Supreme Court of India
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR.versusMATHIAS ORAM & ORS.
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 1158
- Decided
- 3 November 2022
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- UDAY UMESH LALIT
Holding
The R&R Act, 2013 applies only from 28‑08‑2015, compensation must be based on the September 2010 cut‑off date, the 2006 R&R Policy as amended in 2013 governs benefits, and settled determinations cannot be reopened.
Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a long‑standing dispute involving tribal landowners whose lands were acquired by the government in the late 1980s for coal mining by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL). The key issues were the applicable law for compensation and rehabilitation, the cut‑off date for valuation, the relevance of the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (R&R Act) versus the earlier Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2006, and the entitlement to employment, housing plots and basic amenities. The Court held that the R&R Act applies only from the date of the Central Government’s 28‑08‑2015 notification and that compensation must be calculated using the September 2010 cut‑off date established in the Gopalpur report. It affirmed that the 2006 R&R Policy, as amended in 2013, governs employment benefits and that settled determinations cannot be reopened, while directing the State and MCL to complete compensation, provide housing or cash alternatives, and ensure provision of amenities within specified time‑frames. The Court disposed of all pending applications, directing implementation of its directions and limiting further disputes to the High Court.
Issues considered
- The date from which the 2013 R&R Act applies to acquisitions under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
- The appropriate cut‑off date for determining market value and compensation for the acquired lands.
- Whether the Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 or the 2013 amendment governs employment and rehabilitation benefits.
- The scope of the family unit for employment benefits under the amended policy.
- Whether the Commission can reopen determinations based on subsequent policy changes.
- The entitlement to housing plots versus lump‑sum cash compensation.
- The obligation to provide public amenities and preserve SC/ST status of displaced persons.
Legislation cited
- Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957s. 11, s. 13(5), s. 4(1), s. 7(1), s. 9
- Forest Rights Act, 2006
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 105, s. 108, s. 41, s. 42
Subjects
land acquisitioncompensationrehabilitationresettlementRight to Fair Compensation ActCoal Bearing Areas Actcut‑off dateemployment benefitsSC/ST rightsOdisha Resettlement Policypublic amenitiesArticle 142constitutional bench
Judgment
1140 [2022] REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 19 S.C.R. 1140 [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR.
v.
MATHIAS ORAM & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2019)
B NOVEMBER 03, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
C Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –
Applicability of – Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
Act, 1957–Held: The R&R Act cannot apply prior to the date it was
brought into force i.e., before 01.01.2014 – In the present case, it
applies from the date the Central Government issued a notification
bringing into force the proceedings of the First, Second and Third
D Schedules to the enactment specified in the Fourth Schedule, which
in this case was the CBA Act – The date therefore, on which the
R&R Act, 2013 is applicable from, is 28.08.2015 – Additionally, the
report which was finalised before that date cannot be interfered
with – The land owners and displaced families residing in the villages
E for which reports were prepared earlier than 28.08.2015, would
not therefore be entitled to the benefits of the R&R Act, 2013 –
Hence, the benefits of the R&R Act apply to displaced families and
land owners of Kiripsira, Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia –
Further directions issued – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
F Constitution of India – Article 142.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –
Determination of compensation – Cut-off date– Held: Cut-off date
for determining compensation for land acquired is to be based upon
G the cut-off date approved by Supreme court in relation to village
Gopalpur, i.e., September 2010 – Since, common cut-off date has
been accepted, all benefits flowing from it, including statutory
interest upon compensation and solatium, is determinable on the
basis of that cut-off date for the entire acquisition – Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
H
1140
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1141
& ORS.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land A
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.41, 42
– Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 – Held: As
far as s.41 goes, given that the acquisition notification was issued
in 1988 and finalised in 1990 and even the judgment of Supreme
Court indicating the methodology for compensation determination B
was delivered in 2010, the question of giving extra consideration
in terms of s.41 does not arise – However, since the resettlement of
the displaced families and their rehabilitation have been mandated
by both provision of the R&R Act, 2013 which has application to
the ongoing acquisition, as well as the R&R Policy 2006, the
obligation to ensure that the benefits of the displaced persons are C
not put to grave and irreparable prejudice by denying them their
status as SC/ST, has to be ensured – This is mandated by s.42 of the
R&R Act, 2013 which directs that whenever lands of SCs/STs are
acquired necessitating their displacement, either in terms of
territories or the areas they reside in, leading to their movement to D
other areas- where their tribe or caste may not necessarily be
recognised as SCs/ST- the status which they enjoy but for the
displacement has to be preserved and protected – This statutory
mandate and obligation cannot be denied by the State or agency,
as a matter of law – Direction issued.
E
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –Obligations
cast upon the State– Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held: Provisions
of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old 1894 Act, have for the
first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement
and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation – These F
rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right
to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but
also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for
construction of houses, cash assistance for construction;
transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity G
and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. –
Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate
provisions for the kind of public amenities which have to be provided,
such as public health benefits, schools, community centres, roads
and other basic necessities, have been obligated – All these are in
H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A furtherance of the displaced and the larger social justice obligations
cast upon the State.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.108 –
Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 – Held: R&R
B Act, 2013 by s.108 also clearly envisions that the benefits provided
by the new law are not to be applied blindly – Wherever there are
existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide better benefits
to displaced persons, such families and individuals have the choice
or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the provisions
C of the R&R Act –Going by the principle underlying s.108, clearly
the benefits spelt out under the R&R Policy 2006, appear to be
better, and more elaborate.
Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 –
Employment benefits –Family unit – Held: The R&R Policy 2006 as
D
amended by the 2013 policy applies for the purpose of employment
benefits – A family unit would comprise of head of family or father,
a major son, and an unmarried daughter having regard to the
definition and the note appended thereof – In case, for some reason,
the major son cannot be given employment, and there exists a major
E grandson, he would then be eligible for consideration – In other
words, two members (father and son or father and grandson) would
be eligible for employment and not three, in addition to the unmarried
daughter who is also to be treated as separate unit –Further,
Commission could not reopen determinations based upon change
F of policies of the State given that the benefits adjudicated by it
based on factual determinations has crystallised – In many cases,
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.(MCL) has actually provided employment
to several individuals – Thus, all cases that have been adjudicated
and were approved by Supreme court cannot be reopened.
G Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr v. Mathias Oram &
Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 269; Indore Development Authority
v. Manohar Lal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : 2020 (3)
SCR 1; State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011)
7 SCC 639 : 2011 (6) SCR 443 – referred to.
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1143
& ORS.
Case Law Reference A
2020 (3) SCR 1 referred to Para 9
2011 (6) SCR 443 referred to Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE/ INHERENT JURISDICTION:
Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2019 in Special Leave Petition B
(C) No. 6933 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2006 of the High Court
of Orissa in W.P. (C) No. 11463 of 2003.
With
C
Conmt.pet.(C) Nos. 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 553,
554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 685, 686, 687, 548,
549, 550, 551, 552 of 2019, slp (c) nos.15877-15878 of 2020.
Jayant Sud, ASG, Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Anish Kumar
Gupta, Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Nisarg
D
chaudhary, Kartikeya Vajpai, Puneet Sheoran, Ms. Deepshikha Bharati,
Ms. Rita Gupta, Venugopal Abhay, Salvada Santosh Rebello, Ms. Arzu
Paul, Ms. Deepti Arya, Adiraj Bali, Vaibhav Verma, Ms. Priyanka Das,
Randeep Sachdeva, Manish Nadda, Abhishek Atrey, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Ashok Panigrahi, Nabab
Singh, Ms. Geetanjali, Amiya Kumar Behera, Mudit Sharma, Rahul E
Shyam Bhandari, Ms. G. Priyadharshni, Ms. Simran Gill, Rajeev Yadav,
Pradeep Varma, S.K. Srivastava, Gurdeep Singh, Rahat Ali Chaudhary,
Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Ali Safeer Farooqui, Rajat S. Roy, Nripendra Nath
Bain, Hira singh, Aftab Ali Khan, Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Shiyas KR,
Satya Mitra, Soumen Talukdar, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Shibashish
F
Misra, Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, Ms. Rohini Musa, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
A. Venayagam Balan, R. Chandrachud, Vishal Arun, Shankar Divate,
Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, B. Ramana Murthy, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The oft repeated aphorism, “Justice delayed is justice denied”
cannot apply with more force than in these proceedings. The applicant
writ petitioners (hereinafter, “landowners / displaced persons”) have
waited for roughly half the number of years that this republic has existed. H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A They predominantly belong to tribal communities, and their lands were
first notified and acquired in 1988 for the purposes of coal mining. Yet,
they have not been paid compensation. The tangled and torturous journey
of their tribulations has been elaborately documented in a previous
judgment of this court.1
B A. Background
2. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter, “MCL”) is a subsidiary
of Coal India Ltd. (hereinafter, “CIL”) the biggest coal producer in the
country. MCL was aggrieved by an order2 of the Orissa High Court,
wherein the High Court directed the Central Government and MCL to
C immediately proceed under provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, “CBA Act”) to
determine and disburse compensation payable to landowners as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
3. The Central Government issued the preliminary notification
D under Section 4(1) of the CBA Act on 11.02.1987, conveying its intention
to prospect for coal in village Gopalpur and others, district Sundergarh,
Orissa. This was followed by another notification under Section 7(1) of
the CBA Act on 27.07.1987 for acquisition of the notified lands. Finally,
by notification dated 10.07.1989, the declaration of acquisition of the
land under Section 9 of the CBA Act was made, which led to the lands
E being vested absolutely in the Central Government. On 20.03.1993, the
Central Government issued notification under Section 11 of the CBA
Act, vesting the acquired land and all rights therein in MCL, retrospectively
with effect from 17.11.1991. The writ petitioners before the High Court
were landowners who were not paid any compensation for their lands.
F After unavailingly seeking the same, the landowners approached the
High Court seeking direction for compensation. Before the High Court,
the landowners’ claims were mired in a dispute between Coal India Ltd.
(hereinafter, “CIL”) and the Central Government. CIL urged that it no
longer required the lands, whereas the Central Government rejected
CIL’s proposal for denotification by order dated 12.09.2006. The High
G Court held that a land oustee under Section 9 of the CBA Act was to be
paid compensation after taking into consideration the factors enumerated
under Section 13(5) of the CBA Act. MCL preferred a special leave
petition before this court. The court sought the assistance of the then
1
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr v. Mathias Oram & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 269.
H 2
W.P. (Civil) No.11463/2003 (Orissa High Court), dated 13.11.2006.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1145
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
Solicitor General for India, Mr Gopal Subramanium, who proposed a A
scheme which was accepted by this court, in its judgment reported as
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (supra).
4. The relevant extract of the operative portion of the judgment is
reproduced as follows:
B
“22. The scheme proposed by Mr. Subramanium and agreed
upon by the Central Government and the Coal Company is
as follows:
“1. The land in Village Gopalpur, District Sundergarh, Orissa
stands acquired by the Central Government and ownership C
is vested with MCL which will determine and pay compensation
to the erstwhile landowners.
