EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITEDversusANADINATH BANERJEE (D) AND OTHERS

                        [2021] 6 S.C.R. 509                              509


               EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED                                A
                                  v.
          ANADINATH BANERJEE (D) AND OTHERS
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 2887-2889 of 2021)
                           JULY 23, 2021                                 B

        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                   M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition – Employment in lieu of the acquisition of
lands – After acquisition of the lands, a tripartite agreement was       C
arrived at, under which a person whose lands were acquired would
be entitled to employment by a company if the acquired land-holding
was at least 2 acres – Respondent claimed employment – The
certificate issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, inter alia,
specified that the land held by the respondent in his own name was
comprised in two plots, admeasuring 0.095 acres and admeasuring          D
0.205 acres, totalling 0.300 acres in his name – However, Collector’s
certificate contained a reference to the names of certain other
persons, including relatives of the respondent, who had executed
affidavits in favour of the respondent – After taking those affidavits
into consideration, the holding of the respondent was computed at        E
2.01 acres – The claim of respondent was rejected by the Personnel
Manager – Respondent filed writ petition, which was allowed by
the Single Judge of the High Court and affirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: There was no
documentary evidence to indicate that the respondent had title to
land in excess of two acres – No documentary material was                F
produced, not even revenue records – The holding of relatives and
others cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely
on the basis of self-serving affidavits which would not amount to a
conveyance of title – Such affidavits create no interest in the land
particularly when the persons who executed them do not fall within
                                                                         G
the ambit of the phrase ‘family’ – An affidavit in favour of the
respondent does not transfer rights in the property – In this view of
the matter, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
were in error in directing the appellant to grant employment to the
respondent – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.                  H
                                  509
510            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A           Allowing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. There is merit in the submission which has been
      urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no documentary
      evidence to indicate that the respondent had title to land in excess
      of two acres. No documentary material was produced, not even
B     revenue records. The holding of relatives and others cannot be
      included in the holding of the respondent merely on the basis of
      self-serving affidavits which would not amount to a conveyance
      of title. [Para 9][514-G-H]
            2. The principle which can be deduced is that relatives who
C     are not dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family
      unit for the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation. The
      self-serving affidavits executed by the father, brother and
      nephews of the respondent cannot be taken as the basis of
      determining whether the holding of the respondent was in excess
      of the threshold of two acres. Such affidavits create no interest in
D     the land particularly when the persons who executed them
      do not fall within the ambit of the phrase ‘family’. [Para 12]
      [515-G-H; 516-A-B]
           3. The Single judge and the Division bench of the High
      Court have proceeded on the basis that 2.01 acres of land was
E     acquired from the respondent relying on the certificate of the
      Land Acquisition Collector and the view of the Personnel
      Manager. However, as stated above, an affidavit in favour of the
      respondent does not transfer rights in the property. The view of
      the Personnel Manager is ex facie contrary to the tripartite
F     agreement, and the High Court ought not to have relied on it.
      [Para 13][516-B-C]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.2887-
      2889 of 2021
            From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2013 of the High Court
G     of Calcutta in APOT No.410 of 2013 arising out of W.P. No.1650 of
      2008.
            Kaustubh Shukla, Adv. for the Appellant.
            Pratik R. Bombarde, Adv. for the Respondents.
H
 EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED v. ANADINATH BANERJEE (D)                         511


