1 CGHC010063372021 2026:CGHC:38256 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1283 of 2021 1. Jag Bai W/o Shri Sadhram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bhathoura, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director (Cmd), S E C L, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., SECL, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Gevra Area (Gevra Extension Project) Gevra District Korba (CG) 4. Coal India Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal Bhawan, Premise No. 04 M A R, Plot No. A F Iii, Action Area 1A, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkatta 700156 5. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 6. District Collector Cum Officiating Dy. Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Collectorate Korba District Korba (CG) 7. Sub Divisional Officer Land Acquisition Officer Officiating As A Collector in the land acquisition matter, Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 WPC No. 3030 of 2020 1. Deepak Sahu S/o Shri Sadhram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Bhathoura, Tahsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director (C M D), S E C L, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. S E C L, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Gevra Area (Gevra Extension Project), Gevra, District Korba (CG) 4. Coal India Limited, Through - Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal Bhawan, Premise No. -04 Mar, Plot No. A F - Iii, Action Area - 1 A, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkatta - 700156, District : Kolkata, West Bengal 5. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. District Collector - Cum - Officiating Dy. Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Collectorate, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 7. Sub - Divisional Officer - Land Acquisition Officer, Officiating As A Collector In The Land Acquisition Matter, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For Respondent -SECL : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocates For Respondent UOI Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Ms. Anukriti Darro, For Respondent State Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate 3 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. As the above two writ petitions arise out of the same land acquisition proceeding, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of WPC No.1283/2021 is taken as a lead case for the purpose of this common order. 2. Petitioner is resident of village Bhathora Tahsil Katghora District Korba and was owner of land with house, which was subject matter of acquisition proceeding initiated by respondent Union of India on the request of respondent South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.(SECL). Acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1957’). Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1957 was issued on 29.1.2009 followed by notification under Section 7 (1) dated 29.9.2009, notification under Section 9 dated 3.6.2010 and notification under Section 11 dated 21.1.2011. Initially compensation with respect to land only was awarded to petitioner and no compensation was computed and awarded with respect to house constructed on that land even after lapse of about 09 years from the date of notification under 4 Section 9 of the Act of 1957, which made the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the instant Land Acquisition Cases. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the RFCTLARR Act 2013 i.e. four times of market value of land in rural areas. (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 1% per month from the date of determining the compensation. (iv) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the Collector is a only authority to determine the compensation in present acquisition. (v). That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the Collector is only authority to determine the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in the present acquisition. (vi) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the Collection is a only authority to 5 determine the eligibility criteria for providing employments to the land loosers. (vii)That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as there is no determination of compensation with respect to the house of the petitioner constructed on the land acquired till 2019, therefore, the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Act of 1957 for acquisition of land and compensation to be paid to petitioner was not completed. On 01.01.2014, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force. Initially, the Act of 1957 is not included in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013 and it was included by way of Notification dated 28.8.2015 w.e.f. 01.09.2015. After inclusion of the Act of 1957, the compensation for immovable property like house is to be determined in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013, wherein the competent authority for determining compensation and passing award is specified as the Collector. In case at hand, compensation is determined by the official of respondent SECL and as such, the exercise of determining the amount of compensation with respect to 6 house is not by the authority competent under the Act of 2013. In support of his contention, he referred to Annexure R- 6 filed by respondent SECL. 4. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that compensation so determined is subject to sanction from the authority. Compensation was initially determined on 2.8.2014 with respect to land only and not for the house standing thereon. Compensation with respect to house was determined only on 24.2.2019 vide Annexure P-1. Determination of part compensation is not permissible in law and in support of this submission, he places reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn. Vs. Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772. 