2025 INSC 22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. AND
HON’BLE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.)
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD
Petitioner
VERSUS
MATHIAS ORAM
Respondent
Miscellaneous
Application No. 2662 of 2023 IN M.A. NO. 231/2019 IN Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 6933/2007 AND M.A. (D) NO. 28318/2024 IN M.A. NO. 231/2019 IN SLP(C) NO.
6933/2007 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.137789/2024 & 137791/2024 AND M.A.
(D) NO. 30630/2024 IN SLP(C) NO. 6933/2007 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
NOS.148429 & 148427/2024-Decided on 03-01-2025
Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Land
Acquisition – Extension of term of claims Commission - Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Policy - Determining R&R
benefits of Villages for land acquired by the Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. -
Claims Commission had submitted the status report showing the progress of the
proceedings before it as on 27.06.2024, pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on 23.01.2024 - Original Writ Petitioner i.e., Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited (MCL) has filed a detailed reply to the Part-I report for Village
Ratansara dated 27.06.2024 and to the progress status report dated 27.06.2024
and submitted by the Claims Commission, and stated that the Claims Commission
had completely erred in its methodology of calculating the compensation
for Village Ratansara and has also ignored the express directions of this Court
given vide judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed in M.A. No. 231 of 2019 in SLP (C)
No. 6933 of 2007 – Held that Apex Court in the judgment and order dated
03.11.2022 had clearly held that the villages in respect of which this Court
has already approved the reports of the Commission determining the entitlements
in respect of the 10 villages, the issues had stood finalized, and there could
be no re-determination on the basis of the said judgment - Accordingly, it was
directed in Paragraph 68 (iii)(c) that the Commission cannot reopen
determinations based on change of policies of the State, given that benefits
adjudicated by it based on factual determination has been crystalized and
consequently, all the cases that have been adjudicated and approved by this
Court cannot be reopened - However, the Commission appears to have entertained
the cases filed by the land oustees of 10 villages, whose reports have already
been finalized and approved by this Court - 21. Similarly, the Commission also
appears to have travelled beyond the directions given by this Court in the said
judgment dated 03.11.2022, by entertaining the issues raised by the villagers
and land oustees of four villages with regard to R&R benefits - 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 - The Commission also appears to
have entertained the issues with regard to the suitability of resettlement
sites for shifting of the eligible land oustees, taking recourse to the order
passed by this Court on 10.07.2017 -
Commission should not have entertained any of these issues, when all the
issues have been alluded and dealt with thoroughly by this Court in the
judgment dated 03.11.2022 - Since, the petitioner MCL had already raised
objections with regard to the Method of calculation, this Court vide the order
dated 10.10.2023 had transferred the issue to the High Court of Orissa and the
Writ Petition (C) being No. 39185/2023 in this regard is pending before the
said High Court. As stated by the petitioner MCL, it has already made payment
towards the compensation for the structure, without prejudice to its rights and
contentions as regards the Method of calculation, however, has not made payment
with regard to the compensation for the land, by stating that the said
compensation shall be paid as per the order that may be passed by the High
Court of Orissa in the pending petition -
High Court shall decide the Writ Petition (C) being No. 39185/2023, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of
receipt of this order - The MCL shall make payment towards the compensation
immediately after the final judgment and order is passed by the High Court in
this regard - 25. In the aforesaid premises, no further order for extension of
the term of the Commission is passed.
(Para
20 to 25)
JUDGMENT
Bela M. Trivedi, J. :- The captioned M.A. No. 2662 of
2023 in M.A. No. 231/2019 has been filed by the
Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal Officer, Claims Commission, Bhubaneswar
seeking extension of time to finalise the report of village Ratansara.
2.
The captioned M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 in M.A. No.231/2019 has been filed by the
Applicant - Manikeswari Bisthapita Committee through its Secretary praying to
direct the Commission to prepare the PAF/PDF list determining R&R benefits
of any or all four remaining Villages namely Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Kiripsira and
Ratansara out of 14 villages acquired by the MCL in compliance of the order
dated 03.11.2022 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 231 of 2019.
3.
The captioned M.A. (D) No.30630/2024 has been filed by the eight applicants
praying to direct the Commission to decide their cases at the earliest.
4.
