Sau. Sunitabai Bhaurao Chikankar and Others vs Western Coalfields Limited and Others

V.A. Naik, J.

Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and the prayers made in the writ petition are based on similar set of facts, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners were the owners of the agricultural lands in Mouza Beena and Bhanegaon in Taluka Parsheoni and Saoner, District Nagpur. The lands of the petitioners were acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The Section 4 notification was issued on 01.07.2000 and the Section 9 notification was issued on 14.05.2004. More than 200 Hectares of land belonging to several landholders was acquired by the Central Government for the project. The land of the petitioners was acquired under the notification dated 14.05.2004 issued by the Central Government along with the acquisition of lands of several other land holders. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2014 was not satisfied with the grant of compensation and, hence, applied to the Tribunal for enhancement of the same. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2014. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4819 of 2014 had not challenged the grant of compensation at the rate determined by the Central Government. Some of the land holders were dissatisfied with the grant of the meager compensation and, hence, they neither accepted the compensation from the respondents nor did they collect the compensation amount from the Tribunal, where it was deposited. The State Government passed a resolution on 22.08.2012 directing the payment of compensation at the rate of Rupees Eight Lacs per acre for dry crop land, Rupees Six Lacs per acre for padit land and Rupees Ten Lacs per acre for irrigated land. It is the case of the petitioners that the Western Coalfields Limited has implemented the resolution of the State Government dated 22.08.2012 and paid higher compensation at the aforesaid rates to the various land holders who had not accepted the compensation from the respondents and/or had not collected it till the resolution was passed. On the basis of the Government Resolution, which was implemented by the Western Coalfields Limited, the petitioners made a representation, seeking compensation at the same rates as provided in the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012. Since the Western Coalfields Limited declined to pay higher compensation to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the aforesaid relief.

Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is a clear violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the respondents have paid compensation to the other land holders, who had not received the amount of compensation, at the rate prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 while refusing to grant the same to the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioners had withdrawn the compensation that was deposited in the Tribunal. It is stated that since the Western Coalfields Limited has decided to abide by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012, it cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly situated persons. It is stated that the land of the petitioners who have not been paid compensation as per the rates prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 and the land of the other landholders who have been paid at the rate prescribed by the said Government Resolution, were acquired by the same Section 9 notification dated 14.05.2004. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners cannot be treated differently.

Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-Western Coalfields Limited, supported the impugned action and submitted that the Western Coalfields Limited was justified in not paying compensation to the petitioners as per the rates prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012. It is stated that though the petitioners had initially refused to accept the compensation payable to the petitioners, they had withdrawn the amount that was deposited by the Western Coalfields Limited in the Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2014 had sought higher compensation by filing an application before the Tribunal as provided under the Act of 1957 and the said application was rejected. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2014 is estopped from seeking compensation at the rate prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012.

Shri Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, had nothing much to say in the matter. It was, however, fairly stated that the land holders were entitled to receive the compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012. It is stated that appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in the writ petitions.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not justified in refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioners at the rate prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners and the lands of the other land holders, who were paid higher compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012, were acquired by the same Section 9 notification dated 14.05.2004. If the compensation, as prescribed by the State Government by the Resolution dated 22.08.2012 is liable to be paid to the land holders, whose lands are acquired by the notification dated 14.05.2004 as is done in case of certain land holders by the Western Coalfields Limited in this case, some of the land holders cannot be deprived of the compensation at the said rate only because they had withdrawn the amount of compensation deposited by the Western Coalfields in the Tribunal. The classification made by the Western Coalfields Limited is not founded on an intelligible differentia. Also, it cannot be said that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2014 is estopped from seeking compensation at the rate prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 as her application for enhancement of compensation was rejected. The cause of action for filing the application for enhancement of compensation and the cause of action for filing the writ petition is entirely different. At the relevant time, being dissatisfied with the grant of meager compensation, the application for enhancement of compensation was filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2014. The claim of the petitioners in both the petitions is not based on the criteria or considerations that are required to be looked into, while granting enhancement of compensation by the Tribunal under the Act of 1957. This is a case where the State Government had decided to grant compensation to the land holders at the rate of Rupees Eight Lacs per acre for dry crop land, Rupees Six Lacs per acre for padit land and Rupees Ten Lacs per acre for irrigated land. The intention of the State Government was to grant compensation at a particular rate to every land holder whose land was compulsorily acquired by the Government. It is not in dispute that the Western Coalfields Limited has followed the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 and, therefore, there is no propriety in the action of the Western Coalfields Limited in granting compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 and at a higher rate to certain land holders whose lands were acquired by the same notification on 14.05.2004 while denying it to certain others solely on the ground that they had withdrawn the amount of compensation. If the intention of the Government is to provide particular compensation to all the land holders whose lands are acquired at a given point of time, it cannot be said, as canvassed on behalf of the Western Coalfields Limited, that the said compensation is not liable to be to certain land holders who had withdrawn the compensation from the Tribunal. The very object of the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 would stand frustrated if the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-Western Coalfields Limited in denying the compensation to the petitioners at the rate prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 is upheld. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the action of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in refusing to grant compensation to the petitioners at the rates provided in the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012 is both, arbitrary and discriminatory.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are allowed. It is hereby held that the petitioners would also be entitled to similar compensation paid to the other land holders on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2012. We direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the difference in compensation amount to the petitioners as early as possible and positively within a period of four months.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.