EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED versus ANADINATH BANERJEE (D) AND OTHERS on 23 July 2021

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench ofthe High Court of Calcutta dated 9 September 2013, by which it affirmedthe judgment of a Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.

3. The issue is whether the respondent is entitled to employmentby the appellant in lieu of the acquisition of lands. Eastern CoalfieldsLimited is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and is a governmentcompany within the meaning of Section 617 of the erstwhile CompaniesAct 1956. An expansion scheme was proposed for the Sonepur BazariOpen Cast Project which is located in Raniganj Coalfield in West Bengal.A meeting took place between the representatives of the Company,persons whose lands were acquired, and the state government. Inpursuance of the discussions, a tripartite agreement appears to havebeen arrived at, under which a person whose lands had been acquiredwould be entitled to employment by Eastern Coalfields if the acquiredland-holding was at least 2 acres. Though the Tripartite agreement hasnot been placed on the record, the pleadings and submissions before theHigh Court and this court have proceeded on this position being undisputed.The authorities on 8 November 1991, prepared a rehabilitation list ofthirty-seven eligible candidates from whom more than 2 acres of landwas acquired in pursuance of what is described as a “one time packagedeal/tripartite decision”. The name of the respondent was not includedin this list.

4. The respondent founded his claim for employment on acertificate issued by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14 January 1993specifying the extent of land of the respondent. The certificate, interalia, specified that the land held by the respondent No. 1 in his ownname was comprised in two plots, namely, plot No 1945 (admeasuring0.095 acres) and plot No 1948 (admeasuring 0.205 acres). Thus thelandholding of the respondent in his own name was 0.300 acres. However,Collector’s certificate contained a reference to the names of certainother persons, including relatives of the respondent, who had executedaffidavits in favour of the respondent. After taking those affidavits intoconsideration, the holding of the respondent was computed at 2.01 acres.

A

BC

DE

F

GH

AHowever, as stated earlier, it is evident from the Collector’s certificatethat the actual holding of the respondent in his own name was in respectof plot Nos 1945 and 1948 admeasuring 0.300 acres.

5. The Respondent’s writ petition seeking employment in view ofthe rehabilitation employment scheme was disposed on 14 October 1996Bby directing the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent. ThePersonnel Manager of the Sonepur Bazari Area rejected the claim ofthe Respondent on the ground that he only held 2.01 acres of land, whichwas lesser than the 2.04 acres of minimum holding of acquired landrequired under the rehabilitation employment scheme. This led to theCinstitution of a writ petition before the High Court. An affidavit inopposition was filed to the writ petition on behalf of the appellant. In theaffidavit, it was categorically stated that:

“The land of the petitioner no.1 was in possession of 0.205 acresas per the Land Acquisition Certificate issued by the LandDAcquisition Collector, Burdwan on 14th January, 1993. Theeligibility criteria for consideration of employment is that each ofthe land looser must have 2 acres of land but in the instant caseadmittedly writ petitioner possessed 0.205 acres of land which isfar less than the eligibility criteria. It will be evident from theannexure ‘P-5’ to the writ petition that the name of the petitionerEappeared at SI. No. 40 in the rehabilitation list and such list wasnot meant for providing employment as per eligibility criteria. Thepetitioner cannot claim any benefit and/or advantage foremployment on the basis of the list being annexure ‘P-5’ to thewrit petition. In this connection a copy of the certificate so issuedFby the Land Acquisition Collector is annexed hereto and markedwith the letter “R-1”.

Moreover, it was also submitted that the lands in question hadbeen acquired in 1990 and the petition before the High Court had beeninstituted after a lapse of over fifteen years. Once again in paragraph 12Gof the affidavit, it was stated that:

“With regard to paragraph 9 of the said Petition, it will be evidentfrom the Land Acquisition Certificate R-1 issued by the AcquisitionCollector, Burdwan on 14th January, 1993 that the quantum ofland possessed by the petitioner was 0.205 acres only which isH

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED v. ANADINATH BANERJEE (D)[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

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 appearedat SI. No. 40 in the rehabilitation package which was not meansfor providing employment as per eligible criteria. In this connection,I say that in spite of repeated opportunities given to the petitionersto 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 precedingparagraphs.”

