WP(C) 2795/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. A lso heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel who represents the respondent Coal Ind ia Limited. The petitioner who is in occupation of a plot of land measuring 1 bigha at Ledo, BW Line, which was initially occupied by his father late Mohini Mohan Roy is be fore this Court to challenge the letter dated 21.5.08 issued by the Personal Man ager, Ledo and Tirap Collieries (Annexure-6) addressed the to the petitioner’s f ather, whereby he has been asked to shift out to enable starting of open cast mi ning in the BW Upper Line and brick filled area of Ledo Colliery. The petitioner has enclosed several rental receipts covering the period from 197 1 to 1994, showing payment of land rent to the North Eastern Coalfields, which i s functioning under the Coal India Ltd, a Central Govt. Undertaking. This land r ent receipts have been enclosed in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petition er. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel contends that the land and the house standing thereon have been in occupation of the petitioners family since 1971 an d if the respondent Coal India Ltd. is desirous to carry out mining operation in the said area, which would require shifting of the petitioner, the petitioner o ught to be adequately compensated so that he can arrange for an alternate place of stay. Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the l and under occupation of the petitioner was initially owned by M/S Assam Railways and Trading Company (in short M/S. ART& C) and following nationalization of Coa l Mines under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the aforesaid area ves ted in the Central Govt. free from all encumbrances. Subsequently the land veste d on the Coal Mines Authority Ltd. under the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, and this Company has since been renamed as the Coal India Ltd. It is state d that the North Eastern Coalfields is a subsidiary of theCoal India Limited. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the North Eastern Coalfield s is the absolutely owner of the land under occupation of the petitioner and und er the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 195 7, the respondent authorities have a right to carry out mining in the said area and the only right that the petitioner may have in the event of his eviction is the right to compensation under the provisions of Section 24 A(1) of 1957 Act. The learned counsel referred to the Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenu e Regulation regulating the entry by mining licensees on settled land and under the provisions of Rules 190(6), it is pointed out that the authority to assess t he damage which may be caused by the lessee to the property of the occupier of l and is the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent’s counsel also disputes the right of the petitioner to claim hims elf as a settlement holder of the concerned land and submits that following the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, all rights of M/S ART & C vested on the Central Govt. and the petitioner cannot claim to be a settlement holder of the l and in question, by virtue of any order passed by the Assam State’s Revenue auth orities. The petitioner has no objection to shift themselves from their occupied land and house to enable the respondents to carry out mining activities in the area unde r his occupation, but the learned counsel submits that the valuation payable to the petitioner as has been assessed by the valuer appointed by the respondent au thorities, cannot be considered to be adequate compensation for the petitioner. It may be noted that a Govt. approved valuer has assessed the present market val ue of the land and also the house at Rs.2,12 lakh and respondents are prepared t o pay the said amount of Rs.2,12 lakh as compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is agreeable to shift from the land under his occupation, it is n ot considered necessary by this Court to go into the claim of title made by the petitioner, which claim is of course denied by the respondent authorities. As th e petitioner is willing to shift and the respondents are willing to compensation the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice should be serv ed by directing the respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs, 2,12 lakh as compensation for the land and the house under occupation of the pe titioner, so that mining activities can be started over the said land. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.B. Choudhury undertakes to vacate t he land and the house within two weeks after receipt the said amount from the re spondent authorities. However, the learned counsel submits that the compensation offered at Rs.2,12 lakh may not be adequate and the petitioner must be given li berty to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 190(6) of the Rules framed for regulating entry by mining licencee, for determination of the appropriate c ompensation and receipt of a sum of Rs.2,12 lakh should not foreclose the petiti oner’s right to approach the Deputy Commissioner, for assessment of further dama ge payable by the mining lessee, beyond the offer of Rs.2,12 lakh. Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Ltd. vs. Mubarak A li reported in (2005) 11 SCC 293 to contend that the land in question vested abs olutely on the Central Govt. after the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act was ena cted and the right of the respondents to carry out the mining activities in the area cannot be questioned by the petitioner since such right is guaranteed to th e respondents, under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and R egulation) Act, 1957. However, the learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the right of the petitioner to claim compensation for being dispossessed the land, under his occupation. Having regard to the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by per mitting the respondents to offer to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,12 lakh as com pensation for vacating the land and the house under occupation of the petitioner in the BW Line of Ledo Colliery. Within two weeks of receipt of the said compen sation amount, the petitioner as has been undertaken, would vacate the land and the house, to enable the respondent authorities to start their mining activitie s over the said land. The petitioner is permitted to arrange to remove the house structures and hand over vacant possession of the land to the respondents withi n the said two weeks. The petitioner is also granted the liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner f or determination of further compensation The Deputy Commissioner may assess such further compensation, if the same is payable under the law, after giving opport unities to the respondents Coal India Ltd. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.