Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/23 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 27 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/23
GAHC010013632016
2026:GAU-AS:4458
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2408/2016
NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS
COAL INDIA LTD., MARGHERITA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REP. BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM
DEPTT. OF REVENUE ETC.
DISPUR
GHY-6
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
4:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
MARGHERITA SUB-DIVISION
MARGHERITA
ASSAM
6:THE SUB DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
MARGHERITA
ASSAM
7:LEDO SONALI GAON PATHAR PARICHALANA SAMITY
Page No.# 2/23
REP. BY MAHARLAL BANIA
SECY.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ROD GAON
P.O. LEDO
P.S. MARGHERITA
DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A M DUTTA, MR.M Z AHMED,MR.S K SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B BARUAH, MR S GAUTAM (r-7),MS N BEGUM (r-7),MR K
K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate) (r-7),,GA, ASSAM
Linked Case : WP(C)/7173/2015
LEDO SONALIGAON PATHAR PARICHALANA SAMITY
A UNIT AFFILIATED TO SODOU ASSAM PATHAR PARICHALANA SAMITY
REGISTERED SOCIETY NO. 145/2./55 DATED 13.3.2002 HIVING ITS OFFICE AT
LEDO
P.S. MARGHERITA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS SECY. SRI MAHARIAL BANIA
RODGAON
LEDO
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786125.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
COAL INDIA and MINING DEPTT.
NEW DELHI.-01.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REENUE DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
3:THE COAL INDIA LTD.
Page No.# 3/23
A GOVT. COMPANY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE COAL NINES
NATIONALIZATION ACT
1973 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD
KOLKATA-01.
4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
NORTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS
P.O. MARGHERITA
P.S. MARGHERITA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. 786125.
5:THE GEN. MANAGER
NORTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS
P.O. MARGHERITA
P.S. MARGHERITA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. 786125.
6:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786125.
------------
Advocate for : MR.P SHARMA
Advocate for : GA
ASSAM appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Date on which judgment is reserved : 19.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative of the judgment? : No
Page No.# 4/23Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : YesJUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M. Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. M.
Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2408/2016 and
respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in WP(C) No. 7173/2015. Also heard Mr. K. K.
Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel for
the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7173/2015 and respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No.
2408/2016 as well as Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government
Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The present two writ petitions stem from a long-standing dispute relating
to the claim of compensation for damage/degradation of land caused by open
cast coal mining operations undertaken by the North Eastern Coalfields, Coal
India Limited, in the Ledo area of Margherita Sub-Division, Assam, (herein after
referred to as petitioner-company), the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2408/2016
herein.
3. Having considered that issues involved in both these writ petitions are
connected and similar on facts and law, same were heard analogously and
disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. By filing WP(C) No. 2408/2016, the petitioner, North Eastern Coalfields,
Coal India Limited, has challenged the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.06.2015,
whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,98,31,308/-
Page No.# 5/23
(Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight)
only to the members of the respondent No. 7. In the connected WP(C) No.
7173/2015, the petitioner, Ledo Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity, has
sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the
compensation payable to its members in terms of the order dated 07.08.2008
passed by the Additional District Magistrate, whereby the compensation amount
of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand
three hundred eight) only was assessed and the respondent company was
directed to pay the said amount, as well as in terms of the Minutes of Meeting
dated 05.06.2015.
5. It is the case of the petitioner-Company in WP(C) No. 2408/2016 that
consequent upon its mining operations in the Ledo area of Margherita Sub-
Division, compensation was assessed by the Revenue Authorities and paid to
the affected villagers during the period 1993 to 1995 as full and final settlement,
upon execution of agreements by the beneficiaries, including members of the
respondent No. 7, Ledo Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity (herein after
referred to as ‘petitioner Samity’), with an undertaking not to raise any further
claims in the future. However, despite such settlement, the respondent No.
7/petitioner Samity, continued to agitate the issue by instituting multiple
proceedings, including PIL No. 25/2001 and AHC Case No. 3605/2001, which
were closed by this Court and the Assam Human Rights Commission, upon
satisfaction of the authorities regarding payment of compensation and remedial
measures undertaken.
