# MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR v. MATHIAS ORAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1140
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-11-03
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahanadi-coal-fields-ltd-anr-v-mathias-oram-ors-36215
- **Pages:** 53

## Headnote

Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Applicability of - Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
Act, 1957-Held: The R&R Act cannot apply prior to the date it was
brought into force i.e., before 01.01.2014 - In the present case, it
applies from the date the Central Government issued a notification
bringing into force the proceedings of the First, Second and Third
Schedules to the enactment specified in the Fourth Schedule, which
in this case was the CBA Act - The date therefore, on which the
R&R Act, 2013 is applicable from, is 28.08.2015 - Additionally, the
report which was finalised before that date cannot be interfered
with - The land owners and displaced families residing in the villages
for which reports were prepared earlier than 28.08.2015, would
not therefore be entitled to the benefits of the R&R Act, 2013 -
Hence, the benefits of the R&R Act apply to displaced families and
land owners of Kiripsira, Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia -
Further directions issued - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Constitution of India - Article 142.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Determination of compensation - Cut-off date- Held: Cut-off date
for determining compensation for land acquired is to be based upon
the cut-off date approved by Supreme court in relation to village
Gopalpur, i.e., September 2010 - Since, common cut-off date has
been accepted, all benefits flowing from it, including statutory
interest upon compensation and solatium, is determinable on the
basis of that cut-off date for the entire acquisition - Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - ss.41, 42
- Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 - Held: As
far as s.41 goes, given that the acquisition notification was issued
in 1988 and finalised in 1990 and even the judgment of Supreme
Court indicating the methodology for compensation determination
was delivered in 2010, the question of giving extra consideration
in terms of s.41 does not arise - However, since the resettlement of
the displaced families and their rehabilitation have been mandated
by both provision of the R&R Act, 2013 which has application to
the ongoing acquisition, as well as the R&R Policy 2006, the
obligation to ensure that the benefits of the displaced persons are
not put to grave and irreparable prejudice by denying them their
status as SC/ST, has to be ensured - This is mandated by s.42 of the
R&R Act, 2013 which directs that whenever lands of SCs/STs are
acquired necessitating their displacement, either in terms of
territories or the areas they reside in, leading to their movement to
other areas- where their tribe or caste may not necessarily be
recognised as SCs/ST- the status which they enjoy but for the
displacement has to be preserved and protected - This statutory
mandate and obligation cannot be denied by the State or agency,
as a matter of law - Direction issued.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -Obligations
cast upon the State- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Held: Provisions
of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old 1894 Act, have for the
first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement
and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation - These
rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right
to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but
also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for
construction of houses, cash assistance for construction;
transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity
and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. -
Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate
pr

## Text

_Characters 0–39,971 of 115,413. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39971 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 1140
1140
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR.
v.
MATHIAS ORAM & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 03, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Applicability of - Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
Act, 1957-Held: The R&R Act cannot apply prior to the date it was
brought into force i.e., before 01.01.2014 - In the present case, it
applies from the date the Central Government issued a notification
bringing into force the proceedings of the First, Second and Third
Schedules to the enactment specified in the Fourth Schedule, which
in this case was the CBA Act - The date therefore, on which the
R&R Act, 2013 is applicable from, is 28.08.2015 - Additionally, the
report which was finalised before that date cannot be interfered
with - The land owners and displaced families residing in the villages
for which reports were prepared earlier than 28.08.2015, would
not therefore be entitled to the benefits of the R&R Act, 2013 -
Hence, the benefits of the R&R Act apply to displaced families and
land owners of Kiripsira, Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia -
Further directions issued - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Constitution of India - Article 142.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Determination of compensation - Cut-off date- Held: Cut-off date