It may be noted that the Claims Commission had submitted the status report
showing the progress of the proceedings before it as on 27.06.2024, pursuant to
the order passed by this Court on 23.01.2024. Vide the said order dated
23.01.2024, this Court had extended the term of the Commission till 15.07.2024,
after recording the statement of the Secretary of the Commission that the
Commission shall finalise the claims in respect of Village Ratansara by June,
2024. This Court had also directed the Commission to submit the report with
regard to the finalization of the claims in respect of the Village Ratansara on
or before 01.07.2024. The Commission, therefore, has submitted the report dated 01.07.2024
updating the Court about the term of the Commission and the work pending with
the Commission.
5.
As per the Status Report submitted by the Claims Commission, the work pending
before the Commission as on 27.06.2024 was as under: -
“(i) To dispose of 2836 (2581 as
on 31st December, 2023 + 255 in 2024) Nos. of Civil Cases and 232 (228 + 4)
Nos. of Misc. Cases filed by land oustees of 10 villages pursuant to orders of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.07.2013 and 10.07.2017.
(ii) To dispose of 24 (16+8) Nos.
of cases pursuant to the direction of the High Court of Orissa issued in
various Writ petitions.
(iii) To dispose of 194 (57+137)
Nos. of cases filed by the villagers of Jhupurunga and Tumulia after
finalization of the Report for substitution of legal heirs of awardees and
correction of computer-generated mistakes.
(iv) To Certify suitability of
Rehabilitation sites for shifting of eligible land oustees who are entitled to
R&R benefits. Once the Rehabilitation site is ready, the Commission shall issue
necessary certificate as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
10.7.2017.
(v) Determination of R&R
benefits of land oustees of 4 acquired villages namely Jhupurunga, Tumulia,
Kiripsira and Ratansara by the Commission subject to appropriate direction of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to that effect.”
6.
The Original Writ Petitioner i.e., Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) has filed
a detailed reply to the Part-I report for Village Ratansara dated 27.06.2024
and to the progress status report dated 27.06.2024. Raising objections against
the report of Village Ratansara dated 27.06.2024 submitted by the Claims
Commission, the MCL has stated that the Claims Commission had completely erred
in its methodology of calculating the compensation for Village Ratansara
and has also ignored the express directions of this Court given vide judgment
dated 03.11.2022 passed in M.A. No. 231 of 2019 in SLP (C) No. 6933 of 2007.
According to the MCL, since the MCL had objected to the Commission’s
methodology of calculation, this Court vide the order dated 10.10.2023 had
transferred the issue to the High Court of Orissa. The W.P. (C) No. 39185 of
2023 preferred before the High Court in this regard is pending. It is further
stated by the MCL that so far as the payment of compensation for the structures
was concerned, the MCL has already made payment without prejudice to rights and
contentions as regards the calculation method.
7.
As regards the other pending work shown by the Commission in its status report
dated 27.06.2024, the petitioner MCL has raised strong objections by preparing
following tabular chart:
|
S.No |
Purported
pending works mentioned by Claims Commission |
Ground
of MCL for closure of the Commission |
|
01 |
To
dispose of 2836 Nos. of Civil Cases and 232 Nos. of Misc. Cases filed by land
oustees of 10 villages. |
At
para 68.iii.c of order dated 03.11.2022, this Hon'ble Court had directed that, "This
court is of the opinion that the
Commission could not reopen determinations based upon change of policies of the State given that the benefits adjudicated
by it based on factual determinations
has crystallised. In many cases, MCL
has actually provided employmentto several individuals. Consequently, it is held that all cases that have been
adjudicated and were approved by this
court cannot be reopened". Since
the PAF list of the 10 villages have
been approved by the Hon'ble Court, the
Claims Commission cannot re-open those cases. Subsequently Hon'ble
Court in its order dated 10.10.2023
had directed that, "in case of any grievance
by any party with respect to any order or report
of the Claims Commission, the grievance should
be first articulated before the High Court, in appropriate
proceedings." The Commission cannot hear all of such cases as is sought
to be heard, as the same pertain to the villages whose reports have already
been finalised, and have been approved by this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble
Court has thereafter in express directions given vide Judgement dated
03.11.2022 stated that there shall not be any re-opening in so far as the 10
villages are concerned. Thus, the act of the Claims Commission would amount
to re-opening of cases which have already attained finality and the same
cannot be permitted. In view of the above, the Claims Commission cannot
re-open the cases of 10 villages |
|
02 |
Hon'ble