6. Subsequently, the petitioner Samity approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No. 4056/2003, which was disposed of by order dated 16.11.2006 directing the
Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to assess the damages and determine the
Page No.# 6/23
compensation payable. The said order dated 16.11.2006 was challenged by the
petitioner-Company by filing WA No. 58/2008. By order dated 09.05.2008, the
Division Bench of this Court directed that a fresh assessment be undertaken
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company. Thereafter,
by order dated 07.08.2008, the Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia assessed
the compensation at Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh
thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only and directed the petitioner-
Company to make payment, though such assessment was made without
conducting any physical joint verification. The said assessment led to further
round of litigation, wherein the petitioner-Company challenged the same by
filing WP(C) No. 4807/2008, while the petitioner-Samity sought enforcement
and for payment of the said amount by filing WP(C) No. 110/2009. Both the writ
petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common Judgment and Order
dated 02.09.2014, whereby the assessment was set aside and the matter was
remanded for a fresh exercise with participation of both the parties. The said
Judgment and Order was upheld by the Division Bench in WA No. 340/2015 and
WA No. 341/2015, vide order dated 02.03.2015, with a direction for joint field
verification and fresh determination.
7. Pursuant thereto, a joint field verification was conducted on 22.05.2015
and 23.05.2015 in presence of all concerned parties, including the District
Authorities, wherein it was observed that fresh assessment of damage for the
period from 1989 to 2006 was not possible at that stage, particularly as mining
operations had ceased in the year 2006. However, in a subsequent meeting held
on 05.06.2015 in the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, it
was resolved that the previously assessed amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees
two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only would
Page No.# 7/23
be payable to the affected persons. Aggrieved by the said resolution recorded in
the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.06.2015, the petitioner Company has filed the
present WP(C) No. 2408/2016 challenging the same as being arbitrary and
contrary to the earlier directions of this Court.
8. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner samity in WP(C) No.
7173/2015, is that their lands have been permanently damaged/degraded due
to the open cast coal mining operations by the petitioner company, rendering
the same unfit for cultivation and livelihood. According to them, despite
repeated representations and earlier rounds of litigation, the compensation
assessed by the competent authority has not been disbursed. Relying upon the
order dated 07.08.2008 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia, as
well as the Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.06.2015, wherein the earlier
assessed amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty
one thousand three hundred eight) only was reiterated, the petitioner samity by
this present petition seeks for a direction to the respondent authorities to
disburse the said compensation amount to the eligible members.
9. Mr. M. Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner company,
submits that the claim of the respondent No. 7/ petitioner Samity, is barred by
the principles of estoppel and waiver, inasmuch as the affected villagers,
including the members of the respondent No. 7/petitioner-Samity, had already
received compensation during the period 1993 to 1995 as full and final
settlement and had executed agreements with an undertaking not to raise any
further claims. Therefore, having accepted such compensation, the respondent
No. 7/petitioner-Samity, cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue. He
submits that the impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.06.2015 is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Page No.# 8/23
10. Mr. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the impugned decision is
in clear violation of the earlier judgments and orders passed by this Court,
particularly the orders dated 02.09.2014 and 02.03.2015, whereby the earlier
assessment was set aside and a fresh determination was directed to be carried
out after joint verification. He submits that when the joint verification itself
revealed that a fresh assessment was not feasible, the authorities could not
have mechanically revived the earlier assessed amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/-
(Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight)
only, which had already been set aside by this Court. He submits that the
impugned decision is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as the same has been arrived at without any cogent basis and despite
objection raised by the petitioner’s representative. The quantification of the
compensation itself lacks any rational basis, as the original ex parte assessment
was substantially affirmed without any justification, thereby rendering the entire
exercise arbitrary.
11. Mr. Ahmed, learner Senior Counsel, submits that the claim is also barred
by the principles of res judicata, particularly- constructive res judicata, in view of
earlier proceedings, including PIL No. 25/2001 and AHC Case No. 3605/2001,
which were closed by this Court and Assam Human Rights Commission after
taking into account the compensation paid and remedial measures undertaken.
