VIMAL Vs. WESTERN COAL FIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that land admeasuring 0.76R from Gat No.396 and 0.44R from Gat No.397/1 at Mouza Deulwada, Tah. Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur was the subject matter of acquisition pursuant to issuance of notification under Sec. 9 of the Coal Bearing (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, the Act of 1957) that was issued on 05/08/1998. This acquisition was for the Navin Kunada Open Cast Project. On the premise that the total land acquired was 1H 20R, employment was not being provided in lieu of acquisition of said land on the ground that the acquired land was falling short by 0.02. It was only against acquisition of land admeasuring 1H 22R that employment could be provided under the Policy of 2000. The husband and the son of petitioner No.1 entered into correspondence with the 1st respondent-Western Coalfields Ltd. through its Managing Director in that regard. It was their say that other land holders whose lands to the extent of 1H had been acquired, had been provided employment pursuant to acquisition under the same notification. On 17/12/2009, the 3rd respondent-Area Planning Officer, Majri Area informed the husband of petitioner No.1 that as during remeasurement Gat No.396 was shown to be admeasuring 0.78R which was 0.02 in excess of what was initially indicated to be its measurement, it was necessary to seek the permission of the higher Authority on the proposal for grant of employment towards such acquisition. Before any further steps were taken in the matter, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 expired on 08/10/2010. The matter was then pursued by the son of petitioner No.1 and the brother of petitioner No.2. Representation to that effect was made on 25/03/2011. However, the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2 expired on 17/05/2013. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 as widow and petitioner No.2 as her daughter pursued the proceedings. Since the daughter was residing with her mother and was willing to take up the responsibility of maintaining her, the claim for grant of employment to the petitioner No.3-her son was pursued. On 24/04/2015 a communication was issued by the Regional Manager to the petitioner No.2 stating therein that in lieu of employment, compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs per acre would be admissible to the petitioner. On being required to submit legal heir certificate, the same was also submitted by the petitioner No.2. Since the petitioner No.2 crossed the age of 40 years, the claim of her son was pursued. There being no further progress in the matter despite making various representations, this writ petition has been filed on 22/06/2021 seeking grant of employment in favour of petitioner No.3.

(3.) Shri Prakash Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to various documents on record and especially the representation dtd. 25/03/2011 that was submitted by the son of petitioner No.1 wherein reference was made to seven instances where employment was offered by Western Coal Fields Ltd. (WCL) on acquisition of land ranging between 1H and 1.20 H. It was submitted that the insistence for the acquired land to be 1H 22 R to enable employment to be provided was unjustified on the part of WCL which was clear from the details furnished in the representation. The said lands had been acquired under the same notification. Infact, on re-measurement of the lands acquired, it was revealed that Gat No.396 was admeasuring 0.78R and when considered along with Gat No.397/1 admeasuring 0.44, the total land acquired was 1H 22R. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3583/2021 (Western Coalfields Limited vs. Tahsildar, Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur and ors. with connected writ petitions) decided on 16/09/2022 to urge that correction of revenue record under Sec. 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was permitted even after issuance of notification under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1957. This decision of learned Single Judge was not interfered with by the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C )Nos.24243- 24273/2022 (Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Tahsildar, Kamptee and ors.) decided on 05/07/2023. Though measurement of the said land was carried out in the year 2009 which was after issuance of notification under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1957, its cognizance was taken by the 3rd respondent by forwarding the proposal for grant of employment to the family of the petitioners to the higher Authority. It was therefore not permissible for the WCL to deny employment to the family of the petitioners on the ground that the land acquired was only 1H 20R. Placing reliance on the decision in Writ Petition No.5802/2012 (Pradip s/o Vithoba Bhoyar vs. Union of India, through the Secretary, Dept. of Mines. GOI and ors.) decided on 23/01/2014, it was urged that the Policy of 2000 being in a nature of beneficial subordinate legislation, it ought to be considered in a manner that would serve the object behind it. There was no denial to the various instances referred to by the petitioners in representation dtd. 25/03/2011 indicating grant of employment to seven land owners even when the lands acquired were less han 1H 22R. On the aspect of delay in seeking redressal of the grievance, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were pursuing the matter since long and sought to rely upon the decisions in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and anr. vs. Mathias Oram and ors. (2010) 11 SCC 269 and Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and anr. vs. Mathias Oram and ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1508. Since the lands of the petitioners had been acquired and the petitioner No.3 was interested in seeking employment, the claim was not liable to be defeated on the ground of delay. It was thus submitted that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner No.3.