High Court has directed the Claims Commission to dispose these cases |
The
Claims Commission is hearing cases in so far as the 10 villages which issues
have already attained finality. The said issues were kept pending by the
Claims Commission and not decided in order to prolong the work of the Claims Commission
instead of completing the main task assigned by this Hon'ble Court. This
Hon'ble Court has vide its Order dated 03.11.2022 passed in M.A No. 231 of
2019 expressly directed that all the issues which have attained finality in
so far as the 10 villages the same shall not be re-opened, and therefore, the
question of hearing or deciding any of such cases by the Claims Commission
does not arise. |
|
03 |
To
dispose of 194 Nos. of cases filed by
the villagers of Jhupurunga and
Tumulia. |
The
villages acquired under CBA by MCL, apart from
the villages in Sundargarh District, R&R Policy of Govt. of Odisha, 2006 is
applicable and District Collector is
the competent authority to redress the
grievances, pertaining to R&R benefits,
of the project affected families. As per para 68.iii.a of the judgement dated
3.11.2022 of this Hon'bie Court the
R&R Policy 2006 as amended by the
2013 policy more specifically Clause
20, clearly provides that there shall be a District and Directorate Level
grievance redressal mechanism for project affected persons. The same has been
set up and can hear all of such grievances if any. Hence, the Collector, Sundargarh
can also hear the grievance related to R&R benefits of these 04 villages
as is similarly done in other areas. In case of any grievance regarding
amount of compensation or apportionment of compensation, CBA Tribunal is constituted
w/s 17 of CBA Act, 1957 to hear the grievances of the project affected
families (land losers). A Statutory Tribunal set up under the CBA Act is
functioning in Jharsuguda District Odisha. As there is well settled mechanism
in the Odisha
R&R Policy and in CBA Act to redress the grievance
of the affected families (land losers), the same
can be dealt with appropriately |
|
04 |
Certify
the suitability of Resettlement sites
for shifting of eligible land oustees,
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2017 |
At
para 68.iv.a of order 03.11.2022, this Hon’ble Court
had directed that:“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
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".
Hence, the commission has no role to play in Resettlement sites for either allotment of
plots or shifting of the project
displaced families. |
|
05 |
Determining
R&R benefits of land oustees of 4
acquired villages, namely Tumulia, Kiripsira, Jhupurunga, and Ratansara, the Commission subject to the appropriate direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. |
The
Petitioner MCL, the Land oustees, and District Administration
after holding a meeting, addressed a
letter dated 25.01.2024 (at page 59 of the Vol-Il documents
of Claims Commission dated 27.06.2024),
to the Claims Commission to prepare the
PAF list. However, the Claims Commission vide
its Letter dated 12.02.2024 (at page 71 of the Vol-II
documents of Claims Commission dated 27.06.2024)
refused to do the same, stating that there
is no direction from this Hon'ble Court to prepare
the PAF list. In order to obviate any further delays,
the Petitioner MCL herein itself preparing and
finalising the PAF list for village Jhupurunga as per
the principle set by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. 231
of 2019 in SLP (C) No. 6933 of 2007 dated 03.11.2022,
in consultation with the 03 nodal officers
appointed by State Government. After preparation
of PAF lists it will be sent to Collector, Sundargarh
for approval. On approval of the PAF list
by Collector, Rehabilitation & Resettlement benefits
will be provided to the villagers according to
the approved list. The same procedure is being followed
in other districts coming under the coalfield
area of MCL in the state of Odisha. Similarly,
the PAF list for Tumulia, would be prepared
by the Petitioner MCL. In so far as village Kiripsira
and Ratansara is concerned, the same does
not fall within the Coal Block of MCL, and this Hon'ble
Court vide its Order dated 15.07.2013 passed
in SLP (C) No. 6933 of 2007, stated that since
village Ratanrasa and Kiripsara was transferred
by the Union of India to other companies,
only payment of compensation is the liability
of MCL and it may recover the said amount from
the successor company. The Petitioner states hat it is also pertinent to note that the in
practice, and otherwise in all
acquisitions the modality adopted is
that the Petitioner MCL carries out the survey and preparation of the Project
Affected Persons (PAF) list and
thereafter the same is submitted to
the District Administration which verifies
the same and consequent to such verification
the District Collector approves the PAF list. Once such PAF list receives the
approval from the District Collector,
the Petitioner MCL extends the R&R
benefits to the persons as figuring in the approved PAF List. Hence, the commission has
no role either in preparation of PAF
list or in extending employment & Monetary Compensation. |
8.