It is submitted that the petitioner has complied with all environmental norms
and undertaken adequate remedial measures, which have been overlooked by
the authorities. Therefore, he submits that the impugned Minutes of the
Meeting dated 05.06.2015, being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, may be
set aside and quashed.
12. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
Page No.# 9/23
samity, submits that the objection regarding maintainability is wholly
misconceived, inasmuch as no such plea was raised by the respondents in the
earlier rounds of litigation involving the same parties. He submits that the
present writ petition arises out of a continuous cause of action on account of
non-payment of compensation. With regard to the findings of the joint
verification, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Minutes of the Meeting
dated 05.06.2015 clearly recorded that, upon such verification, it was agreed by
all concerned that the earlier assessed amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/-(Rupees two
crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only would be
payable to the affected persons, as fresh assessment was not feasible.
Therefore, he submits that such determination, having been made pursuant to
the directions of this Court and with participation of the parties, cannot now be
reopened. He further submits that the respondents are estopped from
questioning the said determination, particularly when the order dated
09.05.2008, passed in W.A. No. 58/2008, has attained finality and any attempt
to resile from the said position amounts to abuse of the process of law.
13. In response to the contention that certain individuals have already been
compensated, Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel submits that the said aspect
had already been taken into consideration by the competent authority while
passing the order dated 07.08.2008. Thereafter, a comprehensive assessment
was carried out determining the compensation at Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two
crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only for the
period from 1989 to 2006, and therefore, the plea of prior payment cannot
absolve the respondents of their liability. Therefore, Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior
Counsel, prays that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to
disburse the assessed compensation amount to the eligible beneficiaries in
Page No.# 10/23
terms of the order dated 07.08.2008 as well as the Minutes of the Meeting
dated 05.06.2015.
14. Mr. K. K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions,
has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot & Ors.,
reported in (1974) 2 SCC 706; and
(ii) Puran Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in
(1996) 2 SCC 205
15. Mr. M. Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel, while rejoining his submissions,
reiterates that the writ petition of the petitioner Samity, is not maintainable
either in law or on facts as the petitioner Samity has failed to establish its locus
standi inasmuch as no particulars of the alleged beneficiaries, their land
holdings or the nature and extent of damage have been brought on record. In
the absence of such foundational facts, the claim made by the petitioner is
vague and incapable of adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
16. Refuting the submission of the petitioner Samity that the issue stands
concluded by the Minutes of the Meeting dated 05.06.2015, Mr. Ahmed, learned
Senior Counsel submits that in the said minutes, it is recorded that a fresh
assessment for the period from 1989 to 2006 was not feasible. Thus, in such
circumstances, any reliance on the earlier assessed amount is wholly arbitrary
and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation,
which had specifically mandated a fresh determination upon proper verification.
17. Reiterating his earlier submissions, Mr. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel,
submits that compensation had already been paid to certain affected persons,
who had accepted the same in full and final settlement, and the petitioner
Page No.# 11/23
Samity has failed to disclose the details of the alleged beneficiaries and
therefore, the present claim, which admittedly includes such persons, amounts
to seeking double compensation. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition
filed by the petitioner Samity is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
18. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel, has
relied on the following case laws:-
(i) Hemant Gupta Vs. Ramasubramanian, reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 334;
(ii) Advocates’ Association, Bangalore Vs. The District Registrar
and Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District & Ors.,
reported in 2006 Supreme(Kar) 343;
(iii) Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
reported in 1983 Supreme(All) 254;
(iv) Income Tax Contigent Employees Union, Income-Tax Office,
Jodhpur (Registered Association of Casual Labours of
Income-Tax, Rajasthan Region) & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors., passed in Civil Writ petition No. 16777/2019, decided on
13.01.2022;
(v) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Manju
Jain & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 157; and
(vi) Rabindra Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation,
Punjab & Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 663.
19. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the materials placed on record.
Page No.# 12/23
20. This case has its own chequered history. The coal bearing areas of Ledo
under Margherita Sub-Division of Tinsukia District, Assam, had vested in the
Coal Company under the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. After
nationalization of the mining areas and consequent upon mechanical open cast
mining operations undertaken by the North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India
Limited, petitioner company, in the Ledo area under Margherita Sub-Division,
led to degradation of the surrounding lands of local inhabitants due to pollution.
