Tribunal’s dismissal set aside after court finds earlier acquisition records, prior compensation awards, and employment granted by CCL support the claimants’ case.
The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the dismissal of a land compensation claim arising out of coal-bearing area acquisition and restored the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration, after allowing additional evidence at the appellate stage.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi passed the order in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 664 of 2018 filed by the legal heirs of the original claimant, Bhuneshwari Devi and others, against the Union of India and Central Coalfields Limited (CCL). The appeal arose from a 2018 tribunal judgment that had rejected Reference Case No. 07 of 1998 under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
The claimants had asserted raiyati rights over land in Mouza Sewai, Ramgarh, comprising Plot Nos. 656, 1134 and 1216 under Khata No. 83, and contended that the land had been acquired in 1962 for the Rajrappa Project. They argued that despite the acquisition and continued use of the land by CCL, compensation had never been paid. They also relied on land records, receipts, and a declaration of raiyati recognition by the District Land Acquisition Officer in 1989.
A key issue before the tribunal had been the non-production of a return in Form ‘K’, on which basis the claim was rejected. Before the High Court, the appellants sought permission to place additional documents on record under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including the purcha and other related records. They argued that similar claims by other raiyats from the same khata and plot area had already been allowed on the basis of comparable documents.
The High Court accepted the request, observing that additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage when it is necessary to pronounce judgment or when substantial justice requires it. The court noted that other claimants relating to the same khata and plot numbers had already been granted compensation, and that the original claimant had also been provided employment by CCL, which further supported the claim that the land had indeed been acquired.
Counsel for CCL did not dispute that the land had been acquired, though the company argued that the claimants had failed to establish due diligence for producing the documents earlier. However, the court found that the circumstances justified admission of the additional material.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the tribunal’s judgment dated 29 September 2018 and restored the claim case to its original file. The tribunal has been directed to reconsider the matter afresh, taking into account the two documents admitted as additional evidence.
The court also directed both parties to appear before the tribunal on 29 September 2026 and urged early disposal of the long-pending dispute without unnecessary adjournments.
Bottom Line :
Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 20 of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - Additional evidence allowed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC - Tribunal's dismissal of claim case set aside and matter restored for reconsideration based on additional evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Section 20, Section 17(2), Section 4, Section 23(1A), Section 23(2), Section 28, Section 34, Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bhuneshwari Devi v. Union of India, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987117