We had heard the concerned learned counsels for the parties on 06.08.2024
permitting them to file brief note of submissions, which they have filed.
9.
Though the case has a chequered history, to put it in nutshell, the Claims
Commission was appointed by this Court vide the order dated 19.07.2010 passed
in SLP (C) No. 6933 of 2007, for determining the claim of compensation in
respect of vast portions of lands acquired by the Central Government in Village
Gopalpur and others of the District Sundergarh, Orissa. The said Commission was
set up for carrying out the exercise for the following villages.
(i) Sardega
(ii) Jhupurunga
(iii) Ratansara
(iv) Tikilipara
(v) Siarmal
(vi) Tumulia
(vii) Karlikachhar
(viii) Kulda
(ix) Bankibahal
(x) Balinga
(xi) Garjanbahal
(xii) Bangurkela
(xiii) Kiripsira
(xiv) Lalma R.F.
10.
Out of the afore stated villages, part payment was already made at the relevant
time in case of villages Sardega and Tikilipara and full payment was made in
case of villages Bankibahal and Balinga, however the possession was not fully
taken.
11.
Based on the Report submitted by the Claims Commission in relation to the
village Gopalpur, this Court had passed an order dated 19.04.2012 approving the
recommendations contained therein and made it an order of the Court.
12.
Following the Gopalpur model, the Commission had submitted the reports for the
villages Balinga, Bankibahal, Sardega and Tikilipara, and this Court vide the
order dated 08.08.2012 had approved the said 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. It further appears that
thereafter vide the order dated 10.04.2013, this Court accepted and approved
the Commission’s Reports with respect to villages Kulda and Garjanbahal, and
vide the order dated 15.07.2013 for the village Karlikachhar. It further
appears that this Court also took notice of the fact that the lands in two
villages namely Kiripsara and Ratansara were transferred by the Central
Government to some other Companies, and therefore observed that the payment of
compensation would be MCL’s liability at the initial stage, and it could later
recover the sums from the successor companies.
13.
This Court disposed of the said SLP on 10.07.2017 after receiving the report
from the Commission and considering the recommendations made by the Amicus
Curiae in respect of the outstanding issues. The Court observed that “we are
broadly in agreement with the recommendations made 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.”
14.
It appears that thereafter several applications were moved by the MCL and also
by the land owners seeking a range of directions, and some had also filed the
contempt proceedings. This Court vide the detailed judgment dated
03.11.2022 passed in M.A. No. 231 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.6933 of 2007 alongwith
other Contempt Petitions disposed of the same after dealing with all the
contentious issues and recording the findings thereon. The Court gave final
directions in Paragraph 68 as under: -
“Conclusions and Directions
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
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.
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 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 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.
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 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
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
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 be
reopened.
iv. Re point no. 6:
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 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 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, 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 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.
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 be
entitled to a one-time cash settlement of Rs.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 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 Rs.25 lakhs with interest @ 7% per annum, for two years.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 accordance with the 2013 policy in all cases where the lists 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 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 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.
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 Rs.25
lakhs per family as indicated above and employment offer within one year from
today. In case of 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, 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 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 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 application in individual cases in this regard.”
15.
From the said judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed by this Court, it is explicitly
clear that this Court after elucidating the issues involved had unequivocably
held in Paragraph 32 thereof that the Gopalpur Model for determining the
compensation was applied in respect of the villages for which reports were
prepared and approved by the courts (Gopalpur, Sardega, Balinga, Bankibahal,
Tikilipara, Garjanbahal, Kulda, Karlikachhar, Siarmal, and Bangurkela).
However, in regard to four villages i.e., Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and
Kirpsara, no award was approved on the said date.
16.
The Court further held in Paragraph 34 as under: -
“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 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,
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 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.”
17.
The Court after analyzing each and every point meticulously gave clear and
precise directions in Paragraphs 68 and 69 quoted above and also directed that
any fresh dispute on account of calculation of compensation, disbursement of
benefits etc. would be adjudicated by the High Court, and this Court will not
entertain Miscellaneous Application in individual cases in this regard. Despite
such clear
conclusions and directions, the present
Miscellaneous Applications have been filed seeking directions.
18.
In M.A. No. 2662/2023, the Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal Officer, Claims
Commissioner, Bhubaneshwar had sought extension of time to finalise the report
of village Ratansara till the end of 30th June, 2024.
19.