for determining compensation for land acquired is to be based upon
the cut-off date approved by Supreme court in relation to village
Gopalpur, i.e., September 2010 - Since, common cut-off date has
been accepted, all benefits flowing from it, including statutory
interest upon compensation and solatium, is determinable on the
basis of that cut-off date for the entire acquisition - Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - ss.41, 42
- Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 - Held: As
far as s.41 goes, given that the acquisition notification was issued
in 1988 and finalised in 1990 and even the judgment of Supreme
Court indicating the methodology for compensation determination
was delivered in 2010, the question of giving extra consideration
in terms of s.41 does not arise - However, since the resettlement of
the displaced families and their rehabilitation have been mandated
by both provision of the R&R Act, 2013 which has application to
the ongoing acquisition, as well as the R&R Policy 2006, the
obligation to ensure that the benefits of the displaced persons are
not put to grave and irreparable prejudice by denying them their
status as SC/ST, has to be ensured - This is mandated by s.42 of the
R&R Act, 2013 which directs that whenever lands of SCs/STs are
acquired necessitating their displacement, either in terms of
territories or the areas they reside in, leading to their movement to
other areas- where their tribe or caste may not necessarily be
recognised as SCs/ST- the status which they enjoy but for the
displacement has to be preserved and protected - This statutory
mandate and obligation cannot be denied by the State or agency,
as a matter of law - Direction issued.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -Obligations
cast upon the State- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Held: Provisions
of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old 1894 Act, have for the
first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement
and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation - These
rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right
to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but
also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for
construction of houses, cash assistance for construction;
transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity
and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. -
Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate
provisions for the kind of public amenities which have to be provided,
such as public health benefits, schools, community centres, roads
and other basic necessities, have been obligated - All these are in
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
furtherance of the displaced and the larger social justice obligations
cast upon the State.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.108 -
Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 - Held: R&R
Act, 2013 by s.108 also clearly envisions that the benefits provided
by the new law are not to be applied blindly - Wherever there are
existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide better benefits
to displaced persons, such families and individuals have the choice
or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the provisions
of the R&R Act -Going by the principle underlying s.108, clearly
the benefits spelt out under the R&R Policy 2006, appear to be
better, and more elaborate.
Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 -
Employment benefits -Family unit - Held: The R&R Policy 2006 as
amended by the 2013 policy applies for the purpose of employment
benefits - A family unit would comprise of head of family or father,
a major son, and an unmarried daughter having regard to the
definition and the note appended thereof - In case, for some reason,
the major son cannot be given employment, and there exists a major
grandson, he would then be eligible for consideration - In other
words, two members (father and son or father and grandson) would
be eligible for employment and not three, in addition to the unmarried
daughter who is also to be treated as separate unit -Further,
Commission could not reopen determinations based upon change
of policies of the State given that the benefits adjudicated by it
based on factual determinations has crystallised - In many cases,
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.(MCL) has actually provided employment
to several individuals - Thus, all cases that have been adjudicated
and were approved by Supreme court cannot be reopened.
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr v. Mathias Oram &
Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 269; Indore Development Authority
v. Manohar Lal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : 2020 (3)
SCR 1; State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011)
7 SCC 639 : 2011 (6) SCR 443 - referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1143
Case Law Reference
2020 (3) SCR 1
referred to
Para 9
2011 (6) SCR 443
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE/
INHERENT
JURISDICTION:
Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 6933 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2006 of the High Court
of Orissa in W.P. (C) No. 11463 of 2003.
With
Conmt.pet.(C) Nos. 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 553,
554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 685, 686, 687, 548,
549, 550, 551, 552 of 2019, slp (c) nos.15877-15878 of 2020.
