Suffered Distraught Pain Due To Apathetic Administration: Calcutta High Court Directs Eastern Coalfields To Pay Rs 25 Lakh For Land Acquisition After 33-Year Legal Battle
|The Appeal before the Calcutta High Court was filed by the widow and the son of a man whose land was acquired by ECL.
In a case where the Eastern Coalfields had acquired the land for mining purposes in the year 1980, and the litigation between the owners and the company ensued for 33 years, the Calcutta High Court has asked the company to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation.
The Appeal before the High Court was filed by the widow and the son of a man whose land was acquired by ECL.
The Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held, “The appellants have suffered distraught pain due to the stone-walled response from an apathetic administration. They have been deprived of their claim for a substantial period of time, which on its own merit, is a matter of great suffering. Since it is an admitted position that ECL had acquired the land of Badalin the year 1980 and the litigation had continued for more than 32 years, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if ECL is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25 lakhs to the appellants.”
Senior Advocate Nilanjan Bhattacharya represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Pradip Kumar Dutta represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
Kenaram Banerjee was the owner of large tracts of land and had two sons, Satish and Madan. Badal is the son of Satish. Mamata Banerjee and Joy Banerjee(Appellants) are the widow and son, respectively, of Badal. ECL had acquired land belonging to Madan as well as land belonging to Badal. As per the appellants, their father-husband predecessor in interest, late Badal Banerjee (Badal) was a beneficiary under a scheme promulgated by the authorities (ECL) sometime in 1979, for those persons whose land had been taken for the respondent’s mining purpose. Badal had been permitted to lift approximately 2100 metric tons of coal. Further lifting of coal by Badal had not been possible on account of paucity of funds at the material time
The dispute revolved around the factum of Badal’s entitlement under the Land Loser Scheme. Badal contended it was under the Land Loser Scheme, while ECL contended that it was the Free Sale Scheme. Since no coal had been lifted or permitted to be lifted, Badal had to initiate Writ Petitions. In the year 2014, a direction was passed to the authority to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order. The Respondent Authorities held that the coal issued to Badal was under the Free Sale Scheme and not the Land Loser Scheme. It was also held that there was currently no provision to issue coal to land losers. It was this order, denying the rights of Badal to get any further coal, that was challenged by the petitioners/appellants.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the case of ECL, that Badal was never a land loser and instead fell within the contours of the Free Sale Scheme, was completely belied by certain documents which constituted an admission by ECL. Reference was made to a letter issued in 1996 whereby the General Manager of ECL had unequivocally admitted that the land owned by Badal had been acquired for mining purposes.
“It is not in dispute that Badal had lost .22 decimal of land, which had been acquired by ECL for its mining purpose, of which ECL is still in possession. It is not in dispute that Badal, being a Land Loser, was entitled to delivery of such coal”, it said while also adding, “...ECL has absolutely no ground to deny and deprive Badal and his successor in interest of the benefits of the Land Loser Scheme, which they have done since 1980.”
One of the contentions raised by ECL was that the family of Badal was already provided with a compassionate appointment of Jiten, son of Madan (Badal’s uncle). The Bench noted that Kenaram had two sons, Satish and Madan, who had succeeded to his estate in equal shares. Thus, the compassionate appointment of Madan’s son couldn’t be construed as a fulfilment of ECL’s obligation under the scheme towards Badal, who is the son of Satish.
The Bench also noticed that ECL had not been in a position to supply the coal, which it ought to have supplied to the predecessor of the appellants, due to a change in its Policy.
As per the Bench, it would have been an empty formality to pass an unenforceable order directing ECL to supply the balance 17,900 metric tons of coal. It was further explained that there may arise certain situations which require untangling of a complicated mesh of competing rights; where the Court may be required to innovate, not at pleasure but within the realm of perennial common law principles of equity and good conscience, so as to arrive at an equilibrium of rights i.e., find the best possible solution. “Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social justice and fairness. Equity regards as done, which should have been done”, it said.
“In the aforestated conspectus of facts, it is clear that ECL has absolutely no ground to deny and deprive Badal and his successor in interest of the benefits of the Land Loser Scheme, which they have done since 1980”, it held. The Bench thus disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to disburse an amount of Rs. 25 lakh in favour of the appellants, within 6 weeks.
Cause Title: Smt. Mamata Banerjee and Anr. v. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Ors (Case No.: F.M.A. No. 358 OF 2019 )
Appearance
Appellants: Senior Advocate Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Advocates Urmila Chakraborty, Amit Meharia,Paramita Banerjee, Diptendu Acharya, Tamaghna Chattopadhyay
Respondents: Senior Advocate Pradip Kumar Dutta, Advocates Akanksha Mukherjee, Madhumanti Chakraborty