting pressure on us ever after the aforesaid amendments were carried out in the L.A. Act in 1984 to effect corresponding amendments in the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 also so that all the disparities between the two Acts, in as much as they relate to payment of compensation, were removed and land losers were not put to any discrimination. The Central Government has since taken a decision in principle to amend the CBA Act in line with the L.A. Act and necessary consultations in this regard are already on with the concerned Ministries of the Government of India. It will, however, take some time before the proposed amendments are enacted after completion of all formalities. Till then, decisions already exist to pay:- (a) solatium in addition to market value of the land, @ 30% of the market value for all acquisitions made under the CBA Act, and (b) an interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent years on the amount of compensation, including solatium, so calculated for payment to the land. (3) The question of payment of escalation amount for all land acquisitions under the CBA Act @ 12% per annum of the fair market value of the land was under active consideration of the Central Government for quite some time. After careful consideration of the matter, it has now been decided that the coal companies will pay an additional amount, to compensate for escalation in cost of the land @ 12% per annum of the market value of the land in cases of all acquisitions made under the CBA Act where Notification under section 9(1) of the said Act is issued on or after 30.04.1982. The amount of additional compensation to be paid under this paragraph will, however, be limited to the period commencing on the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the CBA Act or the date of notification under section 9 (1) of the same Act or a maximum period of three years whichever is less. Settled cases will, however, be not reopened without specific approval of the Central Government. A perusal of this letter makes it abundantly clear that so far as the Union of India is concerned it is of the view that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act should be made applicable even to the circumstances prevailing before us i.e. where acquisition of the land has been carried out pursuant to another Statute. This has made us revert to the Special Leave Petition in which the Petitioner had been arrayed as Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Ltd. having its registered office at Darbanga House, Ranchi, Jharkhand. This has made us revert to the Special Leave Petition in which the Petitioner had been arrayed as Union of India through Chief of Revenue, Central Coalfields Ltd. having its registered office at Darbanga House, Ranchi, Jharkhand. The Affidavit supporting the Special Leave Petition does not disclose the authority which has been vested in and exercised by the persons signing the Special Leave Petition, as it should have done. Learned Senior Counsel states that an adjournment may be given so that instructions would be obtained to clarify this position. We do not propose to waste further judicial time, which is as it is in acute paucity, on this issue merely because we were earlier of the view that punitive costs should be imposed on the Central Coalfields Ltd. which apart from having unauthorisedly filed the petition on behalf of the Union of India, is endeavouring to take a stance contrary to what has already been expressed by the Union of India". (Emphasis Supplied) It has been further held by Hon''ble Supreme Court as under :- "In a recent Judgment, one of us, (Vikramajit Sen, J.) in Defence Estate Officer v. Syed Abdul Saleem 2015 (2) SCALE 133 had applied the rationale and content of the Land Acquisition Act specifically for payment of solatium and interest even under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Special Leave Petition, it appears to us runs counter to the directions given by the Union of India to the Central Coalfield Ltd. In terms of the letter dated 12th May, 1989 yet the Special Leave Petition is being filed, without proper authorization. " (Emphasis Supplied) 5. In view of the aforesaid decision in Civil Appeal No.6184-6213 of 2002 dated 26th March, 2015,we see no reason to entertain these Letters Patent Appeals because solatium is to be paid @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years, till the actual payment is made. 6. We will not take any other view what has taken by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Miscellaneous appeals. We are fully in agreement with, reasons given by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal Nos. 50 of 1995 to 58 of 1995, 60 of 1995 to 62 of 1995, 64 of 1995 and 65 of 1995. 7. We will not take any other view what has taken by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Miscellaneous appeals. We are fully in agreement with, reasons given by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal Nos. 50 of 1995 to 58 of 1995, 60 of 1995 to 62 of 1995, 64 of 1995 and 65 of 1995. 7. As there is no substance in these Letters Patent Appeals, the same are dismissed.