Jayant Sud, ASG, Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Anish Kumar
Gupta, Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Nisarg
chaudhary, Kartikeya Vajpai, Puneet Sheoran, Ms. Deepshikha Bharati,
Ms. Rita Gupta, Venugopal Abhay, Salvada Santosh Rebello, Ms. Arzu
Paul, Ms. Deepti Arya, Adiraj Bali, Vaibhav Verma, Ms. Priyanka Das,
Randeep Sachdeva, Manish Nadda, Abhishek Atrey, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ashok Panigrahi, Nabab
Singh, Ms. Geetanjali, Amiya Kumar Behera, Mudit Sharma, Rahul
Shyam Bhandari, Ms. G. Priyadharshni, Ms. Simran Gill, Rajeev Yadav,
Pradeep Varma, S.K. Srivastava, Gurdeep Singh, Rahat Ali Chaudhary,
Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Ali Safeer Farooqui, Rajat S. Roy, Nripendra Nath
Bain, Hira singh, Aftab Ali Khan, Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Shiyas KR,
Satya Mitra, Soumen Talukdar, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Shibashish
Misra, Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, Ms. Rohini Musa, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
A. Venayagam Balan, R. Chandrachud, Vishal Arun, Shankar Divate,
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, B. Ramana Murthy, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The oft repeated aphorism, "Justice delayed is justice denied"
cannot apply with more force than in these proceedings. The applicant
writ petitioners (hereinafter, "landowners / displaced persons") have
waited for roughly half the number of years that this republic has existed.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
They predominantly belong to tribal communities, and their lands were
first notified and acquired in 1988 for the purposes of coal mining. Yet,
they have not been paid compensation. The tangled and torturous journey
of their tribulations has been elaborately documented in a previous
judgment of this court.1
A.
Background
2. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter, "MCL") is a subsidiary
of Coal India Ltd. (hereinafter, "CIL") the biggest coal producer in the
country. MCL was aggrieved by an order2 of the Orissa High Court,
wherein the High Court directed the Central Government and MCL to
immediately proceed under provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, "CBA Act") to
determine and disburse compensation payable to landowners as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
3. The Central Government issued the preliminary notification
under Section 4(1) of the CBA Act on 11.02.1987, conveying its intention
to prospect for coal in village Gopalpur and others, district Sundergarh,
Orissa. This was followed by another notification under Section 7(1) of
the CBA Act on 27.07.1987 for acquisition of the notified lands. Finally,
by notification dated 10.07.1989, the declaration of acquisition of the
land under Section 9 of the CBA Act was made, which led to the lands
being vested absolutely in the Central Government. On 20.03.1993, the
Central Government issued notification under Section 11 of the CBA
Act, vesting the acquired land and all rights therein in MCL, retrospectively
with effect from 17.11.1991. The writ petitioners before the High Court
were landowners who were not paid any compensation for their lands.
After unavailingly seeking the same, the landowners approached the
High Court seeking direction for compensation. Before the High Court,
the landowners' claims were mired in a dispute between Coal India Ltd.
(hereinafter, "CIL") and the Central Government. CIL urged that it no
longer required the lands, whereas the Central Government rejected
CIL's proposal for denotification by order dated 12.09.2006. The High
Court held that a land oustee under Section 9 of the CBA Act was to be
paid compensation after taking into consideration the factors enumerated
under Section 13(5) of the CBA Act. MCL preferred a special leave
petition before this court. The court sought the assistance of the then
1 Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr v. Mathias Oram & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 269.
2 W.P. (Civil) No.11463/2003 (Orissa High Court), dated 13.11.2006.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
Solicitor General for India, Mr Gopal Subramanium, who proposed a
scheme which was accepted by this court, in its judgment reported as
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (supra).
4. The relevant extract of the operative portion of the judgment is
reproduced as follows:
"22. The scheme proposed by Mr. Subramanium and agreed
upon by the Central Government and the Coal Company is
as follows:
"1. The land in Village Gopalpur, District Sundergarh, Orissa
stands acquired by the Central Government and ownership
is vested with MCL which will determine and pay compensation
to the erstwhile landowners.
2. In respect of vast portions of the acquired land (excluding
the area where mining activities are being undertaken), actual
physical possession was never taken. The State of Orissa and
its officers are directed to assist MCL in taking actual physical
possession of the acquired land.
3. Since the matter pertains to an acquisition of 1987 i.e.
more than two decades ago, the extent of actual physical
possession needs to be reascertained, it is necessary that the
genuine landowners, amount of compensation payable, status
of possession, use to which the land has been put in the last
two decades, is discovered. The entire land needs to be
surveyed again.