The counter affidavit also set out that several opportunities weregranted to the respondent to appear before the authorities and substantiatehis claim, in spite of which no documents were produced by him.

6. The learned Single Judge allowed the claim of the respondentby a judgment dated 30 April 2013. The learned Single Judge proceededon the basis that it was an admitted case that the land belonging to therespondent admeasuring about 2 acres was acquired for the purposes ofthe project. In this regard, the Single Judge placed reliance on the orderpassed by the Personnel Manager. On this basis, the Single Judge cameto the conclusion that the respondent was in possession of land in excessof the minimum required (2 acres) and was, therefore, entitled toemployment. On appeal, the order of the Single Judge has been affirmedby the Division Bench by a judgment dated 9 September 2013

7. We have heard Mr Kaustubh Shukla, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant and Mr Pratik R Bombarde, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant.

8. Before this Court, it is not in dispute that under the tripartiteagreement, a claimant would be eligible for the grant of employment ifthe land acquired for the purposes of the project is atleast 2.0 acres. Inthe present case, the only material on the record on which reliance hasbeen 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 whichhas been computed for the respondent includes lands of several relativesand others, who are alleged to have executed affidavits in his favour.For convenience of reference, the certificate of the Land AcquisitionCollector, Burdwan dated 14 January 1993, is extracted below:

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

[2021] 6 S.C.R.

_______________________

Sd-

F14.01.93

L.A. Collector,

Burdwan”

9. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalfof the appellant that there was no documentary evidence to indicate thatGthe respondent had title to land in excess of two acres. No documentarymaterial was produced, not even revenue records. The holding of relativesand others cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely onthe basis of self-serving affidavits which would not amount to aconveyance of title.

H

EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED v. ANADINATH BANERJEE (D)[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

10. There is no doubt that in compensation schemes, the ‘family’is considered as the unit. Though the tripartite agreement and therehabilitation employment scheme circular have not been placed on therecord, it is evident from the minutes of the meeting on 14 November1990 that the ‘family’ is considered as a unit under the Rehabilitationemployment scheme as well. It was recorded:

“With a view to finalizing the list of land loser familieswhowould be entitled to jobs/subsistence allowance envisagedin G.C. No. 49019 of the Department of Co2.I, Government ofIndia, dated 31 st May 1990 (a copy enclosed), it was felt that thelist of land losers prepared above by L.A. Officials would be placedbefore a Screening Committee.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand 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 therehabilitation and resettlement scheme (section 16 and second scheduleof the Act), The definition of the phrase ‘family’ in Section 3(m) is asfollows:

(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 familiesshall be considered separate families.

Explanation.—An adult of either gender with or without spouseor children or dependents shall be considered as a separate familyfor the purposes of this Act; Many other social welfare provisions under legislative enactmentsand schemes such as the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952[1],Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972[2] define ‘family’ to include wife, children,and dependent families.

12. The principle which can be deduced is that relatives who arenot dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family unit forthe purposes of compensation and rehabilitation. The self-serving 1 Section 2(g) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

2 Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

ABC

D

E

FG

H

Aaffidavits executed by the father, brother and nephews of the respondentcannot be taken as the basis of determining whether the holding of therespondent was in excess of the threshold of two acres. Such affidavitscreate no interest in the land particularly when the persons who executedthem do not fall within the ambit of the phrase ‘family’.

B13. The Single judge and the Division bench of the High Courthave proceeded on the basis that 2.01 acres of land was acquired fromthe respondent relying on the certificate of the Land Acquisition Collectorand the view of the Personnel Manager. However, as stated above, anaffidavit in favour of the respondent does not transfer rights in theproperty. The view of the Personnel Manager is ex facie contrary to theCtripartite agreement, and the High Court ought not to have relied on it.

14. In this view of the matter, both the learned Single Judge andthe Division Bench were in error in directing the appellant to grantemployment to the respondent. The respondent was given sufficientopportunities to establish that his holding was in excess of 2 acres. HavingDfailed to establish that his holding was in excess of 2 acres, the respondentwas not entitled to employment.

15. We accordingly allow the appeals and set aside the judgmentand order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 9 September 2013. Inconsequence, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent shall standEdismissed.

16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

F

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

G

H