Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1 Leave granted.
2 These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Calcutta dated 9 September 2013, by which it affirmed the judgment of a
Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.
3 The issue is whether the respondent is entitled to employment by the
appellant in lieu of the acquisition of lands. Eastern Coalfields Limited is a
subsidiary of Coal India Limited and is a government company within the
meaning of Section 617 of the erstwhile Companies Act 1956. An expansion
scheme was proposed for the Sonepur Bazari Open Cast Project which is
Chetan Kumar
the representatives of the Company, persons whose lands were acquired,
and the state government. In pursuance of the discussions, a tripartite
agreement appears to have been arrived at, under which a person whose
lands had been acquired would be entitled to employment by Eastern
Coalfields if the acquired land-holding was at least 2 acres. Though the
Tripartite agreement has not been placed on the record, the pleadings and
submissions before the High Court and this court have proceeded on this
position being undisputed. The authorities on 8 November 1991, prepared a
rehabilitation list of thirty-seven eligible candidates from whom more than 2
acres of land was acquired in pursuance of what is described as a “one time
package deal/tripartite decision”. The name of the respondent was not
included in this list.
4 The respondent founded his claim for employment on a certificate issued by
the Land Acquisition Collector on 14 January 1993 specifying the extent of
land of the respondent. The certificate, inter alia, specified that the land held
by the respondent No. 1 in his own name was comprised in two plots,
namely, plot No 1945 (admeasuring 0.095 acres) and plot No 1948
(admeasuring 0.205 acres). Thus the landholding of the respondent in his
own name was 0.300 acres. However, Collector’s certificate contained a
reference to the names of certain other persons, including relatives of the
respondent, who had executed affidavits in favour of the respondent. After
taking those affidavits into consideration, the holding of the respondent was
computed at 2.01 acres. However, as stated earlier, it is evident from the
Collector’s certificate that the actual holding of the respondent in his own
name was in respect of plot Nos 1945 and 1948 admeasuring 0.300 acres.
5 The Respondent’s writ petition seeking employment in view of the
rehabilitation employment scheme was disposed on 14 October 1996 by
directing the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent. The
Personnel Manager of the Sonepur Bazari Area rejected the claim of the
Respondent on the ground that he only held 2.01 acres of land, which was
lesser than the 2.04 acres of minimum holding of acquired land required
under the rehabilitation employment scheme. This led to the institution of a
writ petition before the High Court. An affidavit in opposition was filed to the
writ petition on behalf of the appellant. In the affidavit, it was categorically
stated that:
“The land of the petitioner no.1 was in possession of 0.205
acres as per the Land Acquisition Certificate issued by the Land
Acquisition Collector, Burdwan on 14th January, 1993. The
eligibility criteria for consideration of employment is that each
of the land looser must have 2 acres of land but in the instant
case admittedly writ petitioner possessed 0.205 acres of land
which is far less than the eligibility criteria. It will be evident
from the annexure 'P-5' to the writ petition that the name of
the petitioner appeared at SI. No. 40 in the rehabilitation list
and such list was not meant for providing employment as per
eligibility criteria. The petitioner cannot claim any benefit
and/or advantage for employment on the basis of the list being
annexure 'P-5' to the writ petition. In this connection a copy of
the certificate so issued by the Land Acquisition Collector is
annexed hereto and marked with the letter "R-1".
Moreover, it was also submitted that the lands in question had been acquired
in 1990 and the petition before the High Court had been instituted after a
lapse of over fifteen years. Once again in paragraph 12 of the affidavit, it was
stated that:
“With regard to paragraph 9 of the said Petition, it will be
evident from the Land Acquisition Certificate R-1 issued by the
Acquisition Collector, Burdwan on 14th January, 1993 that the
quantum of land possessed by the petitioner was 0.205 acres
only which is far less than the eligible criteria. It will be evident
from the annexure 'P-5' to the writ petition that the name of the
petitioner appeared at SI. No. 40 in the rehabilitation package
which was not means for providing employment as per eligible
criteria. In this connection, I say that in spite of repeated
opportunities given to the petitioners to produce the records
pertaining to the claim but the petitioners 'have failed and
neglected to submit the same. In this connection, I repeat and
reiterate the statements made in the preceding paragraphs.”
The counter affidavit also set out that several opportunities were granted to
the respondent to appear before the authorities and substantiate his claim,
in spite of which no documents were produced by him.
6 The learned Single Judge allowed the claim of the respondent by a judgment
dated 30 April 2013. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that it
was an admitted case that the land belonging to the respondent
admeasuring about 2 acres was acquired for the purposes of the project. In
this regard, the Single Judge placed reliance on the order passed by the
Personnel Manager. On this basis, the Single Judge came to the conclusion
that the respondent was in possession of land in excess of the minimum
required (2 acres) and was, therefore, entitled to employment. On appeal,
the order of the Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench by a
judgment dated 9 September 2013
7 We have heard Mr Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant and Mr Pratik R Bombarde, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-claimant.