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of
                                                                              B
the High Court of Calcutta dated 9 September 2013, by which it affirmed
the judgment of a Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.
        3. The issue is whether the respondent is entitled to employment
by the appellant in lieu of the acquisition of lands. Eastern Coalfields
Limited is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and is a government             C
company within the meaning of Section 617 of the erstwhile Companies
Act 1956. An expansion scheme was proposed for the Sonepur Bazari
Open Cast Project which is located in Raniganj Coalfield in West Bengal.
A meeting took place between the representatives of the Company,
persons whose lands were acquired, and the state government. In
pursuance of the discussions, a tripartite agreement appears to have          D
been arrived at, under which a person whose lands had been acquired
would be entitled to employment by Eastern Coalfields if the acquired
land-holding was at least 2 acres. Though the Tripartite agreement has
not been placed on the record, the pleadings and submissions before the
High Court and this court have proceeded on this position being undisputed.   E
The authorities on 8 November 1991, prepared a rehabilitation list of
thirty-seven eligible candidates from whom more than 2 acres of land
was acquired in pursuance of what is described as a “one time package
deal/tripartite decision”. The name of the respondent was not included
in this list.
                                                                              F
       4. The respondent founded his claim for employment on a
certificate issued by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14 January 1993
specifying the extent of land of the respondent. The certificate, inter
alia, specified that the land held by the respondent No. 1 in his own
name was comprised in two plots, namely, plot No 1945 (admeasuring
0.095 acres) and plot No 1948 (admeasuring 0.205 acres). Thus the             G
landholding of the respondent in his own name was 0.300 acres. However,
Collector’s certificate contained a reference to the names of certain
other persons, including relatives of the respondent, who had executed
affidavits in favour of the respondent. After taking those affidavits into
consideration, the holding of the respondent was computed at 2.01 acres.      H
512             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     However, as stated earlier, it is evident from the Collector’s certificate
      that the actual holding of the respondent in his own name was in respect
      of plot Nos 1945 and 1948 admeasuring 0.300 acres.
             5. The Respondent’s writ petition seeking employment in view of
      the rehabilitation employment scheme was disposed on 14 October 1996
B     by directing the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent. The
      Personnel Manager of the Sonepur Bazari Area rejected the claim of
      the Respondent on the ground that he only held 2.01 acres of land, which
      was lesser than the 2.04 acres of minimum holding of acquired land
      required under the rehabilitation employment scheme. This led to the
C     institution of a writ petition before the High Court. An affidavit in
      opposition was filed to the writ petition on behalf of the appellant. In the
      affidavit, it was categorically stated that:
            “The land of the petitioner no.1 was in possession of 0.205 acres
            as per the Land Acquisition Certificate issued by the Land
D           Acquisition Collector, Burdwan on 14th January, 1993. The
            eligibility criteria for consideration of employment is that each of
            the land looser must have 2 acres of land but in the instant case
            admittedly writ petitioner possessed 0.205 acres of land which is
            far less than the eligibility criteria. It will be evident from the
            annexure ‘P-5’ to the writ petition that the name of the petitioner
E           appeared at SI. No. 40 in the rehabilitation list and such list was
            not meant for providing employment as per eligibility criteria. The
            petitioner cannot claim any benefit and/or advantage for
            employment on the basis of the list being annexure ‘P-5’ to the
            writ petition. In this connection a copy of the certificate so issued
F           by the Land Acquisition Collector is annexed hereto and marked
            with the letter “R-1”.
             Moreover, it was also submitted that the lands in question had
      been acquired in 1990 and the petition before the High Court had been
      instituted after a lapse of over fifteen years. Once again in paragraph 12
G     of the affidavit, it was stated that:
            “With regard to paragraph 9 of the said Petition, it will be evident
            from the Land Acquisition Certificate R-1 issued by the Acquisition
            Collector, Burdwan on 14th January, 1993 that the quantum of
            land possessed by the petitioner was 0.205 acres only which is
H
 EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED v. ANADINATH BANERJEE (D)                             513
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      far less than the eligible criteria. It will be evident from the annexure   A
      ‘P-5’ to the writ petition that the name of the petitioner appeared
      at SI. No. 40 in the rehabilitation package which was not means
      for providing employment as per eligible criteria. In this connection,
      I say that in spite of repeated opportunities given to the petitioners
      to produce the records pertaining to the claim but the petitioners
                                                                                  B
      ‘have failed and neglected to submit the same. In this connection,
      I repeat and reiterate the statements made in the preceding
      paragraphs.”
       The counter affidavit also set out that several opportunities were
granted to the respondent to appear before the authorities and substantiate       C
his claim, in spite of which no documents were produced by him.
       6. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim of the respondent
by a judgment dated 30 April 2013. The learned Single Judge proceeded
on the basis that it was an admitted case that the land belonging to the
respondent admeasuring about 2 acres was acquired for the purposes of             D
the project. In this regard, the Single Judge placed reliance on the order
passed by the Personnel Manager. On this basis, the Single Judge came
to the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of land in excess
of the minimum required (2 acres) and was, therefore, entitled to
employment. On appeal, the order of the Single Judge has been affirmed
by the Division Bench by a judgment dated 9 September 2013                        E