Affected by the impact of such mining activities, a Public Interest Litigation,
being PIL No. 25/2001, was instituted, which was subsequently closed by this
Court on having found the report of the Pollution Control Board positive.
Thereafter, claims of compensation for degradation of land through pollution
caused by open cast coal mining operations had arisen. It is the case of the
petitioner company, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited, that the
compensation was assessed by the Revenue Authorities and paid to the affected
villagers during the period 1993 to 1995 as full and final settlement, upon
execution of agreements by the beneficiaries, including members of the
respondent No. 7/ petitioner Samity. Proceedings, including PIL No. 25/2001
and AHC Case No. 3605/2001, were instituted and were subsequently disposed
of/closed by this Court and the Assam Human Rights Commission.
21. As noted herein above, the petitioner Samity approached this Court by
filing WP(C) No. 4056/2003, which was disposed of by an order dated
16.11.2006 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to assess the damages
and determine the compensation payable. Pursuant thereto, an assessment was
carried out. The order dated 16.11.2006 was challenged by the petitioner-
Page No.# 13/23
Company by filing WA No. 58/2008. By order dated 09.05.2008, the Division
Bench of this Court directed a fresh assessment after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner-Company. Thereafter, by an order dated 07.08.2008,
the Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia assessed the compensation at Rs.
2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three
hundred eight) only and directed the petitioner-Company to make payment.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Company challenged the said assessment before
this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4807/2008, while the petitioner-Samity sought
enforcement for payment of the said assessment by filing writ petition being
WP(C) No. 110/2009.
22. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common
Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2014, whereby the earlier assessment was set
aside and the matter was remitted back for a fresh exercise with participation of
both the parties. On appeal, the said Judgment and Order was upheld by the
Division Bench in WA No. 340/2015 and WA No. 341/2015 by an order dated
02.03.2015, with a direction to conduct joint field verification and to carry out a
fresh determination of compensation. Pursuant thereto, a joint field verification
was conducted on 22.05.2015 and 23.05.2015 in presence of both the parties
by the Authorities of District Administration, wherein it was observed that a
fresh assessment of damage for the period from 1989 to 2006 was not possible
at that stage, particularly as mining operations had ceased in the year 2006.
Thereafter, in the meeting held on 05.06.2015, it was resolved that the
previously assessed amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight
lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only would be payable to the
affected persons.
Page No.# 14/23
23. It is noticed that the lands of members of the petitioner-Samity have been
permanently degraded due to the open cast coal mining operations undertaken
by the petitioner-Company, rendering the same unfit for cultivation and
livelihood. The affected people and the petitioner-Samity had submitted several
representations and instituted several rounds of litigation; however, the issue of
compensation could not be materialized until the Meeting dated 05.06.2015,
wherein the earlier assessed amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore
ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only is decided to be
paid to the affected persons including the members of the petitioner- Samity. It
is reflected that joint field verification was conducted on 22.05.2015 and
23.05.2015; however, no fresh assessment of damage/degradation for the
period from 1989 to 2006 could be carried out as on date and no further
damage/degradation had further taken place after 2006.
24. This Court, in WP(C) No. 4056/2003, filed by some of the members of the
petitioner-Samity claiming for assessment of adequate compensation for
damages caused due to the operation of open cast mining in Ledo area, by an
order dated 16.11.2006, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to verify
the claims of the writ petitioners on the basis of the materials available and to
make an enquiry for assessment and also to calculate the compensation payable
to the members of the petitioners-Samity. Against the said order, the petitioner-
Company preferred an appeal, being WA No. 58/2008.
25. Vide order dated 09.05.2008, the writ appeal was disposed of without
interfering with the aforesaid order. The Division Bench observed that the
Page No.# 15/23
question as to whether compensation had been paid to all the ryots who
suffered damage caused by the petitioner- Company could not be determined
on the basis of the limited materials available on record. Apart from the fact that
assuming in the year 1995, some of the victims were paid compensation for
whatever damage found after examination under the head degradation, it need
not necessarily mean that the number of the ryots who suffer a damage
remains static for all time to come. It all depends on various factors like the
mining activity carried on by the petitioner-Company and various other factors.