2. In respect of vast portions of the acquired land (excluding
the area where mining activities are being undertaken), actual
physical possession was never taken. The State of Orissa and D
its officers are directed to assist MCL in taking actual physical
possession of the acquired land.
3. Since the matter pertains to an acquisition of 1987 i.e.
more than two decades ago, the extent of actual physical
possession needs to be reascertained, it is necessary that the E
genuine landowners, amount of compensation payable, status
of possession, use to which the land has been put in the last
two decades, is discovered. The entire land needs to be
surveyed again.
4. In accordance with the advice of the learned Solicitor F
General, a Claims Commission needs to be set up with
representatives of the Central Government as well as MCL. It
is submitted that the Claims Commission will consist of 3
members:
(a) A former Judge of the High Court of Orissa (Chairman); G
(b) An officer who has held a post/office equivalent to the
rank of Secretary to the Government of India;
(c) An officer to be nominated by the Chairman, Coal India
Ltd.
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A The Claims Commission will carry out the exercise referred to
above and submit a report on the compensation payable and
the persons to whom it should be paid, within a period six
months.
5. The abovesaid report will be submitted to the Central
B Government, and upon formal approval by the Central
Government, MCL will make payment within a further period
of two months.
6. Some portions of the land have been determined to be
unsuitable for the petitioner having regard to physical features
C (mining being impossible, area being heavily populated, etc.).
The Claims Commission will examine whether possession of
such portions has been taken over by the petitioner. It would
be open to the Claims Commission to recommend
denotification/release of the said land from acquisition.
D 7. In view of the special facts obtaining above, the Central
Government may be permitted to denotify the said land from
the acquisition as a special case, since the land is not required
and possession also was never taken.
8. Even in the case of the denotified land, suitable
E compensation, in appropriate cases, may have to be paid to
the landowners. The Claims Commission may also give a report
on this aspect of the matter.
9. The learned Solicitor General has opined that such matters
of uncertain acquisition or pending compensation claims lead
F to unnecessary social tensions and the petitioner must act in
a spirit of good governance. Upon examination of all the
surrounding villages, in the light of the opinion of the learned
Solicitor General, for the sake of uniformity as well as fairness,
the above exercise would be carried out for the following
villages as well:
G
(i) Sardega
(ii) Jhupurunga
(iii) Ratansara
(iv) Tikilipara
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1147
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
(v) Siarmal A
(vi) Tumulia
(vii) Karlikachhar
(viii) Kulda
(ix) Bankibahal B
(x) Balinga
(xi) Garjanbahal
(xii) Bangurkela
C
(xiii) Kiripsira
(xiv) Lalma R.F.
It must be noted that in the case of Sardega and Tikilipara
Villages, part-payment has already been made. Further, in
the case of Bankibahal and Balinga Villages, full payment D
has already been made but possession has not been fully
taken.
10. The petitioner and the Central Government shall assist in
the establishment of the Commission including the provision
of suitable infrastructure. The honorarium payable to the E
Commission may be determined by this Hon’ble Court.
11. This order is being passed with the agreement of all parties
and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The
said order shall not operate as a precedent.”
23. The scheme proposed by Mr Subramanium was shown to F
Mr Janaranjan Das, the counsel appearing for the
respondent-writ petitioners and he also gave his express
consent to it. We, accordingly, approve the scheme but with
certain clarifications and modifications as stated below.
24. We nominate Mr Justice A.K. Parichha, a former Judge G
of the High Court of Orissa as Chairman of the Commission.
Mr Solicitor General in consultation with the Secretary,
Ministry of Coal, Government of India, shall nominate an
officer who has held a post/office equivalent to the rank of
Secretary to the Government of India as one of the members
H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A of the Commission within two weeks from today. Similarly, the
Chairman, Coal India Ltd. shall nominate an officer as the
other member of the Commission. Mr Justice A.K. Parichha,
shall be paid honorarium equal to the monthly salary of a
sitting High Court Judge and he shall be entitled to all other
facilities as available to a sitting Judge of the High Court.
B
The officer nominated by Mr Subramanium/Secretary, Ministry
of Coal, Government of India, shall similarly be entitled to
honorarium and other facilities available to a serving officer
of his rank. All the expenses of the Commission shall be borne
by Coal India Ltd.
C 25. The Commission shall prepare its report as envisaged in
the scheme, first in respect of the lands in Village Gopalpur,
District Sundergarh, Orissa, as soon as possible and in any
event not later than four months from today. In case the
Commission recommends denotification/release of any portion
D of the lands earlier acquired, it would also determine the rate
or the amount of compensation/mesne profit payable to the
landholder. The Commission shall submit its report not to the
Central Government but to this Court for approval and further
directions. Any denotification/release of the land would be
only subject to further orders passed by this Court in light of
E the Commission’s report. The Commission may proceed with
the survey in relation to the acquired lands in other villages,
as suggested in Para 9 of the scheme only after submitting its
report in respect of Village Gopalpur and subject to further
orders by this Court. The officers of the State Government
F and the Coal Company shall extend full help and cooperation
to the Commission in preparing the report and in the discharge
of their duties in terms of the scheme.”
5. The Claims Commission appointed by this court proceeded to
issue notices and call for claims to determine all those eligible for
G compensation and rehabilitation, and its extent. Based on the report in
relation to village Gopalpur, the court passed an order on 19.04.2012,
approving the recommendations contained in it. The relevant extracts of
the court’s order are as follows:
“The Amicus pointed out three broad features of the way in
H which the Commission has fixed the amounts of compensation
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1149
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
for the lands of the villagers acquired by Mahanadi Coal A
Fields Ltd., the petitioner Company.
First, the acquisition notifications were made way back in
the year 1984 but no compensation was paid to the villagers/
landholders for the past 28 years. The Commission, therefore,
took the view that fixing the market value of the lands with B
reference to the date of the acquisition notifications would
be wholly unfair, unjust and unreasonable and has taken the
date of notice of survey given by the Commission in September,
2010, as being relevant for fixing the market value of the
lands under acquisition. The Amicus supported the view taken C
by the Commission and, in the facts of the case, we also fully
endorse the Commission’s decision in regard to the date with
reference to which the market value of the lands under
acquisition is to be determined.
Secondly, in regard to fixing the rate of compensation, the D
Amicus submitted that the Commission had followed a very
scientific approach which was fit to be approved by this Court.
We accept the method adopted by the Commission for fixing
the rate of compensation and the actual mounts of
compensation determined for payment to the individual
E
landholders.
Thirdly, in regard to the. rehabilitation policy, the Commission
has applied the rehabilitation policy of the year 2006 as it is
more liberal and beneficial for the landholders in comparison
to the earlier rehabilitation policy of the year 1998. On this F
score also, we entirely agree with the view taken by the
Commission.
In short, we accept the Commission’s report in all respects
and make, it an order of this Court. At this stage, we would
like to draw the attention of the Commission to some other G
aspects of the matter as suggested by the Amicus. The Amicus
rightly submitted that setting up of schools and health centres
in the villages where lands have been acquired in large areas
should also be made an obligation of the petitioner-Company
for whose benefit the acquisitions are made.
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A We are not aware whether in the 2006 rehabilitation policy
there are provisions for setting up schools and health centres
in the villages affected by land acquisition. In case, the
rehabilitation policy does not have such provisions, the
Commission may consider directing Mahanadi Coal Fields
B Ltd. to provide for good, functional schools with sufficient
number of teachers and well-equipped health centres in all
the villages affected by land acquisition.
We would also like to remind the Commission that the good
work done by it so far will only be complete as and when the
C individual villagers whose lands are acquired actually receive
the amount of compensation and other benefits under the
compensation and rehabilitation package. We are sure that
the Commission would be conscious of this aspect of the matter.
But, we would still like to tell it that all the good work done
by it may be dissipated unless the villagers get their lawful
D dues in full and no part of compensation amount or any
element of the compensation/rehabilitation package is allowed
to be wasted or taken away from the concerned landholder
by deception or fraudulent means. It will be, therefore, open
to the Commission also to frame proper. policies for payment
E of the compensation money and to ensure that the
compensation/rehabilitation benefits are actually received by
the landholders. In this regard, the Commission may consider
directing staggered payment of the amount of compensation
so that the compensation money is not altogether wasted.
F Mr. Ashok Panigrahi submitted that some of the landholders
whose lands were also taken in acquisition were unable to
submit their claims before the Commission as they had gone
to Jharkhand for earning their livelihood. If that be so, it will
be open to them to make their representations before the
G Commission which shall consider those representations and
pass appropriate and reasonable orders. We deeply appreciate
the painstaking work done by the Commission and request it
to carry on its good work in respect of the rest of the villages
where the lands were similarly acquired following the model
framed by it in respect of Gopalpur village.
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1151
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
We repeat our direction that the Governmnent of Orissa, A
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and the local administration shall
render full help, -assistance and cooperation in the work of
the Commission and in implementation of the Commission’s
directions in regard to payment of compensation and the
rehabilitation package admissible to the concerned
B
landholders.
Let copies of the Part-II Report of the Commission be given
to the Amicus, Gp. Captain Karan Singh Bhati and Mr. Ashok
Panigrahi, counsel for the parties, and after that it may be
kept in a sealed cover.”
C
6. Following the Gopalpur model, the Commission submitted
reports for villages Balinga, Bankibahal, Sardega and Tiklipara. By its
order dated 08.08.2012, this court approved those reports and observed
that the Commission may follow (as far as practicable) the same basis
in other villages for which compensation was yet to be fixed. The relevant
part of that order is extracted as follows: D
“A further report is received from the Claims Commission,
Bhubaneshwar, under the title Recommended Composite
Compensation Package for Village Balinga, Bankibahal,
Sardega and Tikilipara. We accept and approve all the
recommendations made by the Commission and request it to E
proceed further on the basis of its recommendations and in
light of the previous orders passed by this Court.
We further observe that the Commission may follow as far as
practicable the same basis in other villages for the lands of
which compensation ls yet to be fixed by it. Let the report F
received from the Commission be kept in a sealed cover.
Put up on receipt of further report from the Claims Commission,
Bhubaneshwar.”
7. By its order dated 10.04.2013, this court accepted and approved
G
the Commission’s reports with respect to villages Kulda and Garjan Bahal.
By another order dated 15.07.2013, this court accepted the Commission’s
report for village Karlikachhar. In that order, the court further observed
that lands in two villages namely Kirpsira and Ratansara were transferred
by the Central Government to some other companies. The court therefore
requested the Commission to proceed in respect of the two villages and H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A directed that at the initial stage, payment of compensation would be
MCL’s liability – it could later recover the sums from the successor
companies. By its order dated 25.10.2013, this court observed that
infrastructure for resettlement was to be in terms of Odisha Resettlement
and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (hereinafter, “R&R Policy 2006”) and
the Third Schedule to the (then) Right to Fair Compensation and
B
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill,
2013.
8. On 10.07.2017, this court disposed of the appeal, with the
following observations and directions:
C “In pursuance of the orders of this Court, a report was
submitted by Justice Parichha which was accepted by this
Court but the implementation thereof still remained incomplete.
