The Tribunal had no option but to disburse the amount of compensation payable to the Applicants: High Court Of Chhattisgarh

1 NAFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR F.A(M) No.1118Reserved on 21.09.202 1Pronounced on 29.09.20211.Sanjay Kumar Singh S o Ram Pratap Singh Aged About 41 Years R oVillage Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.2.Smt. Ratnaprabha Swarnakar W o Shri Gopal Swarnakar Aged About 52Years R o Village Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.3.Smt. Jamuna Bai W o Shri Premlal Thawait Aged About 52 Years R oVillage Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.4.Ku. Savita D o Premlal Thawait Aged About 23 Years R o VillageKusmunda Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.5.Smt. Sarla Thakur W o Rai Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years R o VillageKusmunda Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.6.Arun Kumar Pandey S o Late Sudarshan Pandey Aged About 53 YearsR o Village Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. District : Korba Chhattisgarh 7.Smt. Nandini Jain W o Shri Virendra Kumar Jain Aged About 35 Years R oCSEB Colony Qtr. No. Nf 19 Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.8.Smt. Mini Jha W o Amardeep Jha Aged About 31 Years R o Qtr. No.400 A Sector 5 Balco Nagar Korba Tahsil And District KorbaChhattisgarh. AppellantsVersus 1.South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Managing Director S.E.C.L.Gevra Project Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. District : Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2.General Manager S.E.C.L. Gevra Area Project Gevra Police StationGevra District Korba Chhattisgarh.3.Collector District KorbaAnd Prescribed Officer Land AcquisitionOfficer Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.5.Chamra Das S o Sukrit Das Aged About 50 Years R o Village Naraibodh Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.6.Shiv Prasad S o Shobhitram Aged About 46 Years R o Village Naraibodh Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7.Budhwar Sai S o Maya Ram Aged About 42 Years R o Village Naraibodh Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. 28.Khem Sai S o Budhram Aged About 64 Years R o Village Naraibodh Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.9.Samelal S o Kejuram Patel Aged About 45 Years R o Village Naraibodh Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh.10.Suraj Kunwar D o Nanki Dau Aged About 45 Years R o Village Barpali Post Gevra Police Station Kusmunda Tahsil Katghora District KorbaChhattisgarh11.KunjramAs Per Court Or. Dt. 10 05 2019. RespondentsFor Appellants:Shri Kumaresh Tiwari Advocate.For Respondents No.1 & 2:Shri Vinod Deshmukh along with Shri Ritesh Giri Advocate.For Respondents No.3 & 4 State:Smt. Smita Jha P.L.For Respondent Nos.6 to 11:None though served.Single Bench:Hon ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal JC A V Judgment Order1.This Appeal has been preferred by the Applicants under Section 20ofthe Coal Bearing AreasAct 1957questioning the legality and propriety of the orderdated 17.08.2017 passed in P.T.T No.05 2017 whereby the Part Time Tribunalconstituted under the Act of 1957hasrejected their applications filed under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957. Theparties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in theCourt below. 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Applicants have initiatedthe proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 seeking compensationwith regard to the property in question acquired by Non Applicants No.1 & 2 South Eastern Coalfields Limitedbysubmitting inter alia that they are the owners of it as they purchased the same 3from its owners i.e. Non Applicants No.5 to 11in the year 2010 11 under the registered deeds of sale. According to them they came to know inthe year 2015 that the property in question purchased by them has beenacquired by SECL Gevra and the amount of compensation is going to bedisbursed to their vendors which led to filing of the representations before thecompetent authority of the said Company i.e. SECL but the same have not beendecided. Therefore they have been constrained to file the claim before theTribunal seeking amount of compensation with regard to the property in questionas acquired by them under the registered deeds of sale. 3.The aforesaid claim has been contested by the SECL on the ground thatsince the alleged sales were made after issuance of Notification dated03.06.2010 under Section 9 of the Act of 1957 and since the property in questionwas vested with the Central Government free from encumbrances under Section10 of the said Act of 1957 therefore the claim as made is not maintainable andliable to be rejected. While the vendors of the Applicants have accepted theirclaim and stated that they have no objection if the amount of compensation isdisbursed to them. 4.After considering the pleadings of the parties it has been observed by theTribunal that since there is no dispute between SECL and Non Applicants No.5to 11 i.e. the erstwhile owners of the property in question with regard to theamount of compensation therefore the Applicants are not entitled to becompensated under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 and accordingly the claimhas been dismissed. 45.Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the finding of the Tribunalholding that the Applicants are not entitled to obtain the amount of compensationunder Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 is apparently contrary to law. Whilereferring to the provisions prescribed under Section 17 of the Act of 1957 it iscontended that since there was no dispute with regard to the property in questionbetween the Applicants and their vendors therefore there was no occasion forthe Tribunal to reject their claim. The finding of the Tribunal is therefore liable tobe set aside. 6.On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for Respondents havesupported the order impugned as passed by the Tribunal. 7.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire recordcarefully. 