MADAN PANDEY ETC.AND MUKUND PANDEY Vs. BCCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the writ petitions involve similar questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) PETITIONERS have challenged the orders dated 7.9.2007, passed in Misc. Appeal Nos. 87/2005 and 86/2005 respectively, by learned District Judge, Dhanbad, affirming the order passed by the Estate Officer in Eviction Case No. 2 of 2005 dated 11.8.2005.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents supported the impugned orders. He submitted that the petitioners raised certain structures over the colliery premises/lands belonging to the respondents. However, in order to avoid any obstruction in the working of the Mines, the Company offered compensation for removal of such unauthorized construction including the transportation charges etc., but the petitioners did not vacate the unauthorized occupation and therefore respondent Company had no option than to initiate a proceeding for eviction under the Act.