Learned Amicus has submitted a report dated 4 July 2017 in
respect of outstanding issues and has made recommendations
D as follows:-
“(i) As far as any compensation amount which is lying in fixed
deposits is concerned, the same must be accounted for at
periodic intervals jointly by the Collector as well as by a senior
officer of MCL. The said amounts must be safeguarded
E suitably by the Commission and the Commission would be at
liberty to seek appropriate direction from this Court as and
when its work is completed.
(ii) Issue directions to the Collector, Sundargarh as well as
the Chairman and Managing Director of MCL to ensure
F disbursement of compensation to all the beneficiaries of the
8 villages (namely Balinga, Bankibahal, Garjan Bahal,
Gopalpur, Karlikachar, Kunda, Sardega and Tiklipada) on
or before 31st July 2017, and to ensure disbursement of
compensation to all the beneficiaries of the 2 villages, (namely
Siarmal and Bangurkela) on or before 31st November, 2017.
G
(iii) The Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur, to make
adequate efforts to trace the persons who have not turned up
to receive compensation. The Collectors concerned will
contact their counterparts in States where awardees are known
to migrate, and adopt suitable methodologies to identify the
H concerned person.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1153
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
(iv) Issue directions to the authorities of MCL to furnish a A
list, jointly verified by the Collector and the Assistant Revenue
Officer indicating the names of the all awardees of
compensation, the dates when they were entitled to payment,
the actual dates when payment was made and whether that
payment included interest, to the Claims Commission as well
B
as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent parties.
(v) It may be clarified that even with respect two villages
(namely Siarmal and Bangurkela) , when the payment of
compensation is made, interest, as payable, will be determined
to be paid in accordance with Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme C
Court. Payment of interest in respect of delayed payment will
be undertaken if interest was not paid in accordance with the
Orders of the Court.
(vi) where genuine cases of fraud and impersonation are
alleged by MCL, the Claims Commission be empowered to D
examine such cases and forward recommendations to the
Learned Amicus.
(vii) Direct the authorities of MCL to complete the process of
granting employment, payment of monetary compensation in
lieu of employment, including annuities on or before 31st July E
201 7 with respect to 8 villages (namely Balinga, Bankibahal,
Garjan Bahal, Gopalpur, Karlikachar, Kunda, Sardega and
Tiklipada) and on or before 31st November, 2017 with respect
to 2 villages (namely Siarmal and Bangurkela) .
(viii) Issue directions to the Chairman and Managing Director F
of MCL to immediately stop any illegal mining being
undertaken by MCL on agricultural lands in any of the
villages.
(ix) Issue directions to MCL authorities to complete the
development of resettlement colonies in the two sites (namely G
Barapalli II and Chatanpalli) on or before 30th September,
2017.
(x) Once even one of the rehabilitation sites is ready and the
site has been certified as suitable for shifting by the Claims
Commission, the Hon’ble Claims Commission may pay pass H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A appropriate orders enabling the shifting of those persons who
are entitled to R&R Benefits in the said site.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the following general
directions are also necessary -
(xi) That the Managing Director of MCL either himself or by
B a designated officer will be personally responsible for the
implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court and
the orders by the Commission.
(xii) Suitable steps will be taken by the MCL to complete the
process of disbursement of compensation.
C
(xiii) Compensation will be disbursed to the satisfaction of
the Commission.
(xiv) Employment must be offered to all those left out
(Categories I & II in any employment must be offered and
D completed to the satisfaction of the Commission.
(xv) Rehabilitation steps must be completed within a period
of nine months from today.
(xvi) Only upon the rehabilitation being certified by the
Commission and experts that a notice can be issued by the
E Commission asking the oustees to shift to alternate sites.
(xvii) Fresh notices be issued by the Commission in respect of
awardees who have not received monies
(xviii) In respect of awardees who have not been paid money
in time, interest is payable and such interest be awarded at a
F rate not exceeding 15% by the Commission calculating the
same with reference to the orders of this Hon’ble Court.
(xix) It awardees disbursed and MCL, is also necessary that
including the names a list of all the and the amounts by the
Collector to the Claims to them, jointly signed must be made
G available Commission as well as counsel for the oustees
forthwith,
(xx) In so far as acquisition of additional land for resettlement
and rehabilitation is concerned, suitable assistance will be
offered by the State authorities including the Divisional
H Commissioner Sambalpur.”
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1155
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
We are broadly in agreement with the recommendations made A
by the learned Amicus. We, however, leave it open to the
appellants or any other affected parties to put forward their
objections before the High Court/Commission since we are
inclined to leave such matters to be dealt with by the High
Court/Commission.
B
With regard to recommendation XIV, learned counsel for the
appellants has an objection on the ground that the issue is
covered by the Orissa Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy
2006.
Learned Amicus states that the recommendation is consistent C
with the report of Parichha Commission which has already
been accepted by this Court. This aspect of the matter may be
gone into by the High Court, if necessary.
One of the issues which is surviving is as regards constructed
housing on the land allocated for rehabilitation and D
resettlement by the affected persons. Mr. Dhankar, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants states that it is
not clear whether all such persons want constructed housing
or not. A notice will therefore be put in the Office of the District
Collector seeking objection to such construction. Those who
do not expressly indicate their option to go for housing other E
than the constructed housing offered by the appellant, such
option to be indicated within one week of the notice, they will
be presumed to be willing to opt for the allotment of such
housing constructed by appellant.
We do accept that necessary basic health amenities as already F
directed by this Court will be duly provided at the site.
Subject to the above, it will be open for the High Court/
Commission, keeping in mind the report of the Parichha
Commission which has already been accepted, to consider
issuing any further directions…” G
9. By order dated 13.10.2020, this court had directed MCL to
share all the status reports and relevant documents available with it,
digitally, with all parties. Apart from that, the court recorded that as
observed by the previous order dated 02.09.2020, a sum of
566,31,46,942.78 was deposited with the concerned authority. Mr H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A Atmaram Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
submitted that MCL was willing to offer employment in admitted cases
to the persons mentioned in the reports for the relevant villages. Details
were furnished to the court. In addition, Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for landowners had urged that for villages Tumulia, Jhupuranga,
Ratansara, and Kirpsara, no award was declared before 01.01.2014,
B
i.e., the date on which the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency
In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter, “R&R Act, 2013”) came into force. Reliance was also
placed upon Section 24 of that Act as well as this court’s decision passed
by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
C Lal & Ors., 3 to urge that provisions of the 2013 Act relating to
determination of compensation must therefore apply. It was also urged
that a tabular chart furnished by the District Collector, Sundargarh,
indicated that at least in respect of six sites in different villages, no
certificate of completion had been issued by the competent authority,
and with respect to two other sites, resettlement and rehabilitation work
D
was still at a primary stage.
10. Several applications were moved: some by MCL, and many
more by the landowners, seeking a range of directions. In addition, some
contempt proceedings were also initiated, submitting that the directions
of this court were not complied with altogether, or not implemented
E appropriately. All these applications were heard by this court. This
judgment will thus dispose of all those applications and contempt petitions.
11. During the course of the hearings, counsels for the parties
addressed submissions on the following issues:
F i. Point no. 1: The date or dates on which compensation
became reckonable (also referred to as the ‘cut-off date’);
ii. Point no. 2: Applicability of the R&R Act, 2013;
iii. Point no. 3, 4 and 5: Whether the R&R Policy 2006 applied,
or the subsequent policy of 2013; If the latter policy (of
G 2013) applied, then for the purpose of employment benefits,
whether the family unit was deemed to be represented by
a singular member, or several of them; and whether the
Commission could re-open determinations based on change
3
H Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1157
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
of policies of the State, after its report was accepted by A
this court;
iv. Point no. 6: Entitlement to housing plots; and
v. Point no. 7: Creation of facilities and amenities, such as
schools, community centres, medical facilities, etc.
B
B. Analysis
12. Prior to delving into a point-by-point analysis, it is instrumental
to allude to the case of State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan,4
which highlighted the essence of rehabilitation through the lens of Article
21 of the Constitution:
C
“Land acquisition and rehabilitation : Article 21
26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as
far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying
on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so
desire, and are willing to purchase and comply with any
requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a D
piece of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price
at which the land has been acquired from them. However, the
State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate
accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority
concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of E
providing alternative land considering the facts and
circumstances of each case.
27. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have
been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or F
livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. The
authorities must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way
of employment, housing, investment opportunities,
and identification of alternative lands.
“10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy
G
towards those who are highly adversely affected by the
development process and a cynical unconcern for the
enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights
and benefits promised and guaranteed under the
4
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639. H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised
citizens.” (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. case [Mahanadi
Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352] , SCC p.
273, para 10)
B For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically
connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a
market economy can be traumatic. (Vide State of
U.P. v. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251 : AIR 1986 SC 2025],
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority [(2002) 4
SCC 666 : AIR 2002 SC 2036] , Land Acquisition Officer
C v. Mahaboob [(2009) 14 SCC 54 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ)
297] , Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram
[Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11
SCC 269 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352]
and Brij Mohan v. HUDA [(2011) 2 SCC 29 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Civ) 336] .) The fundamental right of the farmer to
D
cultivation is a part of right to livelihood. “Agricultural
land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom
from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source for peace
and prosperity.” India being a predominantly agricultural
society, there is a “strong linkage between the land and
E the person’s status in [the] social system”.
28. However, in case of land acquisition, “the plea of
deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is
unsustainable”. (Vide Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. [(1996)
2 SCC 549 : AIR 1996 SC 1051] and Samatha v. State of
F A.P. [(1997) 8 SCC 191 : AIR 1997 SC 3297] ) This Court
has consistently held that Article 300-A is not only a
constitutional right but also a human right. (Vide Lachhman
Dass v. Jagat Ram [(2007) 10 SCC 448] and Amarjit
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2010) 10 SCC 43 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Cri) 29] .) However, in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State
G of Gujarat [1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 : AIR 1995 SC 142] this
Court held : (SCC pp. 620 & 632, paras 30 & 58)
“30. Thus it is clear that right to property under Article
300-A is not a basic feature or structure of the Constitution.
It is only a constitutional right. …
H ***
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1159
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
58. … The principle of unfairness of the procedure A
attracting Article 21 does not apply to the acquisition or
deprivation of property under Article 300-A giving effect
to the directive principles.”
29. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan (1) [(2000) 10
SCC 664] held as under: (SCC pp. 702-03, para 62) B
“62. The displacement of the tribals and other
persons would not per se result in the violation of their
fundamental or other rights. The effect is to see that on
their rehabilitation at new locations they are better off than
what they were. At the rehabilitation sites they will have C
more and better amenities than those they enjoyed in their
tribal hamlets. The gradual assimilation in the mainstream
of the society will lead to betterment and progress.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. In State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
D
[(2009) 8 SCC 46] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 95,
paras 102-03)
“102. Article 21 deals with right to life and liberty. Would it
bring within its umbrage a right of tribals to be rehabilitated in
their own habitat is the question?