5. He next contended that after coming into force of the Act of 2013, the proceedings of acquisition by passing an award of compensation is to be completed within a period of 12 months. Under Section 24 of the Act of 2013 it is envisaged that where award is not passed, then all the provisions of the Act of 2013 for determination of compensation shall apply. In case at hand, as entire compensation has not been determined for the land as also house situated on the land, therefore, it cannot be said that the award has been passed determining the compensation. From the document Annexure 7 P-3 it is apparent that measurement of house etc. has been done without there being any mention that the house was incomplete and compensation was determined in the year 2019. Hence, petitioner is entitled for interest on the compensation at the rate of 1% per month as provided under Section 30 of the Act of 2013. 6. Learned counsel for respondent SECL while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that after following due process of law, as provided under the Act of 1957, land acquisition proceeding was initiated by issuing notifications by the authority prescribed in accordance with law. Compensation was determined on 2.8.2014, sanction order was issued on 17.11.2014 in which there is clear mention that compensation of Rs.25,99,95,158.40 paise is for tenancy and government land acquired under Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1957. Further, in the note appended to the sanction order, it is clearly mentioned that payment of solatium for house, tube well etc. is to be paid as per guidelines of SECL issued vide letter dated 8/10-05-2013. Petitioner had accepted the amount of compensation of the land which was determined on 02.08.2014. He also contended that on the date of completion of acquisition proceeding by determining the amount of compensation on 2.8.2014, provisions of the Act of 2013 made applicable to the 8 acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1957. Section 105 of the Act of 2013 provides that provision of the Act of 2013 not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications. Under sub-section (1) of Section 105, it is envisaged that subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. He contended that the Act of 2013 will have no application to the land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule, subject to sub-section (3) of Section 105. Sub-section (3) envisages that the Central Government has to notify within one year from the date of commencement of the Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules being beneficial to the affected families. 7. He also contended that the Central Government has issued letter to the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director of respondent Coal India Limited on 4.8.2017 in the form of clarification on applicability of the First, Second and Third Schedules of the Act of 2013 in cases of acquisition of land under the Act of 1957. Under Clause (3) of this clarificatory letter it is clearly mentioned that when and in what circumstance, cases of determination of compensation cannot be reopened and when 9 compensation is to be determined following provisions of the Act of 2013. Referring to Sr. No.2 of Clause 3 of the clarificatory letter, he submits that it clearly provides that where prior to 01.09.2015 declaration of acquisition under the Act of 1957 has been published, determination of compensation has been made under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1957, irrespective of the fact that possession of the land has been taken or not, the compensation determined cannot be reopened. In the case at hand, compensation is determined on 2.8.2014 and therefore, in view of the clarificatory letter issued by the Central Government dated 4.8.2017 (Annexure R-14), the compensation already determined cannot be reopened. 8. He next contended that compensation was paid on18.8.2015 whereas some provisions of the Act of 2013 are made applicable to the enactments by the Fourth Schedule w.e.f. 1.9.2015. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner with respect to Section 26 of the Act of 2013, which deals with the land only whereas the amount of compensation for the land was determined on 2.8.2014 i.e. prior to 01.09.2015. Section 14 of the Act of 1957 talks of method of determination of compensation. Sub-section (5) of Section 14 provides that if there is any dispute on the determination of the amount of compensation then it is to be decided by part-time Tribunal 10 and it cannot be decided in writ petition and therefore, grievance of the petitioner with regard to quantum of compensation for the house can be considered and decided by the Tribunal in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the Act of1957. He submits that there is no dispute that the amount of compensation with respect to the house is computed in terms of Section 29 of the Act of 2013. Petitioner had accepted the amount of compensation and thereafter he will not be permitted to challenge the award already finalized. 9. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner that after making applicable the provisions of the Act of 2013 to the land acquisition proceedings to the Act of 1957, the officials of respondent SECL were not competent to determine the compensation, is not correct. Referring to letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Coal dated 28.6.2019, he submits that it has been clarified that competent authority for determination of the compensation of land and rehabilitation and resettlement shall be as already notified under Section 3 of the Act of 1957. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent SECL would submit that petitioner has deliberately not pleaded and mentioned that petitioner has received compensation. They further submitted that Section 24 of the Act of 2013 envisages that lapsing of the proceeding after coming into force of the 11 Act of 2013, is not applicable to the cases of land acquisition under the Act of 1957 as it talks of specific Act i.e. Land Acquisition Act 1894. They also referred to the provision under Section 105 (1) of the Act of 2013 and submit that subject of sub-section (3), the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall not apply to the Act of 1957 in cases of land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. 11. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no specific mention of determining the compensation for land and thereafter house and therefore on the date of coming into force of the Act of 2013, the proceeding of determination of compensation was not completed. Hence, the proceeding of acquisition and award of compensation would stand lapse in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. He also contended that according to the First Schedule, the procedure of determination of compensation is specified and applicability of multiplication factor. Land and house of petitioner are situated in rural area, therefore, appropriate multiplier would be ‘2’ as notified on 9.2.2016. 12. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Company would submit that according to manner of determination of value provided under the First Schedule at Sr. No.6 in connection with final award in rural areas, market value of land mentioned against serial number 1 multiplied by 12 the factor specified against serial number 2, plus value of assets attached to land or building. Thus, it is apparent that multiplication is to be applied for determining the compensation with respect to land only. 13. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 14. Undisputed facts are that the Central Government has initiated the land acquisition proceeding by issuing notification under Section 4, 7 and 9 of the Act of 1957 for acquisition of land as mentioned therein in the year 2009 from time to time. Notification under Section 11 (1) was issued on 21.01.2011. It is also not in dispute that compensation with regard to land was determined by the competent authority on 2.8.2014. Though the Act of 2013 was promulgated on 26.9.2013 but it came into force w.e.f. 01.10.2014. However, the Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, resettlement and rehabilitation in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule has been made applicable to the land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013 only with effect from 01.09.2015 by the order issued in the name and style of ‘the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal 13 of Difficulties) Order, 2015. On the date of determination of amount of compensation with regard to land, the Act of 2013 was not applicable to the land acquisition under the Act of 1957, which is forming part of the Fourth Schedule. 15. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner referring to First Schedule of the Act of 2013 that determination of compensation has to be made by applying multiplier of ‘2’ and thereby the compensation which is to be awarded to the petitioner would have increased by four times, is concerned, the Act of 2013 was promulgated on 26.9.2013 and came into force with effect from 1.1.2014. In case at hand, land acquisition proceeding was started in the year 2004 by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1957 and thereafter Notification under Section 7 was issued on 17.2.2004 showing intention to acquire 491.463 hectare land including the lands situated in village Bhathora. 16. Indisputably, the Competent Authority determined the amount of compensation on 2.8.2014 and amount so determined by the Competent Authority was got sanctioned from the Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide letter dated 01.12.2014 (Annexure R-17). In the sanction order dated 17.11.2014, Annexure R-18, in note appended thereto, it has been clarified that the payment of solatium for houses, trees, wells etc. is to be paid as per guidelines issued vide letter 14 dated 10.08.2013. In writ petition, petitioner has not specifically pleaded as to whether the amount of compensation has been accepted or not, but the SECL in its reply has clearly pleaded that compensation amount with regard to land including the land over which superstructure was constructed was accepted. In Para-17 of the reply it is also pleaded that petitioner’s compensation for house and other attached assets was determined as Rs.67,46,439.10 paise, out of which 50% amount was paid to the petitioner earlier as advance on her specific request and consent but subsequently mistake in determining the amount of compensation of few persons was revealed and therefore the compensation to be paid was redetermined and corrected. 17. On the date of determination of the amount of compensation admittedly the Act of 2013 was not made applicable to the land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1957. The Act of 2013 was made applicable for determining the amount of compensation by issuing a notification/order w.e.f. 28.8.2015 to the enactments forming part of the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013 which also includes the Act of 1957. From the aforementioned facts and events it is apparent that on the date of determination of amount of compensation, the Act of 2013 was not made applicable for determining the amount of compensation of the land subject matter of acquisition under 15 the Act of 1957. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that amount of compensation ought to have been computed/determined by the Competent Authority applying multiplier of ‘2’ as provided under the First Schedule of the Act of 013 is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled being contrary to the gazette notification published on 28.8.2015 (Annexure R-19) 18. Application of multiplier is forming part of the First Schedule under the Act of 2013. Head of the First Schedule is ‘Compensation for land owners’. Sr. No.1 relates to market value of the land to be determined as provided under Section 26. Thereafter, Sr. No.2 and 3 relate to factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas and the urban areas. When Sr. No.1 to 3 of the First Schedule is read together, it will be apt clear that the factor of multiplier is to be used for determining total compensation of the land as multiplier factor is to be applied to the market value of the land as per provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 2013. Sub- section (2) of Section 26 envisages that “market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. Therefore also it is clear that the word ‘market value’ as mentioned in Section 26 is to be calculated after applying multiplying factor as specified in the First Schedule and not for any other assets 16 attached to the land because Section 26 talks of land only. Sr. No.4 of the First Schedule provides for value of the assets attached to land or building and under First Schedule the manner of determination of value is mentioned as “to be determined as provided under Section 29”. Under Section 29 there is no provision of factor by which market value of the building is to be multiplied. