High Court Upholds Petitioners' Claim for Compensation Under Land Acquisition Act Due to Notification Applicability. Compensation Determination Must Follow Provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved multiple petitioners who sought compensation for land acquired by Coal India Ltd. under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957. The petitioners contended that their land was acquired for the Bhanegaon Open Cast Mine and that compensation should be determined according to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court noted that a notification issued by the Government of India on 28/08/2015 made the provisions of the Act of 2013 applicable to acquisitions under the Act of 1957. The petitioners argued that this notification, along with subsequent clarifications, mandated that compensation be calculated as per the First Schedule of the Act of 2013. The respondents, particularly the Western Coalfields Ltd., contended that they were following previous court rulings that did not align with the petitioners' claims. The court analyzed the legal framework, including relevant sections of both Acts and precedents from the Supreme Court, ultimately concluding that the petitioners were entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013. The court emphasized that the notification's issuance transformed the legal landscape regarding compensation determination, thus granting the petitioners' request for compensation based on the First Schedule of the Act of 2013.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioners sought compensation for land acquired under the Act of 1957, arguing that the provisions of the Act of 2013 should apply. The court held that the notification issued under Section 113 of the Act of 2013 made its provisions applicable to acquisitions under the Act of 1957, thus entitling the petitioners to compensation as per the First Schedule of the Act of 2013 (Paras 5-29).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for land acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing that compensation for the acquired land be determined as per the First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Law Points

  • Compensation determination
  • Land acquisition
  • Rehabilitation and resettlement
  • Applicability of statutes
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 97

Writ Petition No. 3846 of 2024

2026-09-15

Anil S. Kilor, Rajnish R. Vyas

Mr. Sunil Manohar, Mr. Amol B. Patil, Mr. Pankaj Navlani, Ms. M.H. Deshmukh, Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Mr. C.S. Samudra

Tarun Hiranwar, Dadarao Bhadang, Vijay Patil, Amit Siriya, Anita Shindurkar, Bhojraj Shindurkar, Kashirao Shindurkar, Sunil Shindurkar, Sangita Shindurkar, Rakesh Sharma, Supriya Patil, Pragati Falke, Pravina Mahalle, Waman Bhadang, Prajwal Gedam, Nilima Gaurkhede, Kapil Waghwani

The Government of India, The State of Maharashtra, Coal India Limited, Western Coalfields Limited, Department of Land and Revenue, Collector, Nagpur District

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition for compensation determination under land acquisition laws.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought compensation for acquired land as per the Act of 2013.

Filing Reason

Land acquired under the Act of 1957 without proper compensation determination.

Previous Decisions

Previous court rulings were cited by respondents to oppose the petitioners' claims.

Issues

Applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation Act to land acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas Act Entitlement of petitioners to compensation as per the First Schedule of the Act of 2013

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for compensation determination under the Act of 2013 based on the notification issued. Respondents contended adherence to previous court rulings that did not support the petitioners' claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the notification issued under Section 113 of the Act of 2013 made its provisions applicable to acquisitions under the Act of 1957, thus entitling the petitioners to compensation as per the First Schedule of the Act of 2013.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners pray for directions to the respondents to grant compensation for their acquired land as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The determination of the compensation in such matters shall be in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule and the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be in accordance with the Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013.

Procedural History

The petitions were filed seeking compensation for land acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas Act, with the court hearing both petitions together due to similar issues involved.

Acts & Sections

  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act: Section 105, Section 113
  • Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Insurance Company for Ante-Dated Postponement of Life Insurance Policy After Death of Insured in Home Loan Case. The Court Held That the Insurer's Conduct Was Malafide and Constituted Deficiency in Service, Directi...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Regularisation of Ad Hoc Teacher's Services - Management Directed to Submit Proposal for Approval. The court held that the management must submit a proposal for approval of the petitioner's services to the D...