While highlighting that only the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the issues of title to the property, the Bombay High Court ruled that the special Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the CBA Act has no jurisdiction to determine the compensation amount when there is a dispute regarding the title of the acquired property.

At the same time, the High Court that though given Section 14(5) of the CBA Act the Tribunal shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation, the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure conferred upon the Tribunal are limited in nature and restrict to collecting of evidence and enforcing the attendance of witnesses.

The High Court held so while considering the appeals and petitions filed by Western Coalfields Limited challenging the judgment and order passed by the Special Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (CBA Act) in different compensation cases on different dates, whereby the Tribunal has directed to employ nominees of land owners.

Further, while considering the purpose of the resettlement and rehabilitation policy 2012 and stating that the CBA Act is an offshoot of the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in India, and was enacted to establish greater public control over the coal mining industry and its development by providing for the acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land, the High Court held that the Tribunal has exceeded jurisdiction in directing the Western Coalfields to provide the employment.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke observed that “The reference is regarding the compensation agreed or determined by the Tribunal. It does not mean that conjoint reading of Sections 14 and 17 of the CBA Act empowers the Tribunal to decide the title disputes. The claims to the compensation or dispute touching the apportionment of the compensation may be prima facie considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal can apportion between the persons known or believed to be interested in the land”.

However, the Bench clarified that the Tribunal has no right to take a decision on important civil, and property rights which can be decided by the civil court and, therefore, determining the compensation by deciding the title of the respective claimants is without jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate S.P. Dharmadhikari appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate T.D. Mandlekar appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that Western Coalfields Limited has filed various applications for determination of compensation under Section 14 of the CBA Act before the Special Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the CBA Act as well as for determination of the rightful person to whom the compensation amount is to be disbursed. The special Tribunal adjudicated the said applications and determined the amount of compensation as well as directed Western Coalfields Limited to employ nominees of land owners under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of Coal India Limited 2012. Hence, the present appeal and petitions have been preferred before the High Court challenging the directions issued by the Special Tribunal as being without jurisdiction, patently illegal and bad in law. It was contended that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by determining title regarding acquired property wherever there is a dispute between land owners. It was further contended that the Tribunal had also exceeded its jurisdiction in directing Western Coalfields Limited to employ the nominees of the land owners.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that the lands of the various landowners were acquired by Western Coalfields Limited by issuing necessary Notifications on various dates under Section 9(1).

The Bench found from the perusal of the provision of Section 14(5) of the CBA Act that the Tribunal shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation that appears to it to be just and specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Tribunal shall have regard to the circumstances of each case and the foregoing provisions of this Act concerning how the amount of compensation shall be determined.

Thus, the High Court clarified that the scope of Section 14(5) is only to the extent of determining the amount of compensation and determining the person who is the rightful owner.

The High Court also observed that the language of Section 14(5) of the said Act indicates that in deciding the dispute and making an award the Tribunal has to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation has to be paid and in case there is a dispute as to the same and the Tribunal finds that more than one person is entitled to compensation, it has also to determine the apportionment regarding the amount.

The Bench noted that the entitlement of the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation or rightful owner nowhere shows that the Tribunal has power and authority to determine the title of the property.

Though powers under the Civil Procedure Code have been conferred upon the Tribunal in view of Section 14(8) which are to the extent of collecting evidence and enforcing the attendance of witnesses to determine the compensation, the Bench highlighted that said powers do not empower the Tribunal to enter into controversy whereby the dispute raised as to the title of the property could be determined by the Tribunal.

Cause Title: Ranjana Madhaorao Thaware and Ors. v. Madhaorao Mahadeo Thaware and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment



Bombay High CourtJustice Urmila Joshi Phalke

Pankaj Bajpai