E
103. If the answer is to be rendered in the affirmative, then,
for no reason whatsoever even an inch of land belonging
to a member of Scheduled Tribe can ever be acquired.
Furthermore, a distinction must be borne between a right
of rehabilitation required to be provided when the land of
the members of the Scheduled Tribes are acquired vis-à- F
vis a prohibition imposed upon the State from doing so at
all.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. Thus, from the above referred judgments, it is evident that
acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional/ G
fundamental right of the displaced persons. However, they
are entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation as per the policy
framed for the oustees of the project concerned.”
With this context, an analysis of each of the aforementioned points
is elaborated in the following sections. H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A I. Cut-off date
13. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for some
landowners and groups representing them, argued that the Commission’s
report for Gopalpur was accepted by this court, whereby the effective
date for the computation of compensation was held to be the date of
B notice of survey. It was submitted that given that compensation and
rehabilitation determination had been unduly prolonged, this court ought
to clarify that the date of survey of the concerned village should be the
effective date, rather than the date of survey in the case of village
Gopalpur, which was in September 2010. It was argued, that adopting
this would be consistent, in principle, as anything else would mean that
C the Commission, and this court, would be applying different standards.
14. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for
MCL, urged that the Gopalpur approach was universally adopted as the
correct one by the Commission, based on which reports for other villages
were prepared, and consequently compensation amounts determined.
D As a consequence, the landowners also stood to benefit, because the
date of September 2010 was a uniform one, on the basis of which
compensation and all other amounts were determinable. It was further
submitted that so far as the question of delay or prejudice was concerned,
there could be no cause for complaint, because there was sufficient
E safeguard in law, by way of award of interest, for delayed payment. It
was submitted that if this court were to revisit the issue, settled matters
that had attained finality, would be opened and the process of
compensation determination thrown into uncertainty, which would not
be to the benefit of anyone, including the land owners.
F 15. The Parichha Commission, in its report relating to village
Gopalpur, explained the reasons why the date for determination of
compensation and benefits should be calculated from September 2010:
“15. In a tribal area like Sundargarh most of the people
depend on agriculture for their sustenance and generally have
G no other avocation. Such people once uprooted from their
land find themselves nowhere having no savings to draw and
nothing to fall back upon. Such persons, if not properly
rehabilitated and properly compensated may even face
starvation. During the process of objection hearing, we found
that being deprived of their legal rights over the lands because
H of acquisition notification, some tenants could not arrange
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1161
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
funds for undertaking treatment to ailing family members, who A
were suffering from serious illness as a result some of such
patients died without getting proper treatment. Some land
holders complained that their children’s marriage and
education were stalled because they had no legal right to
deal with their lands. If the compensation would have been
B
paid within one or two years of publication· of 4(1)
notification, then the land holders could have purchased
equivalent amount of land for their sustenance as admittedly
the value of lands then was much less than the present rate. It
isto be noted that delay in payment of compensation was not
at all due to the fault of the land holders but was entirely due C
to slackness on the part of the Government of India and the
beneficiary company, MCL. We, therefore feel that the proper
compensation for· the lands to the land holders cannot be
given unlessthe cut-of date is brought to the· date of notice
published by the Claims Commission for survey of the1ands
D
as per the direction of the apex Court. We, accordingly,
recommend the cut-off date to be September, 2010 and for
assessment of the compensation of the lands of Gopalpur as
per the market rate prevalent in 2010-11.”
16. The approach adopted in relation to village Gopalpur for
determining compensation amounts and fixing the cut-off date as E
September 2010, was applied in relation to other villages such as Sardega,
Balinga, Bankinahal, Tiklipara, Garjanbahal, and Kulda by this court’s
order dated 08.08.2012, and on 10.04.2013, the Commission’s report
was endorsed and accepted. By another order dated 15.07.2013, the
court accepted the Commission’s report for village Karlikachhar. Given F
these facts, this court is of the opinion that there is merit in the contention
of MCL, that compensation amounts should be determined having regard
to one single cut-off date, i.e., September 2010. Given the fact that this
court was alive to the plight of the landowners who had not been paid
any amount for over 22 years when the first judgment was delivered,
which led to the setting up of the Commission and the evolution of the G
Gopalpur model, whereby survey was undertaken for the first time after
September 2010, that date should be the reckonable one. If one keeps in
mind the fact that had the compensation determination been based on
the date of issuance of the preliminary notification, it would have plainly
resulted in injustice to the landowners. Instead, the shifting of the date to H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A September 2010, and the further recompense to the landowners based
on that cut-off date, inures to their benefit. The shifting of dates again
would spell uncertainty, and also lead to a real possibility of delay in the
computation of compensation and other benefits to the landowners who
were deprived of their rights. In these circumstances, the court is of the
opinion that re-opening the issue would lead to considerable uncertainty,
B
because settled cases would invariably have to be re-examined and
computations made afresh. For these foregoing reasons, the submission
with respect to application of the dates when the surveys were notified
as the basis for computation of compensation in different villages, is
rejected as unfeasible.
C 17. The cut-off, based upon the Gopalpur report, of September
2010 merits acceptance in regard to all 14 villages for more than one
reason. The first and foremost, is that the acquisition in the present case
under the CBA Act was notified in 1988; the final notification or
declaration was made in 1990. The nightmare faced by the land owners
D in respect of the internal dispute, ultimately led to their approaching the
court. Finally, this court intervened and directed the mechanism for
determination of compensation. By this method, irremediable prejudice
that would have been caused to the land owners had the original date
(1988-1990) been treated as the basis, was avoided. The net result is
that the Gopalpur report which is based upon the cut-off being September
E 2010, has justly inured in favour of land owners by postponing the date
for reckoning the compensation by 22 years. Secondly, and equally
important, most of the compensation determination exercises were
conducted between September 2010 and end of 2013. The land owners
have not been able to demonstrate how the adoption of Gopalpur cut-off
F would prejudice them in any manner. No sale deed or market value or
documents disclosing significant change in market value between 2010
and 2013-14 has been disclosed. Thirdly, all land owners regardless of
whether the survey for compensation determination took place in 2011,
2012, or 2013 would in any case be entitled to interest, at statutory rates
if the Gopalpur cut-off date is accepted. This would result in statutory
G interest accruing in favour of the land owners, upon the acceptance of
the report, which would be over and above the compensation determined
on the basis of the market value determined as well as the solatium. This
would offset the prejudice, if any, caused due to basing the compensation
determination on the Gopalpur cut-off dates. In terms of the State policy,
H a rehabilitation and resettlement development advisory committee
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1163
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
(hereinafter, “RPDAC”) is constituted by the State Government and A
tasked with implementation of rehabilitation measures. The rehabilitation
and resettlement plan has to be prepared by the Collector after consultation
with displaced families. The resettlement site is selected by the RPDAC,
based upon the consent of the villagers, post which, an intimation is sent
to the required body (in the present case, MCL). According to MCL,
B
this site for resettlement has been finalised. The Collector, pursuant to
an order of this court, had filed a report on 03.11.2020. The report covers
a large number of rehabilitation and resettlement villages and also lists
that in relation to 12 villages, 326 objections were received by the
Collector. After verification exercises, the Collector has reported that
the list with respect to rehabilitation and resettlement needed the approval C
by the Government; and the Collector had to prepare a report in
consultation with the displaced families. The RPDAC had to select the
site, gram sabhas had to be held, displacement certificates had to be
issued to persons, in addition to which they had to be provided building
assistance of minimum 2,40,000/-.
D
18. Consequently, the date fixed in the Gopalpur report, by the
Commission (i.e., September, 2010) would be the basis for compensation
determination. Apart from compensation, the claimants would also be
entitled to statutory benefits (solatium, additional compensation, interest,
etc.) in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
E
II. Point No. 2: Applicability of the R&R Act, 2013
19. The landowners argued that since the coming into force of
the R&R Act 2013, the appropriate law for determination of compensation
as well as other benefits, would be provisions of that enactment, and not
the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or the CBA Act. It was urged F
that since in all the cases, where compensation had not been disbursed
to the oustees on the date when possession of the land was taken over
from them, the provisions of the R&R Act 2013 would be attracted.
20. It was urged that the Commission in its reports relating to
villages Kiripsira, Jupurunga, Ratansara, and Tumulia, erroneously rejected G
the claim about applicability of the R&R Act, 2013. It was argued, in this
regard, that the Commission’s reports on this aspect could not be
supported, and since the compensation determination had not been
finalized, the applicable law would be the one in force when the final
decision is arrived at.
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 21. On behalf of MCL, it was submitted that the Commission
rightly declined to award the compensation under the R&R Act, 2013 as
this court had categorically settled the position vide its order dated
25.10.2013. The order of this court had clarified that only the Third
Schedule of the R&R Act 2013, would be applicable, with regard to
infrastructure for resettlement, etc. So far as award of compensation
B
was concerned, this court had already affirmed the Commission’s
approach while approving the Gopalpur report and the same would govern
all the villages under the acquisition. In case any deviation was made
with regard to award of compensation in any of the villages, it would
open up a ‘Pandora’s box’ and all the claims which were settled following
C the Gopalpur model would open up, resulting in a never-ending process.
It was further submitted that MCL, despite having paid a huge amount
of over 2,000 crores, had not yet received physical vacant possession
of most of the land, for which compensation was already disbursed, and
rehabilitation and resettlement benefits granted.
D 22. The Commission had dealt with and rejected the claim for
payment of compensation under the R&R Act 2013, observing as follows:
“8.9 Many land oustees filed Claim Cases with a prayer to
provide them compensation under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
E Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This Commission
vide order dated 19.6.2015 passed in Claim Case No.27 and
vide order dated 30.10.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 130
and order dated 08.12.2018 passed in Claim Case No.10/1
& 27 others, after hearing the Counsel appearing in those
cases and the petitioners in person, dismissed those cases.
F All other cases involving similar issue were also dismissed in
terms of the above cases.”
23. Section 105 of the R&R Act 2013 reads as follows:
105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to
G apply with certain modifications.–(1) Subject to sub-section
(3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments
relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.
(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central
Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1165
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one A
year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that
any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination
of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and
rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and
Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall
B
apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments
specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such
exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the
compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to
compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be
specified in the notification, as the case may be. C
(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under
sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of
Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty
days which may be comprised in one session or in two or
more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the D
session immediately following the session or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the
issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any
modification in the notification, the notification shall not be
issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such
modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of E
Parliament.”
Entry 11 to the Fourth Schedule of the said Act, read as follows:
“11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development
Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)” F
24. By virtue of Section 105, read with the Fourth Schedule,
therefore, the R&R Act 2013, was not applicable to acquisitions made
under the CBA Act. However, by Section 105(2), the Central Government
had issued a notification:
“Direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the G
determination of compensation in accordance with the First
Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the
Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected
families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under
the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the
compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to
compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be
specified in the notification, as the case may be.”