8.The question which arises for determination in this Appeal is as to whetherthe Tribunal has committed an illegality in dismissing the claim of the Applicantsdespite the fact that the vendors of theirs have raised no dispute with regard totheir entitlement to receive the amount of compensation as provided underSection 17(2) of the Act of 1957 9.From perusal of the record it appears that the Applicants have purchasedthe property in question from its vendors i.e. Non Applicants No.5 to 11 under theregistered deed of sales as under: 5Sl.NoNames ofApplicants PurchasersDate ofPurchase Names ofVendors Description of propertieswith area0.1215.Arun Kumar PandeyApplicant No.621.02.2011Samaylal andJageshwar bothsons of KejuramPatel Non ApplicantNo.9430 2 0.2836.Smt Nandini JainApplicant No.723.12.2011Surju Kunwar Non ApplicantNo.10Khasra No.221 8 0.239part of 276 1 0.0127.Smt Mini JhaApplicant No.816.12.2010Kunjram Non ApplicantNo.11 Note: His nameis deleted fromthe cause title ofthe memo ofAppeal as perorder dated01.05.2019436 4 0.04410.It thus appears that the Applicants have purchased the property inquestion under the aforesaid registered deeds of sale from their respectivevendors. It however appears to have been purchased after its acquisition bySECL as it was acquired and vested with the Central Government videNotification dated 03.06.2010 which was issued under Section 9 of the Act of 61957. Although at the time of its acquisition the Applicants were not the ownersof it but nevertheless their interests have not been disputed as evidenced by thebare perusal of the written statements filed by their vendors who haveundisputedly sold their interest over the property in question acquired by the saidSECL. Section 17 of the Act of 1957 is to be noted at this juncture which readsas follows: “17. Payment of compensation.—(1) Anycompensation payable under this Act may betendered or paid to the persons interestedentitled thereto and the Central Governmentshall pay it to them unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned insub sectionIf the persons interested entitled theretoshall not consent to receive it or if there be anydispute as to the sufficiency of the amount ofcompensation or the title to receive it or theapportionment thereof the CentralGovernment shall deposit the amount ofcompensation with the Tribunal:Provided that any person admitted to beinterested may receive such payment underprotest as to the sufficiency of the amount:[Provided further that every person whoclaims to be an interested personincluding the person referredto in the preceding proviso shall be entitled toprefer a claim for compensation before theTribunal:Provided also that no person who hasreceived the amount otherwise than underprotest shall be entitled to prefer any suchclaim before the Tribunal.](3) When the amount of compensation is notpaid or deposited as required by this section the Central Government shall be liable to payinterest thereon at the rate of five per centumper annum from the time the compensationbecame due until it shall have been so paid ordeposited.” 711.According to the aforesaid provision it is evident that the amount ofcompensation payable under this Act may be tendered or paid to the personswho are interested and entitled for that unless restricted or prevented by any oneor more of the contingencies as provided in sub sectionof the aforesaidprovision. Since the title of the Applicants acquired under the above mentionedsales were not disputed by their vendors nor of their entitlement to receive theamount of compensation therefore in view of the said background the Tribunalhad no option but to disburse the amount of compensation payable to theApplicants with regard to their respective shares. 12.Consequently the Appeal is allowed and the Applicants are entitled toreceive the amount of compensation with regard to their respective shares asdetermined and payable under the Act of 1957. No order as to costs. Sd JUDGEPriya Anjani 

Summary: The property in question with regard to the amount of compensation, the Applicants were not entitled to be compensated under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957, and accordingly, the claim was dismissed. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh before The Hon’ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited [FA(M) 115 of 2018]. The facts of the case are associated with the applicants’ appeal under Section 20 (1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &amp; Development) Act, 1957. The applicants questioned the legality of the order dated 17.08.2017 passed in P.T.T No.05/2017 where the applications filed under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 were rejected. The applicants sought compensation from non-applicants who had acquired the property in question. By submitting inter alia the applicants stated that they purchased the land from Non-Applicants No.5 to 11, and were the owners of the property. In 2015 the applicants came to know that their property was acquired by SECL, Gevra. The compensation amount was to be distributed to their vendors leading them to file the representations.  It was claimed that the questioned property was acquired by them under the registered deeds of sale. Later, SECL had contended that the property in question was free from encumbrances and was vested with the Central Government under Section 10 of the said Act of 1957, therefore, the claim was not maintainable and liable to be rejected.  The Hon’ble Court, considering the pleadings stated “it has been observed by the Tribunal that since there is no dispute between SECL and Non-Applicants No.5 to 11 i.e. the erstwhile owners of the property in question with regard to the amount of compensation, therefore, the Applicants are not entitled to be compensated under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 and accordingly, the claim has been dismissed.” On the other hand, the counsel representing the applicants stated that the Tribunal held the applicant not being entitled to obtain the compensation under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1957 was apparently contrary to law. Moreover, the applicant and vendors had no disputes regarding the property between each other, hence there was no occasion for the Tribunal to reject their claim. It appeared, that the Applicants have purchased the property in question from its vendors i.e. Non-Applicants No.5 to 11 under the registered deed of sales. Although during its acquisition, the Applicants were not the owners of it, their interests have not been disputed as evidenced by the bare perusal of the written statements filed by their vendors, who have undisputedly sold their interest over the property in question acquired by the said SECL.  The Hon’ble Court hereby stated “it is evident that the amount of compensation payable under this Act may be tendered or paid to the persons who are interested and entitled for that unless restricted or prevented by any one or more of the contingencies as provided in sub-section (2) of the aforesaid provision. Since the title of the Applicants acquired under the above-mentioned sales were not disputed by their vendors nor of their entitlement to receive the amount of compensation, therefore, in view of the said background, the Tribunal had no option but to disburse the amount of compensation payable to the Applicants with regard to their respective shares.”  The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh scrutinised the facts and ruled out “ Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the Applicants are entitled to receive the amount of compensation with regard to their respective shares as determined and payable under the Act of 1957.”