1 2025:CGHC:11538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4599 of 2019  Swastik Power And Mineral Resources (P) Ltd., A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Kanki Road, Village Kanberi, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh, Through Its Director Shri Rajeev Agrawal ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 15 2. The Coal Controller, Ministry Of Coal, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700001 3. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. The General Manager, ( L & R ) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5. The Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage, Water Resource Division, Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 5/State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07. 03.2025 Heard on admission. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.12 10:00:24 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate Writ, order, or direction including a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/certiorari to quash the impugned notification dated 18.07.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 1.; and 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate Writ, order, or direction including a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to exclude the land of petitioner from the impugned notification dated 18.07.2018; and 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate Writ, order, or direction including a Writ in the nature of Mandamus by allowing the petitioner company to conduct his business in the disputed land for a period of 20 years as opined by the Respondent No. 2. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated in the name of Swastik Sponge and Power Private Limited on 14.12.2004. Later on, its name was changed to Swastik Power and Mineral Resources Private Limited. On 04.09.2008, a memorandum of understanding between the petitioner/company, the Government of Chhattisgarh and the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board was executed for setting up of 50 MW thermal power project at Village Khairbhavna, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. It was specifically mentioned in the memorandum of understanding that “whereas the Government is desirous of facilitating private investments in power generation projects in the State of Chhattisgarh and providing assistance for the development of power generation projects and in consideration, being entitled to a certain share of the power generated from such projects.” 3 3. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest (IA Division) issued the environmental clearance to establish a coal washery and 50 MW thermal power plant to the petitioner on 22.09.2008. The petitioner/company obtained permissions from various departments and finally, the power plant was established in the year 2015. The petitioner/company had also established a coal washery. The petitioner/company was in possession of 35.30 acres of land at Village Kanberi, 10.87 acres of land at Village Sonpuri, and 10.77 acres of land at Village Khairbhavna, total admeasuring 56.94 acres. 4. On 08.06.2009, the Ministry of Coal issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1957’) showing intention to acquire certain land. Thereafter, on 26.11.2009, another notification under Section 7 (1) of the Act, 1957 was issued and the land of the petitioner was acquired. On 29.03.2010, a notification under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1957 was issued and the land situated at village Sonpuri total admeasuring 10.87 acres of the petitioner got vested in the Central Government. 5. The petitioner requested the Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded and paid to the petitioner for the land acquired by respondent No. 1 vide notification dated 29.03.2010 which was allotted to respondent No.3. 6. On 22.09.2022, a committee was constituted to evaluate the value of the land and plant of the petitioner and a valuer was appointed in this regard. The valuer submitted its valuation report on 24.09.2023 and determined the value of the land, plant and machinery to the tune of Rs. 239,97,21,202/-. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora vide letter dated 03.11.2023 referred the matter to the SECL to consider the claim of the 4 petitioner for payment of compensation and solatium. The SECL vide its letter dated 10.09.2024, stated that since the writ petition is pending consideration before this Court, no decision can be taken. 8. Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner invested a huge amount in the establishment of the thermal power plant and coal washery. He would further submit that some lands were purchased by the petitioner through registered sale-deeds. He would also submit that initially, a representation was moved before the respondent authorities to provide it 20 years to run the plant and coal washery, but the Ministry of Coal issued notifications under Sections 4, 7 & 9 of the Act, 1957 on 08.06.2009, 29.03.2010 and 18.07.2018. He would contend that the petitioner/Company could not run its thermal power plant and coal washery, even though compensation has not been paid yet despite the publication of notifications under the provisions of Sections 4, 7 & 9 of the Act, 1957. He would further contend that the valuer determined the value of the land, plant and machinery pursuant to a direction issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora and the same was placed before the SECL authority, but till date, no decision has been taken. He would also contend that the claim of the petitioner has not been considered on account of the pendency of this petition. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the Union of India and SECL authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner to make payment of compensation within a stipulated time frame. 9. Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate appearing for SECL would submit that the SECL never accepted the offer submitted by the petitioner for payment of compensation as the petitioner itself wanted to differ the acquisition of land for a period of 20 years. She would further submit that the Ministry of Coal 5 i.e. respondent No. 1 took a decision to publish notifications under Sections 4, 7 and 9 of the Act, 1957. She would also submit that the decision would be taken by the SECL authority pursuant to any specific order issued by respondent No. 1. She would contend that the petitioner has a remedy as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1957. 10. Mr. Roop Ram Naik, counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 would argue that if the petitioner makes a representation before respondent No. 1, the same shall be considered in an objective manner. 11. Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner, SECL & UOI. 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 13. Admittedly, a lease was granted over some lands and some lands were purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale-deed for establishing a thermal power plant and coal washery. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 on 04.09.2008 and the approval and sanctions were granted by the different stakeholders in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner established a thermal power plant and a coal washery. 14. The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1957 on 08.06.2009, and immediately thereafter, a representation was made by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 and SECL authorities to differ the acquisition of land situated at Village Khairbhavna and Sonpuri. A nod was given in favour of the petitioner by the SECL authorities, but again, a notification was issued by respondent No. 1 in the year 2015. The petitioner established the thermal power plant and Coal washery, but he could not run as no permission was granted by the Union of India and notifications for the 6 acquisition of land were issued. The petitioner filed this petition challenging the final notification dated 18.07.2018. 15. During the pendency of this petition, an application was moved before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora to determine the amount of compensation and a committee was constituted in this regard. The committee determined the amount of compensation for the plant, machinery and land to the tune of Rs. 239,97,21,202/-. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora referred the valuation along with the recommendation letter to the SECL authorities. The SECL authorities could not take any decision on account of the pendency of the present petition. 16. Section 13 (5) of the Act, 1957 deals with the determination and payment of compensation to the persons interested. It reads thus:- “13. (5) Where any land is acquired under section 9, there shall be paid compensation to the person interested the amount of which shall be determined after taking into consideration- (a) the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (7) of section 4; Explanation. The value of any minerals lying in the land shall not be taken into consideration in determining the market value of any land; (b) the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the taking possession thereof, (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested, at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from other land; (d) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested, at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any other manner, or his earnings; (e) if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change, and (f) the damage, if any, bona fide resulting from 7 diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 and the time of the publication of the declaration under sub-section (2) of section 9. [(5A) In determining the amount of compensation for any land acquired under section 9, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested, likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put shall not be taken into consideration.]” 17. In the present case, admittedly, the land of the petitioner has been acquired and the final notification according to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, 1957 was issued on 18.07.2018. The valuer of the petitioner determined the market value of the land and the valuation report has already been placed before the SECL authorities. 18. Section 14 of the Act, 1957 deals with the method of determining compensation according to which if the amount of compensation can be fixed by the agreement it shall be paid accordingly, if there is no agreement between the parties, the Central Government constituted a tribunal which shall determine the compensation. 19. In the present case, the petitioner/company has already submitted the valuation report(s) before the SECL authorities and no decision has been taken yet; therefore, this petition, at this juncture is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 1 and SECL authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (5) of the Act, 1957 within a period of 3 weeks and in turn, the Union of India and SECL authorities are directed to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner and the valuation report submitted by the valuer, strictly in accordance with the law preferably within a period of 120 days. The petitioner shall be afforded proper opportunity of hearing by the respondent authorities before taking any final decision. 8 20. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 21. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant