Summary
In post-disposal applications in the long-running Mahanadi Coalfields land acquisition matter, the Supreme Court declined to extend the term of the Claims Commission or to direct it to prepare rehabilitation lists or decide individual claims. Its 03.11.2022 judgment had already settled every issue and defined the Commission's limited task; the Commission exceeded that remit, and the remaining disputes lie before the High Court or the State authorities.
Issues
- Whether the term of the Claims Commission should be extended further to finalise the report for village Ratansara and its other pending work.
- Whether the Commission could entertain claims of land oustees of the ten villages whose reports had been approved, and questions of rehabilitation and resettlement benefits and resettlement sites for the four remaining villages, in view of the judgment dated 03.11.2022.
- Whether the Commission should be directed to prepare the lists of project-affected families for the four villages or to decide the cases of individual applicants.
Provisions considered
- First Schedule, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under the 03.11.2022 judgment, compensation for the four villages Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Ratansara and Kiripsira was to be re-determined under the First Schedule, the Commission's only remaining task being to compute the differential in market value, solatium and interest; entertaining wider issues went beyond that task. (¶¶ 14, 16, 21)
Held
- The judgment dated 03.11.2022 conclusively decided all contentious issues and gave final directions, including that disputes about calculation of compensation or disbursement of benefits would be adjudicated by the High Court and that the Supreme Court would not entertain miscellaneous applications in individual cases; applications seeking further directions despite this were not maintainable in substance. (¶¶ 14, 17, 22)
- Since the 03.11.2022 judgment held that determinations approved by the Court for the ten villages had become final and could not be reopened on the basis of changed State policies, the Commission erred in entertaining cases filed by land oustees of those villages. (¶¶ 15, 16, 20)
- For the four remaining villages, the Commission's role was confined to computing the differential compensation on re-determination; it travelled beyond its remit by entertaining questions of rehabilitation and resettlement benefits and of the suitability of resettlement sites, matters the earlier judgment had assigned elsewhere. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- As the dispute over the method of calculating compensation in the Ratansara report, on which one member of the Commission had dissented, had already been transferred to the High Court of Orissa and was pending there, the Court expressed no view on it and directed the High Court to decide it expeditiously, with MCL to pay the land compensation after that decision. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- No direction could be issued to the Commission to prepare lists of project-affected families for the four villages or to decide individual claims; the claimants may raise permissible issues before the concerned State authorities in terms of the 03.11.2022 judgment. (¶¶ 26, 28)
Result
No further extension of the Claims Commission's term granted and M.A. No. 2662 of 2023 disposed of; the High Court of Orissa directed to decide W.P.(C) No. 39185 of 2023 preferably within three months, with MCL to pay compensation immediately after that decision; M.A. (D) No. 28318 of 2024 and M.A. (D) No. 30630 of 2024 and all pending I.A.s dismissed, with liberty to raise permissible issues before the State authorities.