MAISA MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to pay the balance amount of compensation as well as the benefits of service to any person other than the petitioner whose lands were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Coal Bearing Area Act, 1957 .

(3.) It appears from the rival submissions and also from the documents annexed to the writ application, particularly Annexure-5, that certain land belonging to the petitioner, was acquired by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited for development of coal bearing area and in terms of such acquisition, compensation was paid to the petitioner and employment was also offered to some of the members of the petitioner's family. It further appears that the private respondents had also staked their claim for receipt of compensation and the benefits of service on the ground that they too, being the members of the petitioner's family, are displaced persons. It further appears that their claims have been accepted by the respondent Eastern Coalfields Limited on the ground that they too appear to be the recorded tenants of the land acquired.