25. The Ministry of Coal, Central Government issued a clarification
B dated 04.08.2017 on the applicability of First, Second and Third Schedules
of the R&R Act, 2013 in cases of acquisition of lands under the CBA
Act. The clarification stated as under:
“1….That consequent upon the announcement of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
C Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013( hereinafter
‘RFCTLARR Act’) and Order SO No. 2368(E). notified on
28.08.2015 by Ministry of Rural Development, Coal India
Limited and its subsidiaries have sought clarifications
regarding payment of compensation for land acquired prior
to 01.09.2015 under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
D Development Act. 1957(hereinafter the ‘CBA Act’)
2. As multiple stages are involved in the land acquisition
process, including that of determination of compensation, this
Ministry sought advice from Ministry of Law and Justice.
Ministry of Law and Justice has given their advice that if the
E compensation has not been determined before 01.09.2015
under Section 13(5) of the CBA Act, then the provisions of
First Schedule, Second Schedule and Third Schedule of the
RFCTLARR Act will be applicable. In remaining cases where
the compensation has already been determined under Section
13(5) of the CBA Act before 01.09.2015, then such cases will
F not be reopened.
4. In view of the above clarifications, previous order letter
no. 430200/26/88-LSWdated 12.05.1989 issued by the.
Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal shall stand modified.
The above clarifications may be followed in determination of
G compensation for land acquired under CBA Act.
This is issued with the approval of the competent authority.
s/d
R.S. Saroj
H Under Secretary to the Govt. of India”.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1167
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
26. The above relevant facts reveal that Section 105 excluded A
application of the R&R Act, 2013 to acquisitions made and eminent
domain exercised, under the enactments specified in its Fourth Schedule,
such as the CBA Act. It was under this enactment, that the acquisitions
which are the subject matter of the present proceedings, were notified
in favour of MCL.
B
27. When the R&R Act, 2013 was brought into force with effect
from 01.01.2014, the acquisitions in favour of MCL continued to be under
the CBA Act. By Section 105(3) of the R& R Act, 2013, the Central
Government was obliged to issue the notification within one year from
the date of commencement of that Act to ensure that its provisions relating
C
to the determination of compensation, were in accordance with the
provisions in the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement in
accordance with the Second and Third Schedules of that Act. It was
pursuant to this mandate, that on 28.08.2015 the Central Government
issued a notification in terms of Section 105(3). However, the Central
Government chose to exercise its power to remove difficulties, under D
Section 103. This seems to be because the notification was issued on
28.08.2015– beyond the period prescribed in Section 105(3). Nevertheless,
the spirit of the statutory injunction to make the beneficial provisions of
the R&R Act, 2013 applicable to compensation determination and
resettlement or rehabilitation measures, was complied with in effect and
E
substance.
28. MCL relied upon the order of this court dated 25.10.2013
and urged that only the benefits of the Third Schedule could be availed
by the landowners. Those provisions relate to the obligation to provide
amenities. At the same time, this court has to be conscious of the fact
F
that when that order was made, the R&R Act, 2013, as we know of
today, was not even law – it was sought to be introduced in Parliament
through a Bill. The order of 25.10.2013 only expressly alludes to the
Bill. In other words, the court could not foresee the sequence in which
the provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 would be applicable. The order
of this Court nowhere indicated that whether the R&R Act - which G
was to be enacted, and come into force later - was applicable to all
land acquisition proceedings including those pending consideration at
various levels and before various courts, and whether the body of the
new enactment sought to exclude from its purview acquisitions made
under enactments other than the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A as the R&R Act, 2013 eventually did, through Section 105 and the
Fourth Schedule.
29. There can be no doubt that for the period between
01.01.2014 and 28.08.2015, ongoing acquisitions processes under
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule - such as the CBA Act
B - were out of purview of the R&R Act, 2013. However, with the
publication of the notification under Section 113 read with Section
105(3) on 28.08.2015, the legal position underwent a transformation.
Acquisition processes, especially compensation determination as well
as calculation and disbursement of resettlement entitlements and
C rehabilitation measures had to be in terms of the First, Second and
Third Schedules to the Act.
30. It is immediately noticeable from the provisions of the First
Schedule to the R&R Act, 2013 that compensation determination is
radically different from the pre-existing method of determination. This is
D because market value determination, by virtue of Sl. No. 2 of the First
Schedule, requires in the first instance, decision on which factor is to be
applied for acquisition of land in rural areas; Sl. No. 4 outlines the method
for determining value of assets; and Sl. No. 5 states that the solatium
would be equal to 100% of the market value of the land mentioned in Sl.
No. 1 in respect of rural areas multiplied by the factors provided in
E Serial No. 2. Serial Nos. 6, 7, and 8 outline the method for determining
the final award.
31. As far as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are
concerned, provisions of the Second Schedule apply. By Serial No. 1,
if the property displaced includes a house, the specific provision is that
F
in case the house is “lost” due to acquisition in rural areas, the
resettlement benefit would be “a constructed house” provided as per
the Indira Awas Yojana specifications. In addition, resettlement
benefits by way of employment, or in lieu of it, a one-time payment of
5 lakh and annuity policies which were to yield not less than 2000/
G - per family per month for 20 years, plus subsistence grant for displaced
families for one year, and one time resettlement allowance of 50,000/
-, among others, is assured. The Third Schedule to the R&R Act, 2013
outlines the infrastructural amenities which the State has to ensure, in
the case of families and people displaced to large scale acquisition
proceedings.
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1169
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
32. Having regard to the provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 A
especially the First, Second and Third Schedules thereof, the position
taken by MCL in this Courts’ opinion cannot be countenanced.
Undoubtedly the Gopalpur model of determining compensation applied
in respect of the villages for which reports were prepared and approved
by the Courts (Gopalpur, Sardega, Balinga, Bankibahal, Tikilipara,
B
Garjanbahal, Kulda, Karlikachhar, Siarmal, and Bangurkela). However,
in regard to four villages i.e., Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and
Kirpsara, no award has yet been approved. The report for Tumulia village
was prepared on 04.04.2020 and thereafter filed in court, awaiting its
approval. The report in respect of the village Jhupuranga has been placed
on record; the same is pending approval of this court. C
33. This court is of the opinion that with the issuance of the
notification on 28.10.2015 and the clarification by the Central Government
to MCL on 04.08.2017, the question of paying or depositing compensation
in terms of the CBA Act cannot arise after 28.10.2015. This is because
the requirement of compensation determination under the CBA Act ceased D
by virtue of Section 105(3). The statutory regime under the CBA Act
was superseded and substituted with the provisions of the First Schedule
to the R&R Act, 2013.
34. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the First
Schedule of the R&R Act, 2013 is applicable to the acquisition in E
question, made by the Central Government in favour of MCL, in respect
of the villages, the reports of which were not approved prior to
28.10.2015. Accordingly, the compensation based upon the market value
for the four villages i.e., Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and Kirpsara
have to be re-determined in accordance with the provisions of the
First Schedule to the R&R Act, 2013. Since the extent to land involved, F
identification of land owners, and the basic market value along with
solatium and interest payments, have been determined, the only
additional exercise which the Commission has to carry out is the
differential payable after the re-determination in respect of all the
elements i.e., the market value, solatium, and further interest. It is also G
further clarified that the villages in respect of which this court has
already approved reports of the Commission, and entitlements have
been determined, even availed of, or pending implementation, i.e., the
other ten villages, the issues shall stand finalized - there can be no re-
determination on the basis of the present judgment.
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A III. Point Nos. 3 (whether the Orissa Rehabilitation Policy
of 2006, or the subsequent Policy of 2013 applies), 4
(whether for the purpose of employment benefits under
the 2013 Policy, the family unit is deemed to be one, or
several) and 5 (whether the Commission could re-open
determinations based on change in policies of the State,
B
after its report was accepted by this court)
35. Learned counsel for the landowners had urged that by virtue
of Section 108 of the R&R Act, 2013 the affected individuals or families
have the choice or option to avail benefits of rehabilitation and resettlement
either in terms of the State law or policy or the provisions of the Act. It
C was submitted that for the purposes of deciding such package and
resettlement benefits, the cut-off date should be the date on which the
survey was first conducted in relation to the concerned village. The
learned counsel therefore submitted that the approach of the Commission
in confining itself to the R&R Policy 2006 and denying the later beneficial
D provisions through the amendment of 2013 is untenable.
36. On behalf of MCL, it was argued that the Commission’s
approach in calculating the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in the
R&R Policy 2006 is sound. It is submitted that the arguments on behalf
of the land owners assumes that the acquisition in the present case was
E made under the R&R Act, 2013. In fact, the old Land Acquisition Act
was inapplicable; what applied was the CBA Act. Therefore, the policy
which inured in favour of the land owners was embodied in the R&R
Policy 2006. That was also in force when the judgment of this court was
delivered pursuant to which Gopalpur report was approved. Besides,
the subsequent reports have also gone by the 2006 policy. In these
F circumstances, there is no question to say that the 2013 policy would
apply, with the reopening of past cases resulting in chaos and uncertainty.
It would prolong the process of determining the rehabilitation and
resettlement benefits and also ensuring that they are received by the
beneficiaries. Furthermore, adopting the 2013 amendment would result
G in applying two sets of norms for the purpose of one acquisition.
37. Section 108 of the R&R Act, 2013 reads as follows:
“108. Option to affected families to avail better compensation
and rehabilitation and resettlement.-(1) Where a State law or
a policy framed by the Government of a State provides for a
H higher compensation than calculated this Act for the
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1171
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
acquisition of land, the affected persons or his family or A
member of his family may at their option opt to avail such
higher compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement under
such State law or such policy of the State.
(2) Where a State law or a policy framed by the Government
of a State offers more beneficial rehabilitation and resettlement B
provisions under that Act or policy than under this Act, the
affected persons or his family or member of his family may at
his option opt to avail such rehabilitation and resettlement
provisions under such State law or such policy of the State
instead of under this Act.”
C
38. It is also pertinent to notice the relevant provisions of the
R&R Policy 2006. By clause 2(b), the term “compensation” means
the sum as in the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By Section 2(c),
the cut-off date for the purpose of compensation is the date on which
notification declaring the intention to acquire land under the relevant law
or provision of the rehabilitation policy is published. A note to clause 2(c) D
states that the eligibility for resettlement and rehabilitation benefits would
be through a list of displaced families, and that the list would be updated
on the first January in the year in which the physical displacement is to
take place. The term “family”, which is crucial in the present case, has
been defined by the 2006 policy as follows: E
“(f) Family means the person and his or her spouse, minor
sons, unmarried daughters, minor brothers or unmarried
sisters, father, mother and other members residing with him
or her and dependent on him or her for his/her livelihoods.
Note: Each of the following categories will be treated as a F
separate family for the purpose of extending rehabilitation
benefits under this policy.
(i) A major son irrespective of his marital status.
(ii) Unmarried daughter/sister more than 30 years of age.
(iii) Physically and mentally challenged person irrespective G
of age and sex; (duly certified by the authorized Medical
Board). For this purpose, the blind/the deaf/the
orthopedically handicapped/mentally challenged
person suffering from more than 40% permanent
disability will only be considered as separate family. H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A (iv) Minor orphan, who has lost both his/her parents.