      7. We have heard Mr Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Mr Pratik R Bombarde, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant.
       8. Before this Court, it is not in dispute that under the tripartite       F
agreement, a claimant would be eligible for the grant of employment if
the land acquired for the purposes of the project is atleast 2.0 acres. In
the present case, the only material on the record on which reliance has
been placed by the claimant is the report of the Land Acquisition Collector.
Ex facie, the report indicates that the total holding of 2.01 acres which         G
has been computed for the respondent includes lands of several relatives
and others, who are alleged to have executed affidavits in his favour.
For convenience of reference, the certificate of the Land Acquisition
Collector, Burdwan dated 14 January 1993, is extracted below:

                                                                                  H
514               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A                             “Anadi Nath Banerjee
                          S/o Madan Mohan of Jamsole
      Vide         1    From:-              Jamsol       2029          1.50
      Affidavit         Madan Banerjee
B                       S/o Abinash
      Vide         2    Asit Kr. Banerjee                1945          0.095
      Affidavit         S/o Madan Mohan
                                                         1948          0.11
      Vide         3    Biswanath Bhattacharyay          1972          0.05
C
      Affidavit         S/o Bamapada
      Vide         4    Tapan Bhattacharyay              1972          0.05
      Affidavit         S/o Bishnu
                   5    Self No Name                     1945          0.095
D
                                                         1948          0.205

                                                         TOTAL         2.01
             Verified
E
             Total area come to                           2.01 acres

                                              _______________________
                                                          Sd-
F                                                         14.01.93
                                                          L.A. Collector,
                                                          Burdwan”
             9. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf
G     of the appellant that there was no documentary evidence to indicate that
      the respondent had title to land in excess of two acres. No documentary
      material was produced, not even revenue records. The holding of relatives
      and others cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely on
      the basis of self-serving affidavits which would not amount to a
      conveyance of title.
H
    EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED v. ANADINATH BANERJEE (D)                         515
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      10. There is no doubt that in compensation schemes, the ‘family’           A
is considered as the unit. Though the tripartite agreement and the
rehabilitation employment scheme circular have not been placed on the
record, it is evident from the minutes of the meeting on 14 November
1990 that the ‘family’ is considered as a unit under the Rehabilitation
employment scheme as well. It was recorded:
                                                                                 B
          “With a view to finalizing the list of land loser families who
          would be entitled to jobs/subsistence allowance envisaged
          in G.C. No. 49019 of the Department of Co2.I, Government of
          India, dated 31 st May 1990 (a copy enclosed), it was felt that the
          list of land losers prepared above by L.A. Officials would be placed
          before a Screening Committee.”                                         C

                                                          (emphasis supplied)
       11. Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
compensation and rehabilitation is provided to family units. For example,        D
the Act refers to ‘affected families’ for the preparation of the
rehabilitation and resettlement scheme (section 16 and second schedule
of the Act), The definition of the phrase ‘family’ in Section 3(m) is as
follows:
          (m) ¯family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children,      E
          minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him:
          Provided that widows, divorcees and women deserted by families
          shall be considered separate families.
          Explanation.—An adult of either gender with or without spouse
          or children or dependents shall be considered as a separate family     F
          for the purposes of this Act;
      Many other social welfare provisions under legislative enactments
and schemes such as the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 19521,
Payment of Gratuity Act, 19722 define ‘family’ to include wife, children,
and dependent families.                                                          G
      12. The principle which can be deduced is that relatives who are
not dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family unit for
the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation. The self-serving
1
    Section 2(g) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
2
    Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.                           H
516                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 6 S.C.R.


A     affidavits executed by the father, brother and nephews of the respondent
      cannot be taken as the basis of determining whether the holding of the
      respondent was in excess of the threshold of two acres. Such affidavits
      create no interest in the land particularly when the persons who executed
      them do not fall within the ambit of the phrase ‘family’.
B            13. The Single judge and the Division bench of the High Court
      have proceeded on the basis that 2.01 acres of land was acquired from
      the respondent relying on the certificate of the Land Acquisition Collector
      and the view of the Personnel Manager. However, as stated above, an
      affidavit in favour of the respondent does not transfer rights in the
      property. The view of the Personnel Manager is ex facie contrary to the
C     tripartite agreement, and the High Court ought not to have relied on it.
              14. In this view of the matter, both the learned Single Judge and
      the Division Bench were in error in directing the appellant to grant
      employment to the respondent. The respondent was given sufficient
      opportunities to establish that his holding was in excess of 2 acres. Having
D     failed to establish that his holding was in excess of 2 acres, the respondent
      was not entitled to employment.
            15. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the judgment
      and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 9 September 2013. In
      consequence, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent shall stand
E     dismissed.
             16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


      Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeals allowed.
F




G




H