Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

Finality of Resolved Land Compensation Claims In Land Acquisition Cannot Be Undone Based on Policy Changes: Supreme Court

06 January 2025 10:53 AM

By: sayum


In a latest judgement Supreme Court of India addressing disputes over land acquisition compensation and rehabilitation benefits for families displaced by coal mining projects in Odisha. The Court declined to extend the tenure of the Claims Commission, emphasizing its limited mandate, and referred pending issues concerning Village Ratansara’s compensation to the Orissa High Court. This judgment reinforces the principle of finality in claims adjudicated for ten villages while setting clear limits for resolving disputes in the remaining four villages.

The land acquisition for Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. (MCL) under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 displaced families in 14 villages of Odisha. Disputes over compensation and rehabilitation benefits led to the Supreme Court establishing a Claims Commission in 2010. The Commission was tasked with determining compensation and R&R benefits for affected families, following the "Gopalpur Model."

Reports for ten villages were approved and finalized by the Supreme Court in earlier orders, making the compensation claims non-negotiable. However, issues regarding differential compensation under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 persisted for four villages—Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Kiripsira, and Ratansara. The November 3, 2022, judgment of the Supreme Court outlined the limited mandate of the Claims Commission to finalize these pending issues.

In the present proceedings, the Commission sought an extension of its term to complete its work, while landowners and displaced families filed miscellaneous applications seeking new directions.

The Supreme Court emphasized the sanctity of its previous rulings and reiterated the limits of the Claims Commission’s mandate. It stated that the finalized claims for ten villages could not be reopened, as doing so would contravene the Court’s earlier directives.

The Court observed that the Commission, in some cases, acted beyond its jurisdiction by reopening resolved issues and addressing matters like resettlement site suitability. The Supreme Court found this contrary to its earlier judgment, which required the Commission to restrict its role to determining differential compensation for the four unresolved villages based on the provisions of the R&R Act, 2013.

For Village Ratansara, objections regarding the methodology of compensation calculation had been transferred to the Orissa High Court in October 2023, where the matter remains pending. The Court clarified that the Orissa High Court would adjudicate this issue and that the Claims Commission’s role in this matter had concluded.

The Supreme Court declined to extend the term of the Claims Commission and dismissed all miscellaneous applications that sought reopening of finalized claims or additional directions for the Commission. The Court reiterated that disputes concerning finalized claims for ten villages could not be reopened.

Regarding the pending compensation disputes for Village Ratansara, the Court directed the Orissa High Court to decide the matter within three months, including resolving objections to the Commission’s methodology for calculating compensation.

For rehabilitation and resettlement benefits for the four villages, including Ratansara, the Court clarified that displaced families should seek relief from the appropriate state authorities as per the November 2022 judgment. It further stated that the Claims Commission had no role in preparing lists for project-affected families or certifying resettlement sites.

This judgment reinforces the finality of earlier rulings on adjudicated claims while ensuring unresolved issues are addressed through appropriate channels. By limiting the role of the Claims Commission and directing pending matters to the Orissa High Court and state authorities, the Supreme Court has streamlined the process of delivering compensation and rehabilitation benefits to affected families.

Date of Decision: January 3, 2025

 

Latest Legal News