(v) A widow or a woman divorcee.”
39. By clause 4 of the policy, survey and identification of displaced
persons are to take place. By clause 7(ii), physical displacement cannot
be made before the completion of resettlement work; by clause 7(v),
B provisions relating to rehabilitation are to be given effect from the date
of actual vacation of the land. Clause 8 outlines rehabilitation assistance.
Where displacement is on account of Type B(II), i.e., mining project
which results in displacement of land owners, the benefits of rehabilitation
and resettlement are as follows:
C “II. Type B: Mining Projects
(a) Employment: Displaced and other affected families shall
be eligible for employment, by the project causing
displacement. For the purpose of employment, each family
will nominate one member of the family.
D
The project proponent will give preference to the nominated
members of the displaced and other affected families in the
matter of employment. The order of preference will be as
follows:
(1) Displaced families losing all land including homestead
E
land,
(ii) Displaced families losing more than 2/3rd of agricultural
land and homestead land,
(iii) Families losing all agricultural land but not homestead
F land,
(iv) Displaced families losing more than 1/3rd of agricultural
land and homestead land,
(v) Displaced families losing only homestead land but not
agricultural land,
G
(vi) Families losing agricultural land in part but not homestead
land.
The Project authority will make special efforts to facilitate
skill up-gradation of the nominated member of the displaced
family to make him/her employable in their project.
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1173
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1. In case of nominees of displaced families eligible for A
employment otherwise; the upper age limit shall be relaxed
by five years.
2. Project authorities should notify their employment capacity
sufficiently in advance.
3. As far as practicable, the objective shall be to provide one B
member from each displaced/other family as mentioned above
with employment in the project. However, where the same
cannot be provided because of reason to be explained in
writing, cash compensation as mentioned below shall be
provided to such families. Families, who do not opt for C
employment/self-employment as mentioned in sub para (a)
above and (b) below, shall be provided by the Project authority
with one time cash assistance in lieu of employment at the
scale indicated below:
D
E
(b) Training for Self-employment Project authority under the
guidance of the Collector concerned will make adequate
arrangement to provide vocational training to at least one
member of each displaced/other family so as to equip him/
her to start his/her own small enterprise and refine his/her F
skillstotake advantage of new job opportunities. For those
engaged in traditional occupations/handicrafts/handlooms,
suitable training shall be organized at the cost of project
authority to upgrade their existing skills.
(c) Convertible Preference Share: At the option of the G
displaced family the project authority may issue convertible
preference share upto a maximum of 50% out of the one-time
cash assistance as mentioned in sub para (a) above.
(d) Provision for homestead land: Subject to availability, each
displaced family will be given at least1/10th of an acre of H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A land free of cost in a resettlement habitat for homestead
purpose.
(e) Assistance for Self-relocation: Each of the displaced family
who opts for self-relocation elsewhere other than the
Resettlement habitat shall be given a one time cash grant of
B Rs.50,000/- in lieu ofhomestead land.
(1) House Building Assistance: Besides, Project authority shall
construct house for each displaced families in the resettlement
habitat or provide house building assistance of Rs.1,50,000/
- to each of the displaced family settling in the Resettlement
C habitat or opting for self relocation elsewhere.
(g) Shops and Service Units: Project authorities will also
construct shops and service units at feasible locations at their
own cost, which will be allotted in consultation with Collector
to project displaced families opting for self-employment. While
D allotting such units, preference will be given to physically
challenged persons and members of displaced SC & ST
families.”
40. On 05.08.2013, the State of Orissa, through a notification
published in the Official Gazette, published the amendments to the R&R
E Policy 2006. The amendment essentially dealt with change in clause
2(f) with respect to the definition of “family”. The amendments made
are extracted below:
“AMENDMENTS
1. In the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006
F (hereinafter referred to as the said policy), for the word
“Orissa” appearing wherever in the said policy, the word
“Odisha” shall be substituted and this substitution shall be
deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of November,
2011.
G 2. In sub-clause (i) under clause (f) of Para 2, for the words
“A major son irrespective of his marital status”, the words “A
major son/grandson irrespective of his marital status” shall
be substituted.
3. In sub-clause (ii) under clause (f) of Para 2, for the words
H “Unmarried daughter/sister more than 30 years of age”, the
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1175
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
words “Major unmarried daughter/Major unmarried A
granddaughter/Major unmarried sister” shall be substituted.
4. Amendment to Para 2(f)(i) is made to clarify and restate
the provision of the said policy. Therefore, it shall take
retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the said
Policy, i.e. 15th May, 2006. B
5. Amendment to Para 2(f)(ii) shall take effect from the date
of issue of this Government Resolution.”
41. The difference between the R&R Policy 2006 and the policy
as amended in 2013, essentially, is with respect to definition of “family”.
The 2006 policy has remained unchanged with respect to other C
resettlement/rehabilitation benefits. The benefits may broadly be outlined
in the following terms:
(i) Employment; cash in lieu of employment – employment to
at least one member of displaced family or in lieu of this,
cash in terms of clause 3; D
(ii) Provision for homestead land (subject to availability) entitles
each displaced family at least 1/10th of an acre of land in a
resettlement habitat. One time cash grant of 50,000/- for
those opting for self-location elsewhere in lieu of homestead
land; E
(iii) House building assistance of up to 1,50,000 to each
displaced family, settling in the resettlement habitat or opting
for relocation elsewhere. Shops and service units to be
constructed by the project authorities which are to be allotted
in consultation with the Collector to displaced family opting F
for self-employment. These were subject to preference to
physically challenged persons and members of the displaced
SC/ST families.
42. By the provisions of the Second Schedule to the R&R Act,
2013 all displaced families losing a house in a rural area are entitled to a G
constructed house in terms of the Indira Awas Yojana specifications.
This benefit can also be enjoyed by those who do not have a house but
were residing in the area for three years prior to acquisition. In case a
family in an urban area opts not to take the house offered, it will be
entitled to one time compensation for house construction which will not
H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A be less than 1,50,000/-. At the same time, if any affected family in
rural area so prefers, the equivalent cost of house may be offered in lieu
of the constructed house. The second benefit is that if jobs are created
through the project which benefits from acquisition, the concerned entity
should provide suitable training and skill development in the required
B field and make provision for employment at a rate not lower than the
minimum wages to at least one member of the affected family or
arrange for a job in any other project. In lieu of this benefit, a one-time
benefit of 5 lakhs per family is to be made or annuity policies which
would be not less than 2,000/- per month per family for 20 years with
appropriate indexation in consumer price index for agricultural labourers
C has to be made. Furthermore, subsistence allowance for displaced families
for a comparative one-year equivalent of 3000/- per month is to be
provided. Additional transportation cost for shifting and one time
resettlement allowance of 50,000/- is payable.
43. The provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old
D Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have for the first time cast obligations upon
the State to ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation is provided in
addition to compensation. These rehabilitation and resettlement provisions
relate not only to a right to employment for at least one member of the
displaced family but also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as
E land for construction of houses, cash assistance for construction;
transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity and/
or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. Furthermore, by
provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate provisions for the kind of
public amenities which have to be provided, such as public health benefits,
schools, community centres, roads and other basic necessities, have been
F
obligated. All these are in furtherance of the displaced and the larger
social justice obligations cast upon the State.
44. The R&R Act, 2013 by Section 108 also clearly envisions that
the benefits provided by the new law are not to be applied blindly.
G Wherever there are existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide
better benefits to displaced persons, such families and individuals have
the choice or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the
provisions of the R&R Act. If one goes by the principle underlying Section
108, clearly the benefits spelt out under the R&R Policy 2006, appear to
be better, and more elaborate.
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1177
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
45. As noticed earlier, the difference between the Orissa A
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006, and the amendment in 2013,
is with respect to the definition of “family”. The 2006 policy inter alia,
defines family as the “person and his or her spouse, minor sons,
unmarried daughters, minor brothers or unmarried sisters, father,
mother and other members residing with him or her and dependent
B
on him or her for his/her livelihoods.” The note to clause 2 (f) states
that, “Each of the following categories will be treated as a separate
family for the purpose of extending rehabilitation benefits under
this policy.” It also enumerates a major son and an unmarried daughter/
sister of more than 30 years, as “a separate family for the purpose of
extending rehabilitation.” C
46. The amendment to the policy, made on 05.08.2013, is that
instead of a major son, the expression “A major son/grandson
irrespective of his marital status” was substituted. Similarly, the term
“Unmarried daughter/sister more than 30 years of age”, was
substituted with “Major unmarried daughter/Major unmarried D
granddaughter/Major unmarried sister”.
47. The rival arguments in regard to these amendments were that
on the one hand, the landowners urged that grandsons, apart from the
original beneficiaries, were entitled to employment benefits, as were
unmarried daughters, who were more than 30 years. On the other hand, E
MCL urged that the basic idea of rehabilitation being granting employment
to one member of the displaced or affected family, the construction to
be given to the policy should be in harmony with that intent, and not
result in an employment bonanza, thus placing undue burdens on the
MCL.
F
48. A proper and purposive interpretation of the policy – with
respect to employment benefits and entitlements can be gathered, not
only by taking note of the definition of “family” but also the operative
portion, which confers benefits. The same is as follows:
“II. Type B: Mining Projects G
(a) Employment: Displaced and other affected families shall
be eligible for employment, by the project causing displacement.
For the purpose of employment, each family will nominate
one member of the family.”
H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A 49. If one considers what the policy seeks to achieve, it is apparent,
that one member of a displaced family has to nominate the individual
who can receive employment benefit. In this context, it is crucial to
notice that the benefit is to be given, in the first instance to the “person”.
The note extends the area of coverage by stating that a major son would
be treated as belonging to a separate family. The reason for this apparently
B
is that the senior most member of the family might not always be in a
position to take up employment: either on account of age, or infirmity, or
the number of years of service left. Therefore, to ensure that employment
benefits are not denied due to such limitations, the definition of family
has been intentionally expanded, to include a major son, who would be
C eligible to employment, and, in case his father or mother cannot be
employed, or can be employed only for a short duration. The inclusion of
a grandson, is to be seen in that context. The addition of the category of
“grandson” along with a major son, to read “A major son/grandson
irrespective of his marital status” leads one to the same conclusion.
Thus, with the amendment of 2013, the basic entitlement of the person
D
affected, and his major son(who is to be treated as a separate family)
cannot be denied. The inclusion of a grandson, not as a separate
category, but along with the major son, is to ensure that if, for some
reason, the son is un-employable, or in turn is aged, or infirm, then, the
major grandson would be employed, in his stead. In other words, the
E proper interpretation of this condition is that the father would be entitled
to employment; in case a major son exists, then that major son would
too. However, if there are more than one major sons, one among them
would be entitled to the benefit, not all. Likewise, failing a major son,
i.e., where no major son exists, in that eventuality one major grandson
would be eligible for employment. This interpretation is fortified by the
F
fact that an unmarried daughter is treated as a separate unit; earlier, the
basic eligibility was subject to attaining 30 years. Now, the age restriction
has been done away with. Furthermore, to hold that the individual, one
of his major sons, and one major son, would all be eligible, together, to
claim employment is not the plain intendment. The structure of the
G definition and the clause dealing with employment clearly shows that
two members of the family: i.e., the father and the son are eligible. In
addition, an unmarried daughter too, would be treated as a separate unit.
