Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability of – Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957–Held: The R&R Act cannot apply prior to the date it was brought into force i.e., before 01.01.2014 – In the present case, it applies from the date the Central Government issued a notification bringing into force the proceedings of the First, Second and Third Schedules to the enactment specified in the Fourth Schedule, which in this case was the CBA Act – The date therefore, on which the R&R Act, 2013 is applicable from, is 28.08.2015 – Additionally, the report which was finalised before that date cannot be interfered with – The land owners and displaced families residing in the villages for which reports were prepared earlier than 28.08.2015, would not therefore be entitled to the benefits of the R&R Act, 2013 – Hence, the benefits of the R&R Act apply to displaced families and land owners of Kiripsira, Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia – Further directions issued – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Constitution of India – Article 142.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Determination of compensation – Cut-off date– Held: Cut-off date for determining compensation for land acquired is to be based upon the cut-off date approved by Supreme court in relation to village Gopalpur, i.e., September 2010 – Since, common cut-off date has been accepted, all benefits flowing from it, including statutory interest upon compensation and solatium, is determinable on the basis of that cut-off date for the entire acquisition – Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
& ORS.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.41, 42 – Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 – Held: As far as s.41 goes, given that the acquisition notification was issued in 1988 and finalised in 1990 and even the judgment of Supreme Court indicating the methodology for compensation determination was delivered in 2010, the question of giving extra consideration in terms of s.41 does not arise – However, since the resettlement of the displaced families and their rehabilitation have been mandated by both provision of the R&R Act, 2013 which has application to the ongoing acquisition, as well as the R&R Policy 2006, the obligation to ensure that the benefits of the displaced persons are not put to grave and irreparable prejudice by denying them their status as SC/ST, has to be ensured – This is mandated by s.42 of the R&R Act, 2013 which directs that whenever lands of SCs/STs are acquired necessitating their displacement, either in terms of territories or the areas they reside in, leading to their movement to other areas- where their tribe or caste may not necessarily be recognised as SCs/ST- the status which they enjoy but for the displacement has to be preserved and protected – This statutory mandate and obligation cannot be denied by the State or agency, as a matter of law – Direction issued.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –Obligations cast upon the State– Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held: Provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 which replaced the old 1894 Act, have for the first time cast obligations upon the State to ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation is provided in addition to compensation – These rehabilitation and resettlement provisions relate not only to a right to employment for at least one member of the displaced family but also other monetary and tangible benefits, such as land for construction of houses, cash assistance for construction; transportation cost; provision for temporary displacement; annuity and/or cash payment in lieu of employment benefits, etc. – Furthermore, by provisions of the Third Schedule, elaborate provisions for the kind of public amenities which have to be provided, such as public health benefits, schools, community centres, roads and other basic necessities, have been obligated – All these are in furtherance of the displaced and the larger social justice obligations cast upon the State.
Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.108 – Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 – Held: R&R Act, 2013 by s.108 also clearly envisions that the benefits provided by the new law are not to be applied blindly – Wherever there are existing provisions that are more beneficial or provide better benefits to displaced persons, such families and individuals have the choice or option to prefer either such policy or local law or the provisions of the R&R Act –Going by the principle underlying s.108, clearly the benefits spelt out under the R&R Policy 2006, appear to be better, and more elaborate.
Odisha Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 – Employment benefits –Family unit – Held: The R&R Policy 2006 as amended by the 2013 policy applies for the purpose of employment benefits – A family unit would comprise of head of family or father, a major son, and an unmarried daughter having regard to the definition and the note appended thereof – In case, for some reason, the major son cannot be given employment, and there exists a major grandson, he would then be eligible for consideration – In other words, two members (father and son or father and grandson) would be eligible for employment and not three, in addition to the unmarried daughter who is also to be treated as separate unit –Further, Commission could not reopen determinations based upon change of policies of the State given that the benefits adjudicated by it based on factual determinations has crystallised – In many cases, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.(MCL) has actually provided employment to several individuals – Thus, all cases that have been adjudicated and were approved by Supreme court cannot be reopened. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr v. Mathias Oram & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 269; Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : 2020 (3) SCR 1; State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011)
7 SCC 639 : 2011 (6) SCR 443 – referred to.
& ORS.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.