SMT PADMINI DEVI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for contempt alleging noncompliance of the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 5019 of 2001 by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition observing therein that the compensation of the land shall be paid to the petitioner by which the Authority, which had acquired the lands for the Central Government will direct the concerned company to pay the compensation to the petitioner in whose favour the land have been transferred.

(2.) The petitioner has raised a grievance that seven petitioners had moved this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition in the year 2001 raising a grievance that they had not been paid the compensation although their land had been acquired. Fortunately, for the petitioners, the learned Single Judge did not pass any order directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal which alone was entitled to determine the compensation all or establishing that the petitioners are bonafide title holders of the lands which had been acquired for the benefit of the respondent company. The learned Single Judge, however, directed that the compensation be paid to the petitioners and the officers of the company determined the compensation in favour of the six petitioners and left out the seventh one, the petitioner No. 5, Dinesh Mahto.

(3.) In the first place, the learned Single Judge, in my opinion, was not competent to bye-pass the statutory provision under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 which alone was the forum under the provision, where the compensation could have been determined by the Tribunal. But, rightly or wrongly, this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and finally the officers of the respondent company instead of the Tribunal, were ordered to determine the amount of compensation. The respondent company, thereafter, has determined the compensation and also paid the same to the six petitioners, but left out the seventh one i.e. Dinesh Mahto, who is the petitioner in this contempt petition as it was submitted by the Counsel for the respondent company that he is not a bonafide title holder of the land acquired.