4. In accordance with the advice of the learned Solicitor
General, a Claims Commission needs to be set up with
representatives of the Central Government as well as MCL. It
is submitted that the Claims Commission will consist of 3
members:
(a) A former Judge of the High Court of Orissa (Chairman);
(b) An officer who has held a post/office equivalent to the
rank of Secretary to the Government of India;
(c) An officer to be nominated by the Chairman, Coal India
Ltd.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
The Claims Commission will carry out the exercise referred to
above and submit a report on the compensation payable and
the persons to whom it should be paid, within a period six
months.
5. The abovesaid report will be submitted to the Central
Government, and upon formal approval by the Central
Government, MCL will make payment within a further period
of two months.
6. Some portions of the land have been determined to be
unsuitable for the petitioner having regard to physical features
(mining being impossible, area being heavily populated, etc.).
The Claims Commission will examine whether possession of
such portions has been taken over by the petitioner. It would
be open to the Claims Commission to recommend
denotification/release of the said land from acquisition.
7. In view of the special facts obtaining above, the Central
Government may be permitted to denotify the said land from
the acquisition as a special case, since the land is not required
and possession also was never taken.
8. Even in the case of the denotified land, suitable
compensation, in appropriate cases, may have to be paid to
the landowners. The Claims Commission may also give a report
on this aspect of the matter.
9. The learned Solicitor General has opined that such matters
of uncertain acquisition or pending compensation claims lead
to unnecessary social tensions and the petitioner must act in
a spirit of good governance. Upon examination of all the
surrounding villages, in the light of the opinion of the learned
Solicitor General, for the sake of uniformity as well as fairness,
the above exercise would be carried out for the following
villages as well:
(i)
Sardega
(ii)
Jhupurunga
(iii)
Ratansara
(iv)
Tikilipara
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
(v)
Siarmal
(vi)
Tumulia
(vii)
Karlikachhar
(viii)
Kulda
(ix)
Bankibahal
(x)
Balinga
(xi)
Garjanbahal
(xii)
Bangurkela
(xiii)
Kiripsira
(xiv)
Lalma R.F.
It must be noted that in the case of Sardega and Tikilipara
Villages, part-payment has already been made. Further, in
the case of Bankibahal and Balinga Villages, full payment
has already been made but possession has not been fully
taken.
10. The petitioner and the Central Government shall assist in
the establishment of the Commission including the provision
of suitable infrastructure. The honorarium payable to the
Commission may be determined by this Hon'ble Court.
11. This order is being passed with the agreement of all parties
and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The
said order shall not operate as a precedent."
23. The scheme proposed by Mr Subramanium was shown to
Mr Janaranjan Das, the counsel appearing for the
respondent-writ petitioners and he also gave his express
consent to it. We, accordingly, approve the scheme but with
certain clarifications and modifications as stated below.
24. We nominate Mr Justice A.K. Parichha, a former Judge
of the High Court of Orissa as Chairman of the Commission.
Mr Solicitor General in consultation with the Secretary,
Ministry of Coal, Government of India, shall nominate an
officer who has held a post/office equivalent to the rank of
Secretary to the Government of India as one of the members
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
of the Commission within two weeks from today. Similarly, the
Chairman, Coal India Ltd. shall nominate an officer as the
other member of the Commission. Mr Justice A.K. Parichha,
shall be paid honorarium equal to the monthly salary of a
sitting High Court Judge and he shall be entitled to all other
facilities as available to a sitting Judge of the High Court.
The officer nominated by Mr Subramanium/Secretary, Ministry
of Coal, Government of India, shall similarly be entitled to
honorarium and other facilities available to a serving officer
of his rank. All the expenses of the Commission shall be borne
by Coal India Ltd.
25. The Commission shall prepare its report as envisaged in
the scheme, first in respect of the lands in Village Gopalpur,
District Sundergarh, Orissa, as soon as possible and in any
event not later than four months from today. In case the
Commission recommends denotification/release of any portion
of the lands earlier acquired, it would also determine the rate
or the amount of compensation/mesne profit payable to the
landholder. The Commission shall submit its report not to the
Central Government but to this Court for approval and further
directions. Any denotification/release of the land would be
only subject to further orders passed by this Court in light of
the Commission's report. The Commission may proceed with
the survey in relation to the acquired lands in other villages,
as suggested in Para 9 of the scheme only after submitting its
report in respect of Village Gopalpur and subject to further
orders by this Court. The officers of the State Government
and the Coal Company shall extend full help and cooperation
to the Commission in preparing the report and in the discharge
of their duties in terms of the scheme."