50. It is therefore held that R&R Policy 2006, as amended in
2013, being more beneficial, would be applicable, subject to the above
H interpretation. At the same time, it is clarified that in cases where anyone
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1179
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
has accepted employment, the issue cannot be re-opened – it shall be A
treated as final and binding. It is also clarified that in the event anyone
among the displaced families is not interested in employment, and states
so expressly, the alternative of one-time monetary payment, in terms of
clause 3 of the 2006 policy, would be provided.
51. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, it is held that B
though the R&R Policy 2006 as amended in 2013 is applicable, the
question of the father, the son and grandson, being eligible for employment
benefit, concurrently, does not arise. Either one major son, or, in his
absence, or unwillingness, a major grandson, would be eligible. This is
apart from the entitlement of unmarried daughters: in their case, the
aforementioned note to the definition had treated such daughters as a C
separate family; the amendment has only removed the age threshold.
52. As a result of the above reasoning, it is held, in relation to
Point No. 3, 4 and 5 that the R&R Policy 2006, as amended in 2013
would apply. A displaced family has to be determined in the light of the
definition, which includes the individual, and one major son, and an D
unmarried daughter. It is when, for some reason, the son cannot be
offered or given employment, then one major grandson would be eligible
for consideration. This court also holds that cases which have attained
finality cannot be re-opened on the basis of this interpretation. The
interpretation would inure in respect of cases where the reports have E
not been approved i.e., villages Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and
Kirpsara.
53. During hearings, the learned ASG had submitted that MCL
was willing to provide a one-time compensation amount in lieu of
employment, of 16 lakhs, as an alternative to the 2006 policy. It is F
therefore directed that whichever option (R&R Policy 2006 or this one-
time compensation offer from MCL) is better, is to be provided. The
concerned Collector is to ensure the same.
IV. Point No. 6: Entitlement to housing plots
54. MCL has provided details and particulars with respect to G
village-wise resettlement benefits in terms of resettlement plots.
According to these particulars, of the 3034 total displaced families,
resettlement benefits in plots were sanctioned in favour of 1420 families
of which such benefits were provided to 1177 families. 1614 families are
yet to be sanctioned these resettlement benefits/plots. The chart, which
H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A according to MCL reflects the picture as of October 2021, is extracted
below:
B
C
D
55. The status of resettlement sites as of October 2021, according
to MCL, is as follows:
E
F
G
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1181
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
activities of the site for A
an amount of Rs.27.00
crores proposal
approved and e-tender
has been invited on
Dt:31.07.2020. Tender
opened on
Dt:29.08.2020 and
Work order has been B
issued on
Dt:24.11.2020.
6 Sarangijharia 88.00 440 0 Gopalpur 22 nos. of proposal
regarding development
of R&R site
Sarangijharia has been
processed and sent
MCL HQ for approval. C
56. During the hearing, MCL argued that there was reluctance on
part of the villagers regarding resettlement sites which has created
problems for it. It was therefore, urged that the concerned collector
should in a time bound manner finalise the sites after which MCL should
also be given time-bound directions to develop them. In the alternative, it D
was urged that instead of long drawn out rehabilitation/resettlement
process, which envisions involvement of multiple authorities, the court
may consider it appropriate and award one-time lumpsum amount in lieu
of plots – further wherever plots have been earmarked, allotted, and in
the process of development and allotment, such classes should not be E
disturbed. It was urged in this regard that in the sites which are ready
for relocation, and shifting, in terms of the order of the Claim Commission,
House Building Advance has been enhanced from 2,24,000/- to
14,50,000/-.
57. On behalf of the land owners, it was urged that the R&R F
policy of the State envisions that ordinarily a plot has to be provided to
those who were displaced. There is no doubt that the State authorities
have delayed the process unduly. It was further submitted that given
that most of the displaced families belong to the poorest sections of the
society and are from the Scheduled Tribes communities, it would not be
appropriate to award cash compensation, but instead the State authorities G
should ensure that resettlement plots are given.
58. The resettlement benefits in terms of the State’s policies include
development of plots and allotment to displaced families, which is “subject
to availability”. One time assistance for relocation @ 50,000/-; house
H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A building allowance of 1,50,000 has concededly been increased to
14,50,000. The figures shown by MCL as well as the materials placed
on record in the form of objections by the land owners disclose that the
progress of development of lands in the sites earmarked have been dismal,
to put it mildly. MCL cannot escape the share of the blame in this regard.
B 59. Under the R&R Act, 2013 the State and MCL are under an
obligation to ensure that rehabilitation and resettlement plans are prepared
in consultation with the displaced owners. The State policy is also in
accordance with the Act in that regard. In the present case, according
to the materials, MCL asserts that resettlement plots have been provided
to 1177 displaced families and that 1614 families remain to be given that
C benefit.
60. Having regard to the fact that the judgment of this court was
delivered in 2010 after which compensation determination and reports
of the committee were prepared and submitted to this court mostly
between 2010 and 2013, and further having regard to the fact that two
D other reports are pending consideration of this court, it would, in the
fitness of things, be appropriate that such of the resettlement plots which
have been acquired, should be developed in consultation with the
Collector. The Collector will hold hearings, after giving due publicity to
the land owners, indicating the place and providing adequate time for all
E land owners and stakeholders to be present. Having considered the views
of the land owners, the Collector will, with the involvement of three
nodal officers to be specially assigned with the task of implementation
of the resettlement policy, by co-ordinating with all State agencies, finalise
and approve the plots. This process should be completed within nine
months of judgment of this court. The Court is also of the opinion
F that the development of such plots should not exceed 15 months in
all.
61. In case the number of plots is inadequate, the Collector
concerned shall secure the options in the first instance from displaced
families, whether they would like to be allotted a plot or take lumpsum
G compensation in lieu thereof. Having secured these options, in case the
number of land owners exceeds the number of plots, the Collector shall
ensure that the resettlement plots are allotted after a draw of lots is held.
As far as the land owners who cannot secure a plot are concerned, this
court is of the opinion that lumpsum compensation to the extent of
H 25 lakhs should be paid to them.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1183
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
62. This court is constrained to adopt the procedure indicated A
above, having regard to the fact that the process of compensation
determination, identification of resettlement sites and development has
taken inordinately long – during which the displaced families must have
undergone multiple changes by births and death. It would therefore, be
appropriate and in the interests of justice, that at some stage, the entire
B
rehabilitation and resettlement process is brought to an end and the land
owners are provided resettlement and rehabilitation by way of cash
benefits, whenever it is not possible to provide plots.
V. Point No.7: Creation of facilities and amenities such as
schools, community centres, medical facilities etc.
C
63. The Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy does not
indicate specific provisions with respect to facilities and amenities that
are to be developed. Consequently, the provisions of the Third Schedule
to the R&R Act, 2013 which outlines 25 heads and indicate amenities
such as roads in the villages, appropriate drainage, provision for safe
drinking water for each family, provision for drinking water for cattle, D
grazing land, reasonable number of fair price shops, community or
panchayat ghars; village level post offices, seed-cum-fertilizer storage
facilities, provision for basic irrigation facilities, transportation to the newly
resided areas, burial or cremation grounds, facilities for sanitation,
including individual toilet points, individual single electricity connections, E
anganwadi, providing child nutritional services, school, sub-health centres
within two kilometre range, Primary Health Centres in terms of the
Central Government norms, play grounds for children, one community
centre for every 100 families, places of worship, separate land for
traditional tribal institutions, etc. In addition, forest dweller families must
be provided with their forest on non-timber produce close to the new F
places of resettlement. Furthermore, appropriate security arrangements
are to be provided and service centre in accordance with the prescribed
norms also has to be provided.
64. In the present case, the materials on record show that those
resettlement sites have been earmarked and are at different stages of G
development. The mandate of the law – i.e., the Third Schedule to the
R&R Act, 2013 is very clear in that all the amenities to the extent they
conform to the population in each of the resettlement areas have to be
provided. In these circumstances, there may be no escaping these
obligations. The State Government, through its appropriate agencies H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A should draw up a comprehensive plan for creation of such amenities and
ensure that they are functional so as to complete rehabilitation and
resettlement in a meaningful manner.
65. It was urged during the course of submissions on behalf of the
villages Ratansara by Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur, learned advocate, that the
B benefits existing for individuals from Scheduled Tribes have to be
protected. It was submitted in this regard that Sundergarh, where the
acquisition has taken place, is covered by Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution of India. Sections 41 and 42 of the R&R Act, 2013 read as
follows:
C “41. Special provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. – (1) As far as possible, no acquisition of land shall
be made in the Scheduled Areas.
(2) Where such acquisition does take place it shall be done
only as a demonstrable last resort.
D (3) In case of acquisition or alienation of any land in the
Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram
Sabha or the Panchayats or the autonomous District Councils,
at the appropriate level in Scheduled Areas under the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution, as the case may be, shall be
E obtained, in all cases of land acquisition in such areas,
including acquisition in case of urgency, before issue of a
notification under this Act, or any other Central Act or a State
Act for the time being in force:
Provided that the consent of the Panchayats or the
F Autonomous Districts Councils shall be obtained in cases
where the Gram Sabha does not exist or has not been
constituted.
(4) In case of a project involving land acquisition on behalf
of a Requiring Body which involves involuntary displacement
of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes families, a
G
Development Plan shall be prepared, in such form as may be
prescribed, laying down the details of procedure for settling
land rights due, but not settled and restoring titles of the
Scheduled Tribes as well as the Scheduled Castes on the
alienated land by undertaking a special drive together with
H land acquisition.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1185
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
(5) The Development Plan shall also contain a programme A
for development of alternate fuel, fodder and, non-timber
forest produce resources on non-forest lands within a period
of five years, sufficient to meet the requirements of tribal
communities as well as the Scheduled Castes.
(6) In case of land being acquired from members of the B
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, at least one-third
of the compensation amount due shall be paid to the affected
families initially as first instalment and the rest shall be paid
after taking over of the possession of the land.
(7) The affected families of the Scheduled Tribes shall be C
resettled preferably in the same Scheduled Area in a compact
block so that they can retain their ethnic, linguistic and cultural
identity.
(8) The resettlement areas predominantly inhabited by the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall get land, to
D
such extent as may be decided by the appropriate Government
free of cost for community and social gatherings.
(9) Any alienation of tribal lands or lands belonging to
members of the Scheduled Castes in disregard of the laws
and regulations for the time being in force shall be treated as
null and void, and in the case of acquisition of such lands, E
the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits shall be made
available to the original tribal land owners or land owners
belonging to the Scheduled Castes.
(10) The affected Scheduled Tribes, other traditional forest
dwellers and the Scheduled Castes having fishing rights in a F
river or pond or dam in the affected area shall be given fishing
rights in the reservoir area of the irrigation or hydel projects.
