B^?'F'-^!W *" ZSy'^-WKww.w^^^^^ Petitloner f IH SHE HEGH COfSSO: 0V 3nStCtB"S3SS KS JSBALPUR WRIT gETITZON So).^ ^&gE_2@®ei ISinteram* aged abeut 66 years^ S/e la'teshri Soplraa» B/o village Hara Tikra, Post - iJaiaagar» Telisil and Eclstriet - Sarguja (M.P.) —Versas- < $ -^-l. SoBth Eastem Ooal Melds Lifsi-ked, - • Throagb s I^s ifeaaglag BI.ree'toE, Bllaspur (M.P.) 5 ^" 2. TMe Seaeral teaager» So'atb Eastem Ooai FleMs Liaited, VaiTastBtlapHr area^ Tebsll ^- Vai'Ssasti^i'aCf Bigfcrict - Sarguja.(M.P.^^ >_ss=r--'. -•-I: 3.. The Area Manager, SOQ'fch Sasfeera Cbal Eields.fi Eiaited, '®.shraffipQrOslliery, Village 'Vishranp'aE^ Sehsil - Sarajpur, Bistslct - SargQja (H.P.) PBTCTIOS VSBSS, a&ei€atE_226/227__pP COSSni'TOTIGB. '©s'lasts,^'" ^ . •: •• iTsf -?•-'y^- ^' ^ Vf PaEwatib SaA, Wd/o Bafca Kutte Ram, ;) Sukhdev, S/o aate Kuate Ram, aged about 25 years; 1} Ramaev, S/a t»ate Kuate Rama aged aboa'fc 19 years; Ali propoead peta.'tionerc/tiRe are resideRt of •7»llas»-HarrBTikra, Sehsil- Surajpuc^ ».S.l Jai Bag-ar, Slstrict-Surguja (08) ^ >4. v ^ 4 %»agh Ths Calleetor, ?« •«<s. ncqaxs'l^'lfon 3S& lt!i!i.:il'tiBi.t*-, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeAFtH : BiLASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shnvastava, J. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.1248/2000 Parwati Bai and others versus South Eastem Coal Fieids Ltd. and others WWLPETffiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226ff27 OF THE CONStTUTION OF iNDiA Present: - Shri P.R. Patankar, counsei for the petitwners. Shri Vivek Verma. counsei for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Governraent Ad'/ocate for the State/respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10ln ofMarch, 2011) Though the case was iisted for orders on urgent hearing, with the consent of the parties. the matter is heard finallv. SS!!!1!!i!ilt iatu. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has chaiienged the action of respondents No.1 to 3 whereby possession cif agricultural land, admeasuring 6.79 acres situated in viiiage-Shivnandanpur, Tahsil-Surajpur, District-Surguja was forcibiy taken from the petitioner and the petitioner was evicted from the aforesaid land bv the resDondent authorities. 3. This petition was originaiiy filed by Kunteram, who died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives were allowed to be brought on record. 4. The case ofihe Detitioners is that Gooiram, rather of Kunteram (deceased petitioner) died in the year 1952 and at that time, he owned agricuitural iand in i: ! L!;%"B"%) W^J\ .^;:^K^jl^';^-^ •s il'i: ni his own titte of ownership. After the death of Gopiram, Kunteram remained in possession ofthe agricultural iand and cuitivated the same. in fte year 1990, the authorities of SECL forcibly evicted late Kunteram from the agricultural lanct aiieged to be in his possession. A civil suit was filed by tate Kunteram for declaration of title and possession, in the Court of Civil Judge, Ctass li, Surajpur. The suit was dismissed by hoiding that the Civii Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Coai Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Deveiopment) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1957"). Against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, an appeai was preferred which was also dismissed on 24/04/95 (Annexure P/2). The second appeai No.629/95 was fiied before ihe High Court, which too was dismissed on 28/8/98 (Annexure P/3). Aggrieved by the order passed in second appeal, the petitioner preferred special ieave petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11/10/99 (Annexure P/4) statirg that the Civli Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Suoreme Court observed that whatever other tegal righte of the petitioner may have, may be agitated, in accordance with law." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the time when the fand was acquired, the title of the land vested with iate Kunteram, who was the successor in title of deceased Gopiram. He submits that the said acquisition of iand entitied Kunteram not only to appropriate compensation in accordance with saw but aiso employment, but the SECL authorities, without making due and proper enquiry, claimed to have paid compensation to the uncie of Kunteram namely Agarsai, who had no title over the iand admeasuring 6.79 acres, acquired under the Drovisions of Act of 1957. Further submission of learned counsel for v the petitioner is that late Kunteram throughout remained in possesslon of the property notwithstanding the statutory Act of 1957 and issuance of acquisition notification in the year 1959 and later on, name of Kunteram was also recorded in the revenue records, piaced on record as Annexure P/1 cotiectively. That goes to show that Kunteram remained in possession. He therefore submits that in these circumstances, the petitioners who are heirs of deceased Kunteram are not only entitied to be paid adequate compensation, in respect of acquisition of land, but aiso employment, in aceordance with the poiicy (Annexure P/5). Further submission of leamed counset for the petitioner is that the compensation was infact not paid to anybody and false records were prepared because according to the respondents in case No.33/61, a compensation of Rs.1,798/- is said to have been paid io ^arsai Rajwar on 18/07/62 whereas Agarsai, brother of Gopiram was not alive on that day, as he died in the year 1959. 