It may be noted that the said Miscellaneous Application was filed in November,
2023. As mentioned hereinabove, this Court had vide the order dated 23.01.2024
extended the term of Commission till 15.07.2024 after recording the statement
of Secretary of the Commission that the Commission shall finalise the claim in
respect of the village Ratansara by June, 2024. However, the Commission has
submitted the status report showing the progress and pendency of work before it
as on 27.06.2024.
20.
It is pertinent to note that this Court in the judgment and order dated
03.11.2022 had clearly held that the villages in respect of which this Court
has already approved the reports of the Commission determining the entitlements
in respect of the 10 villages, the issues had stood finalized, and there could
be no re-determination on the basis of the said judgment. Accordingly, it was
directed in Paragraph 68 (iii)(c) that the Commission can not reopen
determinations based on change of policies of the State, given that benefits
adjudicated by it based on factual determination has been crystalized and
consequently, all the cases that have been adjudicated and approved by this
Court can not be reopened. However, the Commission appears to have entertained
the cases filed by the land oustees of 10 villages, whose reports have already
been finalized and approved by this Court.
21.
Similarly, the Commission also appears to have travelled beyond the directions
given by this Court in the said judgment dated 03.11.2022, by entertaining the
issues raised by the villagers and land oustees of four villages namely
Tumulia, kiripsira, Jhupuranga and Ratansara with regard to R&R benefits.
With regard to these four villages, it may be noted that this Court in
Paragraph 34 of the judgment dated 03.11.2022 had specifically held that “since
the extent of land involved, identification of law 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.” This Court had clearly earmarked
the task of the Commission and of the other Authorities and given final
directions in Paragraph 68 and 69 thereof, which had to be followed
accordingly. The Commission also appears to have entertained the issues with
regard to the suitability of resettlement sites for shifting of
the eligible land oustees, taking recourse to
the order passed by this Court on 10.07.2017.
22.
In our opinion, the Commission should not have entertained any of these issues,
when all the issues have been alluded and dealt with thoroughly by this Court
in the judgment dated 03.11.2022.
23.
Now, so far as the report submitted by the Commission for the village Ratansara
is concerned, it appears that out of the three members, one member of the
Commission has given dissenting opinion as regards the Method of calculation
adopted by the Commission in its report dated 27.06.2024. Since, the petitioner
MCL had already raised objections with regard to the Method of calculation,
this Court vide the order dated 10.10.2023 had transferred the issue to the
High Court of Orissa and the Writ Petition (C) being No. 39185/2023 in this
regard is pending before the said High Court. As stated by the petitioner MCL,
it has already made payment towards the compensation for the structure, without
prejudice to its rights and contentions as regards the Method of calculation,
however, has not made payment with regard to the compensation for the land, by
stating that the said compensation shall be paid as per the order that may be
passed by the High Court of Orissa in the pending petition.
24.
In view of the above, it is directed that the High Court shall decide the Writ
Petition (C) being No. 39185/2023, as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The MCL shall make
payment towards the compensation immediately after the final judgment and order
is passed by the High Court in this regard. It is clarified that that we have
not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the Method of calculation
adopted by the Commission so far as village Ratansara is concerned and the High
Court shall decide the same considering the rights and contentions of the
parties as may be legally permissible. It is needless to say that the either of
the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to challenge the order of the High
Court, if they desire to do so in accordance with law.
25.
In the aforesaid premises, no further order for extension of the term of the
Commission is passed. The M.A. No. 2662/2023 stands disposed of accordingly.
26.
So far as M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 is concerned, the Applicant- Manikeswari
Bisthapita Committee has prayed to direct the Commission to prepare PAF/PDF
list determining the R & R benefits of the four villages namely Tumulia,
Jhupurunga, Kiripsira and Ratansara. In view of the clear and explicit
conclusions and directions given by this Court in the judgment dated
03.11.2024, and in view of the above order passed by this Court in M.A.
No. 2662/2023, no such directions as prayed for could be issued. Suffice it to
say that it shall be open for the applicant/claimants to raise the issues, as
may be permissible under the law, before the concerned authorities of the
State, in view of the directions given by this Court in the judgment dated
03.11.2024.
27.
In that view of the matter the M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 is dismissed. All pending
I.A.s filed therein also stand dismissed.
28.
The M.A. (D) No.30630/2024 has been filed by the eight applicants praying to
direct the Commission to decide their cases at the earliest. The said M.A. also
does not survive in view of the above order and is dismissed. All pending I.A.s
filed therein also stand dismissed.