TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court orders Claims Commission to address land compensation issues</h1> <h3>Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors Versus Mathias Oram and Ors</h3> Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors Versus Mathias Oram and Ors - 2010 (11) SCC 269 Issues Involved:1. Compensation for land acquisition.2. Compliance with legal obligations.3. Discrepancy between development and human rights.4. Role of the State and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).5. Establishment of a Claims Commission.Summary:1. Compensation for Land Acquisition:The case involves Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., challenging the Orissa High Court's order directing the Central Government and the petitioner to determine and pay compensation to landowners u/s 13(5) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The lands were acquired in 1987, but compensation was never paid, leading the landowners to seek redress in the High Court.2. Compliance with Legal Obligations:The Supreme Court noted that despite the acquisition notifications u/s 4(1), 7(1), and 9 of the Act, the landowners were not compensated for over two decades. The coal company argued that the lands were not required for mining and proposed de-notification, which the Central Government rejected. The Court found this stance to be adding 'insult to injury' and emphasized the need for compliance with legal obligations.3. Discrepancy between Development and Human Rights:The judgment reflects on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's concerns about the contradictions in India's democratic Constitution, highlighting the disparity between economic development and the rights of marginalized citizens. The Court acknowledged that development often leads to dispossession and trauma for those whose livelihoods are tied to the land, exacerbating social tensions and insurgency.4. Role of the State and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP):The Court discussed the role of PPPs in development, noting that while companies are willing to invest and provide amenities, the human factor and the need for relocation complicate the process. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing development with the rights and welfare of affected populations.5. Establishment of a Claims Commission:To resolve the issue, the Solicitor General proposed a scheme, agreed upon by the Central Government and the coal company, to establish a Claims Commission. The Commission, chaired by a former High Court Judge and including representatives from the Central Government and Coal India Ltd., will survey the land, determine compensation, and address de-notification where necessary. The Supreme Court approved the scheme with modifications, directing the Commission to submit its report to the Court for approval and further directions.The Court expressed appreciation for the Solicitor General's efforts and emphasized the need for continued oversight to ensure justice for the affected landowners.
TaxTMI 