6. On the other hand, learned counsei for respondent No.1 to 3, submits that the acquisition admittedly was done, way back in the year 1859 under the provisions of the Act of 1957. Kunteram neittier challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings nor eiaimed any compensation before the respondents, disputing the act of respondents in disbursing compensation to the other person, namely, Agarsai. He further submits that the iand was acquired by gazette notification No.HO- 25 dated 22/12/% under Section 9 of the Act of 1957 by the Central Government and the possession was aiso given to the then existing National Coal Development Corporation, who remained in possession till 1985- 86 and the name of the institution was recorded in the revenue records. After nationalisation of coal mines, the iand vested inthe coal eompany which is subsidiary of Coal india Ltd. He further submits that the documents (Annexure <\ R/3 and R/4) which form part of record of respondent / SECL, show that compensation was paid to Agarsai and acknowtedgment of receipt was aiso issued by him. Submission of learned counsei for the respondent is that the petitioners, having not chaltenged either ownership nor raised any ciaim of compensation titl 1990 i.e. when suit was fiied, at Uiis stage, the petitioners are not entitied to any reiief and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Though time was granted to the respondent No.4 to fite return, no return has been filed. However, submission of leamed State counsel is that the pet'rtioner has sought relief against respondent No.1 to 3, therefore the State isa formal oartv to the lis. 8. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, pieadings and documents on record, it is found that the land, in respect of which the petitioners are raising claim was acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1957 way back in the year 1959 vide notification (Annexure R/1). From the documents (Annexure R/3 and R/4), it is reflected that the compensation, in respect of the land in dispute was paid to one Agareai, who according to the petitioners themseives, was the brother of Gopiram. if Kunteram had any ciaim for compensation or was otherwise aggrieved by the proceedings and notification of acquisition of land under the provisions of Act of 1957, Kunteram ought to have taken approDriate remedy under the law within a reasonable time, however, it was not done. tt appears that when in the year 1990, Kunteram was sought to be evicted, he fited suit seeking declaration of titie on the pleadings that acquisition was itiegai and he was deprived of his property. It has been flnaily held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction toentertain the suit wherein chailenge is made to the acquisition proceedings. Even if this court ignores the period from v »!ai.i«N JscfJ;' 1990 to 2000, during which the petitioners took recourse to the remedy before the Civii Court and iast upto the Supreme Court, the petitioner ever since 1959, when the iand was acqulred and in the year 1962, when compensation is aiteged to bepaid to Agareai, did not take any remedy tiil 1990, eith6r to chattenge legaiity and validity of acquisition proceedings or ciaim compensation. if the iand was acquired in 1959, Kunteram ought to have taken recourse to the remedy available under the iaw, claiming compensation in respect cf the land. Whether Agarsai was paid compensation or not, the fact remains that Kunteram was not paid any compensation. If that be so, it was for Kunteram to ctaim compensation before the appropriate authority, but this was not done till 1990. 9. By this petition also, the only retief ciaimed by the petitloners fs that they be paid compensation and empioyment be provided. Even in this petitlon, there is no chalienge to the acquisition proceedings and the notification issued in 1959. The ciaim of the petitioners for grant of compensation is therefore barred by deiay and iaches, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had taken remedy to civil suit in the year1990. 10. As far as ctaim for grant of empioyment is concerned, the same is cieariy not tenabie as there are neither any pleadings nor any document to show that at the time of acquisition, there was any poiicy prevalent, entitting empioyment to those, whose iand were acquired. In the absence of there being any material, this Court is unabie to grant any retief in that regard. 11. In the result, 1 do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge y rr^; 'h-'