(11) Where the affected families belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are relocated outside of the
district, then, they shall be paid an additional twenty-five per G
cent. rehabilitation and resettlement benefits to which they
are entitled in monetary terms along with a one-time entitlement
of fifty thousand rupees.
42. Reservation and other benefits. – (1) All benefits, including
the reservation benefits available to the Scheduled Tribes and H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A the Scheduled Castes in the affected areas shall continue in
the resettlement area.
(2) Whenever the affected families belonging to the Scheduled
Tribes who are residing in the Scheduled Areas referred to in
the Fifth Schedule or the tribal areas referred to in the Sixth
B Schedule to the Constitution are relocated outside those areas,
than, all the statutory safeguards, entitlements and benefits
being enjoyed by them under this Act shall be extended to the
area to which they are resettled regardless of whether the
resettlement area is a Scheduled Area referred to in the said
C Fifth Schedule, or a tribal area referred to in the said Sixth
Schedule, or not.
(3) Where the community rights have been settled under the
provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2
of 2007), the same shall be quantified in monetary amount
D
and be paid to the individual concerned who has been
displaced due to the acquisition of land in proportion with
his share in such community rights.”
66. As is evident, the R&R Act, 2013 has nuanced application
and makes special provisions to prevent hardships to members of the
E
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. Section 41 requires
review exercises to ensure that the least possible harm befalls SC/ST
members living in the areas sought to be acquired. It also mandates that
formulation of a development plan and protective provisions invalidating
alienation of tribal lands or lands belonging to the SC/ST in disregard of
F laws and regulations as null and void. Section 42, on the other hand
ensures that all benefits, including reservation benefits available to SC/
ST in the affected area shall continue in the resettlement area. In this
case, the land owners were displaced on account of the acquisition in
favour of MCL, which is entirely involuntary. It is not in dispute that
G these displaced families/land owners are residents of the Fifth Schedule
Areas.
67. As far as Section 41 goes, in the opinion of this court, given
that the acquisition notification was issued in 1988 and finalised in 1990
and even the judgment of this court indicating the methodology for
H compensation determination was delivered in 2010, the question of giving
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1187
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
extra consideration in terms of Section 41 does not arise. However, A
since the resettlement of the displaced families and their rehabilitation
have been mandated by both provision of the R&R Act, 2013 which has
application to the ongoing acquisition, as well as the R&R Policy 2006 ,
the obligation to ensure that the benefits of the displaced persons are not
put to grave and irreparable prejudice by denying them their status as
B
SC/ST, has to be ensured. This is mandated by Section 42 of the R&R
Act, 2013 which directs that whenever lands of SCs/STs are acquired
necessitating their displacement, either in terms of territories or the areas
they reside in, leading to their movement to other areas - where their
tribe or caste may not necessarily be recognised as SCs/ST - the status
which they enjoy but for the displacement has to be preserved and C
protected. In the opinion of this court, this statutory mandate and obligation
cannot be denied by the State or agency, as a matter of law. As a result
of the above discussion, it is held that:
i. The facilities and amenities set out in the Third Schedule to
the R&R Act, 2013 have to be necessarily provided to the D
displaced families involved in this case in the resettlement
areas where they are located and where they ultimately
move to; and
ii. In this case, all members of SC/ST who are forced to move
from their lands on account of the acquisition do so E
involuntarily. They are consequently entitled to the right to
be treated as members of the SC/ST. The State authorities
shall ensure that members of the families who are displaced
and whose lists are maintained by the Commission as well
as MCL shall be issued with fresh SC/ST certificates.
C. Conclusions and Directions F
68. Having regard to the following discussion, it is held as follows:
i. Re point no.1 - compensation for the land acquired: cut-off
date for determining compensation for land acquired is to
be based upon the cut-off date approved by this court in
G
relation to village Gopalpur, i.e., September 2010. At the
same time, it is directed that since common cut-off date
has been accepted, all benefits flowing from it, including
statutory interest upon compensation and solatium, is
determinable on the basis of that cut-off date for the entire
acquisition. H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A ii. Re point no. 2 – on the applicability of the R&R Act, 2013:
the R&R Act cannot apply prior to the date it was brought
into force i.e., before 01.01.2014. In the present case, it
applies from the date the Central Government issued a
notification bringing into force the proceedings of the First,
Second and Third Schedules to the enactment specified in
B
the Fourth Schedule, which in this case was the CBA Act.
The date therefore, on which the R&R Act, 2013 is
applicable from, is 28.08.2015. Additionally, the report which
was finalised before that date cannot be interfered with.
The land owners and displaced families residing in the
C villages for which reports were prepared earlier than
28.08.2015, would not therefore be entitled to the benefits
of the R&R Act, 2013. Hence, the benefits of the R&R
Act apply to displaced families and land owners of Kiripsira,
Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia.
D iii. Re point no. 3, 4 and 5:
a. It is held that the R&R Policy 2006 as amended by
the 2013 policy applies for the purpose of employment
benefits.
b. A family unit would comprise of head of family or
father, a major son, and an unmarried daughter having
E
regard to the definition and the note appended thereof.
In case, for some reason, the major son cannot be
given employment, and there exists a major grandson,
he would then be eligible for consideration. In other
words, two members (father and son or father and
F grandson) would be eligible for employment and not
three, in addition to the unmarried daughter who is
also to be treated as separate unit.
c. This court is of the opinion that the Commission could
not reopen determinations based upon change of
G policies of the State given that the benefits
adjudicated by it based on factual determinations has
crystallised. In many cases, MCL has actually
provided employment to several individuals.
Consequently, it is held that all cases that have been
adjudicated and were approved by this court cannot
H be reopened.
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1189
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
iv. Re point no. 6: A
a. On the point of housing plots, it is hereby declared
and directed that the State and MCL are under an
obligation to ensure that the land acquired by it in
those areas which are to be developed, have to be
developed. The State Government shall ensure that B
at least three nodal officers from the departments
concerned are deployed for facilitating this task of
coordinating with all agencies and ensuring that the
development of the plots duly takes place to enable
the Collector to make the necessary allotments within
the time indicated. These nodal officials shall be duly C
empowered by the state, through appropriate
notifications to issue all necessary consequential
orders, for the implementation of resettlement and
rehabilitation measures. The Chief Secretary of the
Orissa State Government shall select the officers, D
and issue the necessary notifications. Furthermore,
the State shall ensure that these officers are not
posted out, for at least 3 years, or till the task of
rehabilitation and resettlement is completed.
b. The Collector shall ensure that the plots earmarked E
are duly notified for the concerned villages and land
owners by giving due publicity and adequate notice.
The views of the landowners shall be ascertained
and noted, for which purpose, adequate notice shall
be given, specifying the venue, date and time of
consultation. F
c. In case any individual land owner(s) are not
interested for allotment of the plots, it is open for
them to state so. The Collector shall in such event
record their disclaimer expressly in writing and issue
a certificate. In that event the displaced family would G
be entitled to a one-time cash settlement of 25 lakhs.
d. After ascertaining the number of displaced families’
entitlements, and having regard to the availability of
plots, the Collector shall conduct a draw of lots, and
if needed, more than one draw of lots, whereby plots H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A are allotted to the concerned displaced families. In
case, for any reason such plot or plots cannot be
handed over within two years, or are not available,
the leftover families so to say would be entitled to
the one-time compensation of 25 lakhs with interest
@ 7% per annum, for two years.
B
v. Re point no. 7:
a. The State shall ensure that all facilities and amenities
are developed in accordance with the Third Schedule
to the R&R Act, 2013 within three years in which
C plots are handed over to the displaced families or in
any event within three years from the date of this
judgment. The necessary funding for this purpose
shall be by MCL, in addition to the State’s obligation
to spend its resources.
D b. The members of the SC/ST communities shall be
entitled to the preservation and protection of their
status in view of Section 42 of the R&R Act, 2013.
Consequently, the concerned Collectors shall ensure
that appropriate caste certificates are issued in this
regard, given that land owners have been moved
E involuntarily and would have to migrate to other areas.
vi. This court further directs that compensation determination
in any event shall be completed and payments made within
six months from today. The Commission shall ensure that
this task is taken up as far as possible and completed within
F that time frame. Consequently, the Commission shall finalize
the reports for villages Kiripsira and Ratansara. As regards
the reports of Jhupuranga, and Tumulia, the Commission
shall complete the task of redetermining compensation within
three months. The State shall ensure that compensation in
G respect of four villages is determined in accordance with
the R&R Act, 2013. Wherever compensation has not
actually been disbursed, the State shall do so within 6 months
from pronouncement of this judgment.
vii. MCL is under an obligation to ensure that employment
benefits are granted and extended and offers are made in
H
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS ORAM 1191
& ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
accordance with the 2013 policy in all cases where the lists A
of those who opted for employment has not been finalised.
It is clarified in this regard that wherever employment has
been obtained, the same shall not be reopened. Likewise,
the question of reopening entitlements for employment,
based upon the interpretation of this court shall not be
B
reopened in case of villages where reports have been
accepted through previous orders.
viii. In the event any family undertakes that its members are
not desirous or do not wish to opt for employment, the State
shall, through the nodal officers, ensure that the disclaimer
is voluntary, and that one-time compensation indicated in C
the 2006 policy or under the R&R Act, 2013 or the one-
time offer of Rs 16 lakhs by MCL, as submitted by the
learned ASG (whichever is more beneficial), is paid to the
family concerned. The Collector must ensure the same is
provided. D
ix. The court hereby directs that the Commission should
complete its task and that its report should be the basis for
disbursement of compensation, one-time rehabilitation
package of 25 lakhs per family as indicated above and
employment offer within one year from today. In case of E
any vacancy in the Office of Chairman of the Commission,
the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court shall nominate a
retired judge of that court. In the event of any other vacancy,
the Government of Orissa shall nominate the concerned
members. However, it is clarified that the government
nominees should not be ex-officio or part time members, F
and should be of the rank and status of Additional Secretary,
with experience in the Social Welfare or Revenue
Departments at senior levels.
x. It is further directed that all concerned landowners who
have continued to occupy the lands shall vacate it upon the G
deposit of compensation. MCL shall be immediately granted
possession of such lands. The Collector or the concerned
authority shall issue a certificate in this regard which shall
entitle them to the one-time rehabilitation payment or
payment in lieu of compensation or any other benefit under H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 19 S.C.R.
A the Act, according to the choice exercised by them in the
manner indicated above.
69. It is lastly directed that any fresh dispute, on account of
calculation of compensation, disbursement of benefits etc., would be
adjudicated by the High Court. This court will not entertain miscellaneous
B application in individual cases in this regard.
70. It is hereby recorded that the directions made in this judgment,
are in the exercise of its special powers to do justice to the parties, under
Article 142 of the Constitution, since the approach adopted in the previous
orders, was to ensure that the landowners are not put to further hardship
C and agony, of prolonged wait. All matters are disposed of in terms of the
above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey Matters disposed of.
(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search