The Division Bench also took note of the fact that the damage caused by the
pollution created by the petitioner-Company is a continued damage as it would
affect the crops round the area each year. Therefore, the payment of
compensation in one year would not absolve the petitioner-Company of its
liability to compensate the ryots who continued to suffer damage on account of
such activities.
26. In compliance of the order dated 09.05.2008, passed in WA No. 58/2008,
the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Tinsukia carried out a final
assessment as per prevailing Government notified Zirat rates before 1998.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh
thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only was assessed for damage of
crops caused by pollution arising from the mining activities of the petitioner-
Company for the period from 1989 to 2006, payable to the members of the
petitioner- Samity, vide order dated 07.08.2008, with a direction to the
petitioner-company to make payment. Against the said assessment, the
petitioner-Company filed WP(C) No. 4807/2008, which was disposed of on
02.09.2014, with a direction to carry out fresh exercise for determination of
Page No.# 16/23
compensation with the participation of both the contesting parties through a
participatory exercise, wherein the petitioner-Company was allowed to make
their projections. Against the said order dated 02.09.2014, the petitioner-Samity
preferred an appeal, being WA No. 341/2014, which was disposed of on
02.03.2015 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge and directed that
after spot inspection in the presence of both the parties, compensation be
determined afresh.
27. Pursuant thereto, a joint verification was carried out on 22.05.2015 and
23.05.2015 in the presence of the parties. Thereafter, vide minutes of the
meeting dated 05.06.2015, it was recorded that a fresh assessment for
damage/degradation for the period from 1989 to 2006 could not be undertaken
at that relevant stage and no further degradation or damage had occurred after
the year 2006. Accordingly, it was resolved that the earlier assessed amount of
Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three
hundred eight) only would be payable to the members of the petitioner-Samity.
It was, however, also recorded that the representatives of the petitioner-
Company (Coal India Management) did not agree to the proposal for payment
of the said amount as the assessment had not been carried out through a joint
exercise and compensation had already been paid during the period from 1993
to 1995.
28. On consideration, this Court is in full agreement with authorities in the
District Administration that it would not be possible to undertake a fresh
assessment of damage/degradation caused by pollution in the year 2015 for the
period of 1989 to 2006. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/-(Rupees two
Page No.# 17/23
crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand three hundred eight) only, which has
been assessed earlier, was arrived at after an exercise undertaken pursuant to
the directions of this Court, followed by verification/ reassessment proceedings,
though was subsequently, interfered with by this court. It appears from the
records that the joint field verification was conducted on 22.05.2015 and
23.05.2015 in the presence of both the parties consequent to which a meeting
dated 05.06.2015 was conducted in the presence of the representatives of the
petitioner-Company, who although have not agreed to the decision for payment
of the amount of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty
one thousand three hundred eight) only on the ground that the assessment has
not been prepared jointly and the compensation had already been paid during
the period from 1993 to 1995. Obviously, no fresh assessment of
damage/degradation for the period from 1989 to 2006 could have been
undertaken in the year 2015 as considerable time had elapsed by that time and
the damage/degradation through pollution taken place back then in the year
1989 to 2006 as the same would not have been possible at all. As the Division
bench of this court has directed for spot verification in the presence of both the
parties and the compensation be determined afresh, a joint field verification
has, in fact, carried out, however in view of impossibility due to lapse of many
years, assessment could not be made.
29. The objection of the petitioner-Company is only to the extent that the
assessment was not carried out through joint process and the compensation
had already been paid during the period from 1993 to 1995. However, these
aspects had already been taken note of by this Court in the earlier rounds of
litigation, wherein it was clearly indicated that payment of compensation for
Page No.# 18/23
degradation through pollution for one year would not be sufficient. Pursuant to
the direction of this court, a joint field verification was conducted on 22.05.2015
and 23.05.2015 in the presence of both the parties. However, it was found that
a fresh assessment of damage/ degradation caused by pollution over a
prolonged period of more than a decade is no longer possible. In such
circumstances and considering the fact that the lands of the members of the
petitioner-Samity have suffered degradation due to the mechanical open cast
mining operations of the petitioner-Company, this Court is of the opinion that it
would be appropriate to direct payment of the compensation to the affected
persons, including the members of the petitioner-Samity.