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 clearly mentions that the Collector in determining market value of building and other immovable properties or assets attached to the land or building which are to be acquired, use the services of a competent engineer or any other specialist in the relevant field, as may be considered necessary by him. It is not the case of petitioner herein that the procedure as provided under Section 29 of the Act of 2013 for determining the market value of the building is not followed. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the determination of the compensation of land then petitioner is having specific efficacious alternate remedy of raising dispute before the Part Time Tribunal, which shall decide the dispute in terms of sub- section (5) of Section 14 of the Act of 1957. 19. So far as another ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner referring to provision under Section 30 (3) of the Act of 2013 that petitioner is entitled for additional 12% per annum of the market value is concerned, bare perusal of 17 provision of Section 30 would show that it provides for award of solatium. It is case of the petitioner that as 100% solatium has been awarded for computing the amount of compensation towards the superstructure which shows that respondents have determined the amount of compensation in accordance with provisions under the Act of 2013 and therefore, while determining the amount of compensation towards further 12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study, ought to have been computed. Said submission of learned counsel for petitioner is contrary to the provisions of law applicable to the case in hand. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act of 2013 deals with market value of the land provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013, which talks of determination of market value of land. It does not deal with determination of the value of superstructure. Section 29 of the Act of 2013 deals with determination of the amount of compensation of value of the things attached to the land and building. As there are two different provisions for computing /determining the amount of compensation, one of land and another of building, and therefore, unless and until the provisions for determining the value of the building is also included under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act of 2013, it cannot be read into. The 18 Legislature has made applicable provision of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act of 2013 to the lands provided under Section 26, with some specific purpose and therefore, it has to be applied to that provisions only which has been specifically mentioned. In the aforementioned facts of the case, second submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to additional 12% per annum in terms of Section 30 (3) of the Act of 2013 is also not sustainable and is repelled. 20. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner that amount of compensation is determined by the officials of the SECL for whom the land is acquired and not by the Collector, and therefore, the entire exercise of determining of the amount of compensation with regard to the superstructure is illegal and without authority of law is concerned, respondent SECL in its reply has annexed copy of Notification dated 12.5.1999 as Annexure R-21 which prescribes the authorities for determination of compensation under sub-section (1) to (7) of Section 13 of the Act of 1957. In this Notification, the Managing Director, Directors, Chief General Managers, General Managers of different coal fields have been prescribed. Sr. No.7 of the Schedule under the Notification dated 12.5.1999 deals with SECL i.e. respondent, and the authority for determination of compensation is notified as 19 mentioned above. Further, the Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide letter dated 10.7.2019, addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited had issued clarification on applicability of the First, Second and Third Schedule of the Act of 2013 in case of land acquisition under the Act of 1957. Relevant portion of which is extracted below:- “ (2) It has been decided that in partial suppression of clarification issued in Para D of Ministry of Coal’s letter No.43020/25/15-LA&IR dated 30th March, 2018 and in supersession of Ministry of Coal’s letter No. No.43020/25/15-LA&IR dated 25.06.2018, it is further clarified that the competent authority for determination of land compensation and R&R benefits shall be as already notified under Section 3 of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.” 21. For determining the compensation, the authority has already been notified under Section 3 of the Act of 1957, which has been further specified by the Government of India, and therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the authority determining the amount of compensation is only the Collector as prescribed under the Act of 2013 is also not sustainable and accordingly it is hereby repelled. 20 22. As far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same are of no help to the petitioner being not applicable to the facts of present case. 23. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court does not find any merit in both the writ petitions, the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-