5. The Claims Commission appointed by this court proceeded to
issue notices and call for claims to determine all those eligible for
compensation and rehabilitation, and its extent. Based on the report in
relation to village Gopalpur, the court passed an order on 19.04.2012,
approving the recommendations contained in it. The relevant extracts of
the court's order are as follows:
"The Amicus pointed out three broad features of the way in
which the Commission has fixed the amounts of compensation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
for the lands of the villagers acquired by Mahanadi Coal
Fields Ltd., the petitioner Company.
First, the acquisition notifications were made way back in
the year 1984 but no compensation was paid to the villagers/
landholders for the past 28 years. The Commission, therefore,
took the view that fixing the market value of the lands with
reference to the date of the acquisition notifications would
be wholly unfair, unjust and unreasonable and has taken the
date of notice of survey given by the Commission in September,
2010, as being relevant for fixing the market value of the
lands under acquisition. The Amicus supported the view taken
by the Commission and, in the facts of the case, we also fully
endorse the Commission's decision in regard to the date with
reference to which the market value of the lands under
acquisition is to be determined.
Secondly, in regard to fixing the rate of compensation, the
Amicus submitted that the Commission had followed a very
scientific approach which was fit to be approved by this Court.
We accept the method adopted by the Commission for fixing
the rate of compensation and the actual mounts of
compensation determined for payment to the individual
landholders.
Thirdly, in regard to the. rehabilitation policy, the Commission
has applied the rehabilitation policy of the year 2006 as it is
more liberal and beneficial for the landholders in comparison
to the earlier rehabilitation policy of the year 1998. On this
score also, we entirely agree with the view taken by the
Commission.
In short, we accept the Commission's report in all respects
and make, it an order of this Court. At this stage, we would
like to draw the attention of the Commission to some other
aspects of the matter as suggested by the Amicus. The Amicus
rightly submitted that setting up of schools and health centres
in the villages where lands have been acquired in large areas
should also be made an obligation of the petitioner-Company
for whose benefit the acquisitions are made.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
We are not aware whether in the 2006 rehabilitation policy
there are provisions for setting up schools and health centres
in the villages affected by land acquisition. In case, the
rehabilitation policy does not have such provisions, the
Commission may consider directing Mahanadi Coal Fields
Ltd. to provide for good, functional schools with sufficient
number of teachers and well-equipped health centres in all
the villages affected by land acquisition.
We would also like to remind the Commission that the good
work done by it so far will only be complete as and when the
individual villagers whose lands are acquired actually receive
the amount of compensation and other benefits under the
compensation and rehabilitation package. We are sure that
the Commission would be conscious of this aspect of the matter.
But, we would still like to tell it that all the good work done
by it may be dissipated unless the villagers get their lawful
dues in full and no part of compensation amount or any
element of the compensation/rehabilitation package is allowed
to be wasted or taken away from the concerned landholder
by deception or fraudulent means. It will be, therefore, open
to the Commission also to frame proper. policies for payment
of the compensation money and to ensure that the
compensation/rehabilitation benefits are actually received by
the landholders. In this regard, the Commission may consider
directing staggered payment of the amount of compensation
so that the compensation money is not altogether wasted.
Mr. Ashok Panigrahi submitted that some of the landholders
whose lands were also taken in acquisition were unable to
submit their claims before the Commission as they had gone
to Jharkhand for earning their livelihood. If that be so, it will
be open to them to make their representations before the
Commission which shall consider those representations and
pass appropriate and reasonable orders. We deeply appreciate
the painstaking work done by the Commission and request it
to carry on its good work in respect of the rest of the villages
where the lands were similarly acquired following the model
framed by it in respect of Gopalpur village.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
We repeat our direction that the Governmnent of Orissa,
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and the local administration shall
render full help, -assistance and cooperation in the work of
the Commission and in implementation of the Commission's
directions in regard to payment of compensation and the
rehabilitation package admissible to the concerned
landholders.