30. Now, this Court would refer and consider scope of the case laws relied on
by the learned counsel for the parties.
31. In the case of Hemant Gupta (supra), the Waqf Tribunal has held that
plaintiff to be a legal entity, entitle to sue and be sued on the ground that the
plaintiff No. 1 was one of the units affiliated to a registered society by name
Kerala Naduvathil Mujahideen. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“15. The aforesaid finding is completely contrary to law. A society registered under the
Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its byelaws.
The byelaws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to
institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society. Under section 6 of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, “every society registered under the Act may sue or be
sued in the name of President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall
be determined by the rules and regulations of the society and, in default of such
determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing
body for the occasion”. Even the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable
Societies Registration Act, 1955, which is applicable to parts of Kerala carries a similar
Page No.# 19/23provision in section 9. Therefore, unless the plaintiff in a suit which claims to be a
society, demonstrates that it is a registered entity and that the person who signed and
verified the pleadings was authorised by the byelaws to do so, the suit cannot be
entertained. The fact that the plaintiff in a suit happens to be a local unit or a Sakha
unit of a registered society is of no consequence, unless the byelaws support the
institution of such a suit.”
32. The case of Advocates’ Association, Bangalore Vs. The District
Registrar and Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District (supra)
pertains to a society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act,
wherein it has been held that society registered under Societies Registration Act
is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that
context, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held, which is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“15. Section 15 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act provides that every society
registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of the President, Chairman,
or Principal Secretary or the trustee as shall be determined by the Rules and
Regulations of the society. It clearly enables a registered society to determine by rules
and regulations in whose name the society may sue or be sued. The Rules and
Regulations may determine whether the society may sue or be sued in the name of
the President, Chairman, Principal Secretary or Trustee. Where the Rules and
Regulations do not so determines, it enables the Governing Council of the
society/association to appoint a person for the said purpose. In the absence of any
such resolution by the association enabling the Secretary to initiate proceeding, I am
of the considered view that the present writ petition filed by the Secretary
representing the association is not maintainable.”
33. The case of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (supra) is
relied by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner-Company to project that pure
question of law can be raised at any time of the proceedings, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Page No.# 20/23
“26. Respondent 1 raised the plea of non-receipt of the letter of allotment first time
before the High Court. Even if it is assumed that it is correct, the question does arise
as to whether such a new plea on facts could be agitated before the writ court. It is
settled legal proposition that pure question of law can be raised at any time of the
proceedings but a question of fact which requires investigation and inquiry, and for
which no factual foundation has been laid by a party before the court or tribunal
below, cannot be allowed to be agitated in the writ petition. If the writ court for some
compelling circumstances desires to entertain a new factual plea the court must give
due opportunity to the opposite party to controvert the same and adduce the evidence
to substantiate its pleadings. Thus, it is not permissible for the High Court to consider
a new case on facts or mixed question of fact and law which was not the case of the
parties before the court or tribunal below. [Vide State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta¹¹,
Ram Kumar Agarwal v. Thawar Das18, Vasantha Viswanathan v. V.K. Elayalwar19,
Anup Kumar Kundu v. Sudip Charan Chakraborty, Tirupati Jute Industries (P) Ltd. v.
State of W.B.21 and Sanghvi Reconditioners (P) Ltd. v. Union of India22.]”
34. On consideration of the aforesaid authorities, this Court is of the view
that the law laid down therein are well settled principles which would not be
applied in the facts of the present case. Other authorities relied on by the
parties, in my view, requires no consideration in the facts and circumstances of
the present case as the same are not relevant.