8 Before this Court, it is not in dispute that under the tripartite agreement, a
claimant would be eligible for the grant of employment if the land acquired
for the purposes of the project is atleast 2.0 acres. In the present case, the
only material on the record on which reliance has been placed by the
claimant is the report of the Land Acquisition Collector. Ex facie, the report
indicates that the total holding of 2.01 acres which has been computed for
the respondent includes lands of several relatives and others, who are
alleged to have executed affidavits in his favour. For convenience of
reference, the certificate of the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan dated 14
January 1993, is extracted below:
“Anadi Nath Banerjee
S/o Madan Mohan of Jamsole
Vide 1 From:- Jamsol 2029 1.50 Affidavit Madan Banerjee
S/o Abinash
Vide 2 Asit Kr. Banerjee 1945 0.095 Affidavit S/o Madan Mohan
1948 0.11
Vide 3 Biswanath Bhattacharyay 1972 0.05 Affidavit S/o Bamapada
Vide 4 Tapan Bhattacharyay 1972 0.05 Affidavit S/o Bishnu
5 Self No Name 1945 0.095
1948 0.205
TOTAL 2.01
Verified
Total area come to 2.01 acres
Sd-
14.01.93
L.A. Collector,
Burdwan”
9 There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the
appellant that there was no documentary evidence to indicate that the
respondent had title to land in excess of two acres. No documentary material
was produced, not even revenue records. The holding of relatives and others
cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely on the basis of
self-serving affidavits which would not amount to a conveyance of title.
10 There is no doubt that in compensation schemes, the ‘family’ is considered
as the unit. Though the tripartite agreement and the rehabilitation
employment scheme circular have not been placed on the record, it is
evident from the minutes of the meeting on 14 November 1990 that the
‘family’ is considered as a unit under the Rehabilitation employment scheme
as well. It was recorded:
“With a view to finalizing the list of land loser families who
would be entitled to jobs/subsistence allowance
envisaged in G.C. No. 49019 of the Department of Co2.I,
Government of India, dated 31 st May 1990 (a copy enclosed),
it was felt that the list of land losers prepared above by L.A.
Officials would be placed before a Screening Committee.”
(emphasis supplied)
11 Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, compensation and rehabilitation
is provided to family units. For example, the Act refers to ‘affected families’
for the preparation of the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme (section 16
and second schedule of the Act), The definition of the phrase ‘family’ in
Section 3(m) is as follows:
(m) ―family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor
children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on
him:
Provided that widows, divorcees and women deserted by
families shall be considered separate families.
Explanation.—An adult of either gender with or without
spouse or children or dependents shall be considered as
a separate family for the purposes of this Act;
Many other social welfare provisions under legislative enactments and
schemes such as the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 19521, Payment of
Gratuity Act, 19722 define ‘family’ to include wife, children, and dependent
families.
12 The principle which can be deduced is that relatives who are not dependent
on the claimant will constitute a separate family unit for the purposes of
compensation and rehabilitation. The self-serving affidavits executed by the
father, brother and nephews of the respondent cannot be taken as the basis
of determining whether the holding of the respondent was in excess of the
threshold of two acres. Such affidavits create no interest in the land
particularly when the persons who executed them do not fall within the
ambit of the phrase ‘family’.
13 The Single judge and the Division bench of the High Court have proceeded
on the basis that 2.01 acres of land was acquired from the respondent relying
on the certificate of the Land Acquisition Collector and the view of the
Personnel Manager. However, as stated above, an affidavit in favour of the
respondent does not transfer rights in the property. The view of the Personnel
Manager is ex facie contrary to the tripartite agreement, and the High Court
ought not to have relied on it.
1 Section 2(g) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. 2 Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
14 In this view of the matter, both the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench were in error in directing the appellant to grant employment to the
respondent. The respondent was given sufficient opportunities to establish
that his holding was in excess of 2 acres. Having failed to establish that his
holding was in excess of 2 acres, the respondent was not entitled to
employment.
15 We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the judgment and order of
the High Court of Calcutta dated 9 September 2013. In consequence, the
Writ Petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed.
16 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[M R Shah]
New Delhi; July 23, 2021 CKB
ITEM NO.28 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XVI
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.100/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-09-2013 in APOT No.410/2013 09-09-2013 in GA No.2553/2013 09-09-2013 in WP No.1650/2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANADINATH BANERJEE(D) & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 23-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Leave granted.
2 The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
3 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)