Let copies of the Part-II Report of the Commission be given
to the Amicus, Gp. Captain Karan Singh Bhati and Mr. Ashok
Panigrahi, counsel for the parties, and after that it may be
kept in a sealed cover."
6. Following the Gopalpur model, the Commission submitted
reports for villages Balinga, Bankibahal, Sardega and Tiklipara. By its
order dated 08.08.2012, this court approved those reports and observed
that the Commission may follow (as far as practicable) the same basis
in other villages for which compensation was yet to be fixed. The relevant
part of that order is extracted as follows:
"A further report is received from the Claims Commission,
Bhubaneshwar, under the title Recommended Composite
Compensation Package for Village Balinga, Bankibahal,
Sardega and Tikilipara. We accept and approve all the
recommendations made by the Commission and request it to
proceed further on the basis of its recommendations and in
light of the previous orders passed by this Court.
We further observe that the Commission may follow as far as
practicable the same basis in other villages for the lands of
which compensation ls yet to be fixed by it. Let the report
received from the Commission be kept in a sealed cover.
Put up on receipt of further report from the Claims Commission,
Bhubaneshwar."
7. By its order dated 10.04.2013, this court accepted and approved
the Commission's reports with respect to villages Kulda and Garjan Bahal.
By another order dated 15.07.2013, this court accepted the Commission's
report for village Karlikachhar. In that order, the court further observed
that lands in two villages namely Kirpsira and Ratansara were transferred
by the Central Government to some other companies. The court therefore
requested the Commission to proceed in respect of the two villages and
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
directed that at the initial stage, payment of compensation would be
MCL's liability - it could later recover the sums from the successor
companies. By its order dated 25.10.2013, this court observed that
infrastructure for resettlement was to be in terms of Odisha Resettlement
and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (hereinafter, "R&R Policy 2006") and
the Third Schedule to the (then) Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill,
2013.
8. On 10.07.2017, this court disposed of the appeal, with the
following observations and directions:
"In pursuance of the orders of this Court, a report was
submitted by Justice Parichha which was accepted by this
Court but the implementation thereof still remained incomplete.
Learned Amicus has submitted a report dated 4 July 2017 in
respect of outstanding issues and has made recommendations
as follows:-
"(i) As far as any compensation amount which is lying in fixed
deposits is concerned, the same must be accounted for at
periodic intervals jointly by the Collector as well as by a senior
officer of MCL. The said amounts must be safeguarded
suitably by the Commission and the Commission would be at
liberty to seek appropriate direction from this Court as and
when its work is completed.
(ii) Issue directions to the Collector, Sundargarh as well as
the Chairman and Managing Director of MCL to ensure
disbursement of compensation to all the beneficiaries of the
8 villages (namely Balinga, Bankibahal, Garjan Bahal,
Gopalpur, Karlikachar, Kunda, Sardega and Tiklipada) on
or before 31st July 2017, and to ensure disbursement of
compensation to all the beneficiaries of the 2 villages, (namely
Siarmal and Bangurkela) on or before 31st November, 2017.
(iii) The Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur, to make
adequate efforts to trace the persons who have not turned up
to receive compensation. The Collectors concerned will
contact their counterparts in States where awardees are known
to migrate, and adopt suitable methodologies to identify the
concerned person.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
(iv) Issue directions to the authorities of MCL to furnish a
list, jointly verified by the Collector and the Assistant Revenue
Officer indicating the names of the all awardees of
compensation, the dates when they were entitled to payment,
the actual dates when payment was made and whether that
payment included interest, to the Claims Commission as well
as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent parties.
(v) It may be clarified that even with respect two villages
(namely Siarmal and Bangurkela) , when the payment of
compensation is made, interest, as payable, will be determined
to be paid in accordance with Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Payment of interest in respect of delayed payment will
be undertaken if interest was not paid in accordance with the
Orders of the Court.
(vi) where genuine cases of fraud and impersonation are
alleged by MCL, the Claims Commission be empowered to
examine such cases and forward recommendations to the
Learned Amicus.
(vii) Direct the authorities of MCL to complete the process of
granting employment, payment of monetary compensation in
lieu of employment, including annuities on or before 31st July
201 7 with respect to 8 villages (namely Balinga, Bankibahal,
Garjan Bahal, Gopalpur, Karlikachar, Kunda, Sardega and
Tiklipada) and on or before 31st November, 2017 with respect
to 2 villages (namely Siarmal and Bangurkela) .
(viii) Issue directions to the Chairman and Managing Director
of MCL to immediately stop any illegal mining being
undertaken by MCL on agricultural lands in any of the
villages.
(ix) Issue directions to MCL authorities to complete the
development of resettlement colonies in the two sites (namely
Barapalli II and Chatanpalli) on or before 30th September,
2017.
(x) Once even one of the rehabilitation sites is ready and the
site has been certified as suitable for shifting by the Claims
Commission, the Hon'ble Claims Commission may pay pass
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
appropriate orders enabling the shifting of those persons who
are entitled to R&R Benefits in the said site.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the following general
directions are also necessary -
(xi) That the Managing Director of MCL either himself or by
a designated officer will be personally responsible for the
implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court and
the orders by the Commission.
(xii) Suitable steps will be taken by the MCL to complete the
process of disbursement of compensation.
(xiii) Compensation will be disbursed to the satisfaction of
the Commission.
(xiv) Employment must be offered to all those left out
(Categories I & II in any employment must be offered and
completed to the satisfaction of the Commission.
(xv) Rehabilitation steps must be completed within a period
of nine months from today.
(xvi) Only upon the rehabilitation being certified by the
Commission and experts that a notice can be issued by the
Commission asking the oustees to shift to alternate sites.
(xvii) Fresh notices be issued by the Commission in respect of
awardees who have not received monies
(xviii) In respect of awardees who have not been paid money
in time, interest is payable and such interest be awarded at a
rate not exceeding 15% by the Commission calculating the
same with reference to the orders of this Hon'ble Court.
(xix) It awardees disbursed and MCL, is also necessary that
including the names a list of all the and the amounts by the
Collector to the Claims to them, jointly signed must be made
available Commission as well as counsel for the oustees
forthwith,
(xx) In so far as acquisition of additional land for resettlement
and rehabilitation is concerned, suitable assistance will be
offered by the State authorities including the Divisional
Commissioner Sambalpur."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
We are broadly in agreement with the recommendations made
by the learned Amicus. We, however, leave it open to the
appellants or any other affected parties to put forward their
objections before the High Court/Commission since we are
inclined to leave such matters to be dealt with by the High
Court/Commission.
With regard to recommendation XIV, learned counsel for the
appellants has an objection on the ground that the issue is
covered by the Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy
2006.
Learned Amicus states that the recommendation is consistent
with the report of Parichha Commission which has already
been accepted by this Court. This aspect of the matter may be
gone into by the High Court, if necessary.
One of the issues which is surviving is as regards constructed
housing on the land allocated for rehabilitation and
resettlement by the affected persons. Mr. Dhankar, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants states that it is
not clear whether all such persons want constructed housing
or not. A notice will therefore be put in the Office of the District
Collector seeking objection to such construction. Those who
do not expressly indicate their option to go for housing other
than the constructed housing offered by the appellant, such
option to be indicated within one week of the notice, they will
be presumed to be willing to opt for the allotment of such
housing constructed by appellant.
We do accept that necessary basic health amenities as already
directed by this Court will be duly provided at the site.
Subject to the above, it will be open for the High Court/
Commission, keeping in mind the report of the Parichha
Commission which has already been accepted, to consider
issuing any further directions..."
9. By order dated 13.10.2020, this court had directed MCL to
share all the status reports and relevant documents available with it,
digitally, with all parties. Apart from that, the court recorded that as
observed by the previous order dated 02.09.2020, a sum of
566,31,46,942.78 was deposited with the concerned authority. Mr
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Atmaram Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
submitted that MCL was willing to offer employment in admitted cases
to the persons mentioned in the reports for the relevant villages. Details
were furnished to the court. In addition, Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for landowners had urged that for villages Tumulia, Jhupuranga,
Ratansara, and Kirpsara, no award was declared before 01.01.2014,
i.e., the date on which the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency
In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter, "R&R Act, 2013") came into force. Reliance was also
placed upon Section 24 of that Act as well as this court's decision passed
by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal & Ors.,3 to urge that provisions of the 2013 Act relating to
determination of compensation must therefore apply. It was also urged
that a tabular chart furnished by the District Collector, Sundargarh,
indicated that at least in respect of six sites in different villages, no
certificate of completion had been issued by the competent authority,
and with respect to two other sites, resettlement and rehabilitation work
was still at a primary stage.
10. Several applications were moved: some by MCL, and many
more by the landowners, seeking a range of directions. In addition, some
contempt proceedings were also initiated, submitting that the directions
of this court were not complied with altogether, or not implemented
appropriately. All these applications were heard by this court. This
judgment will thus dispose of all those applications and contempt petitions.
11. During the course of the hearings, counsels for the parties
addressed submissions on the following issues:
i.
Point no. 1: The date or dates on which compensation
became reckonable (also referred to as the 'cut-off date');
ii.
Point no. 2: Applicability of the R&R Act, 2013;
iii.
Point no. 3, 4 and 5: Whether the R&R Policy 2006 applied,
or the subsequent policy of 2013; If the latter policy (of
2013) applied, then for the purpose of employment benefits,
whether the family unit was deemed to be represented by
a singular member, or several of them; and whether the
Commission could re-open determinations based on change
3 Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
of policies of the State, after its report was accepted by
this court;
iv.
Point no. 6: Entitlement to housing plots; and
v.
Point no. 7: Creation of facilities and amenities, such as
schools, community centres, medical facilities, etc.
B.
Analysis
12. Prior to delving into a point-by-point analysis, it is instrumental
to allude to the case of State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan,4
which highlighted the essence of rehabilitation through the lens of Article
21 of the Constitution:
"Land acquisition and rehabilitation : Article 21
26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as
far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying
on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so
desire, and are willing to purchase and comply with any
requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a
piece of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price
at which the land has been acquired from them. However, the
State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate
accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority
concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of
providing alternative land considering the facts and
circumstances of each case.
27. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have
been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or
livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. The
authorities must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way
of employment, housing, investment opportunities,
and identification of alternative lands.
"10. ... A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy
towards those who are highly adversely affected by the
development process and a cynical unconcern for the
enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights
and benefits promised and guaranteed under the
4 State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised
citizens." (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. case [Mahanadi
Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352] , SCC p.
273, para 10)
For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically
connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a
market economy can be traumatic. (Vide State of
U.P. v. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251 : AIR 1986 SC 2025],
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority [(2002) 4
SCC 666 : AIR 2002 SC 2036] , Land Acquisition Officer
v. Mahaboob [(2009) 14 SCC 54 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
297] , Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram
[Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11
SCC 269 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352]
and Brij Mohan v. HUDA [(2011) 2 SCC 29 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Civ) 336] .) The fundamental right of the farmer to
cultivation is a part of right to livelihood. "Agricultural
land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom
from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source for peace
and prosperity." India being a predominantly agricultural
society, there is a "strong linkage between the land and
the person's status in [the] social system".
28. However, in case of land acquisition, "the plea of
deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is
unsustainable". (Vide Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996)
2 SCC 549 : AIR 1996 SC 1051] and Samatha v. State of
A.P. [(1997) 8 SCC 191 : AIR 1997 SC 3297] ) This Court
has consistently held that Article 300-A is not only a
constitutional right but also a human right. (Vide Lachhman
Dass v. Jagat Ram [(2007) 10 SCC 448] and Amarjit
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2010) 10 SCC 43 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Cri) 29] .) However, in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State
of Gujarat [1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 : AIR 1995 SC 142] this
Court held : (SCC pp. 620 & 632, paras 30 & 58)
"30.