35. Regard being had to the maintainability of the writ petition as raised by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Company, the petitioner-Samity,
though an unregistered body, is represented by its Secretary on behalf of its
members, who are admittedly affected by the open cast mining operations
undertaken by the petitioner-Company, the materials on record clearly indicate
that the lands of the members of the petitioner-Samity have suffered
damage/degradation due to pollution arising from such mining activities. It is
settled proposition of law that when the technical considerations and the
substantial justice are pitted against each other, substantial justice is to be
preferred. In the present case, it is not disputed that the lands of the members
of the petitioner-Samity have been damaged/degraded through the pollution
Page No.# 21/23
due to open cast mining operations by the petitioner-Company, for which the
petitioner-Company is liable to compensate for the damages/ degradations
caused to the members of the petitioner-Samity. Thus, on mere technicality, the
members of the petitioner- samity cannot be told to stop at the gate.
36. Regard being also had to the submission of Mr. Ahmed, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner-Company, that the claim of the petitioner-Samity is
barred by principle of estoppel and waiver on the ground that the members of
the petitioner-Samity had already received compensation during the period 1993
to 1995 as full and final settlement and executed the agreements and
undertakings not to raise any further claims, the petitioner-Company having
been failed to brought on record as regards the final payment for compensation,
coupled with the observation of the Division Bench of this Court, in the earlier
round of litigation, that it is not necessarily mean that the number of the
affected persons who have suffered damage remains static for all time to come
and the damage caused by pollution from mining operations is of a continuing
nature and payment of compensation at one point of time would not absolve
the liability of the petitioner-Company in respect of continuing damage, this
Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner-Samity cannot be said to be
barred by principle of estoppel and waiver.
37. So far as the submissions of Mr. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner-Company, that the claim of the petitioner is barred by principle of res
judicata in view of the earlier proceedings, including the PIL No. 25/2001 and
AHC Case No. 3605/2001, same is considered for rejection inasmuch as the said
PIL and AHC Case were in respect of the degradation of land of the petitioner-
Samity without there being any adequate remedial measures and there was no
final and conclusive adjudication on the issue of compensation payable to all
Page No.# 22/23
affected persons for the entire period of damage, i.e., from 1989 to 2006, and
the claim of the petitioner is for payment of compensation for such degradation
and pollution of their land and this Court in the earlier round of litigation, while
keeping the issue of payment of compensation open, directed for joint field
verification in the presence of the parties and in fact a joint field verification was
also carried out except that due to lapse of time, the exact quantification could
not be made. It is well settled that for application of the principle of res
judicata, the matter must have been directly and substantially in issue and
finally decided between the parties, which is not the case herein. Further, having
regard to the nature of the claim arising out of continuing damage caused by
mining activities, the cause of action cannot be said to have been finally
extinguished. Thus, the plea of res judicata stands rejected.
38. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the affected persons, including the members of the
petitioner-Ledo Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity, are entitled to
compensation for the damages/degradation caused to their lands due to
pollution arising from open cast mining operations undertaken by the petitioner-
Company, namely, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal India Limited. However, this
Court is also conscious of the fact that the earlier assessment of compensation
at Rs. 2,98,31,308/- (Rupees two crore ninety eight lakh thirty one thousand
three hundred eight) only was set aside in the earlier round of litigation on
account of lack of proper verification. Further, the joint field verification
conducted in the year 2015 has clearly indicated the impossibility of undertaking
a fresh and accurate assessment for the period from 1989 to 2006 due to efflux
of time and cessation of mining activities. In such circumstances, although the
entitlement of the affected persons to compensation stands established, the
Page No.# 23/23
exact quantification of damages cannot now be determined and assessed.
Therefore, in order to balance the equities between the parties and to ensure
that the affected persons are not deprived, this Court deems it appropriate to
award a lump sum compensation amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one
crore fifty lakh) only.
39. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner, North Eastern Coalfields, Coal
India Limited, shall pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one
crore fifty lakh) only to the affected persons, including the members of the
petitioner-Samity, as lump sum compensation within a period of 60 (sixty) days
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.
40. In the result, WP(C) No. 2408/2016 filed by North Eastern Coalfields, Coal
India Limited stands dismissed, and WP(C) No. 7173/2015 filed by the Ledo
Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity stands allowed in the above terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant