EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED versus ANADINATH BANERJEE (D) AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 23-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
509
EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
v.
ANADINATH BANERJEE (D) AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2887-2889 of 2021)
JULY 23, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Employment in lieu of the acquisition of
lands – After acquisition of the lands, a tripartite agreement was
arrived at, under which a person whose lands were acquired would
be entitled to employment by a company if the acquired land-holding
was at least 2 acres – Respondent claimed employment – The
certificate issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, inter alia,
specified that the land held by the respondent in his own name was
comprised in two plots, admeasuring 0.095 acres and admeasuring
0.205 acres, totalling 0.300 acres in his name – However, Collector’s
certificate contained a reference to the names of certain other
persons, including relatives of the respondent, who had executed
affidavits in favour of the respondent – After taking those affidavits
into consideration, the holding of the respondent was computed at
2.01 acres – The claim of respondent was rejected by the Personnel
Manager – Respondent filed writ petition, which was allowed by
the Single Judge of the High Court and affirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court – On appeal, held: There was no
documentary evidence to indicate that the respondent had title to
land in excess of two acres – No documentary material was
produced, not even revenue records – The holding of relatives and
others cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely
on the basis of self-serving affidavits which would not amount to a
conveyance of title – Such affidavits create no interest in the land
particularly when the persons who executed them do not fall within
the ambit of the phrase ‘family’ – An affidavit in favour of the
respondent does not transfer rights in the property – In this view of
the matter, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
were in error in directing the appellant to grant employment to the
respondent – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 509
509
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There is merit in the submission which has been
urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no documentary
evidence to indicate that the respondent had title to land in excess
of two acres. No documentary material was produced, not even
revenue records. The holding of relatives and others cannot be
included in the holding of the respondent merely on the basis of
self-serving affidavits which would not amount to a conveyance
of title. [Para 9][514-G-H]
2. The principle which can be deduced is that relatives who
are not dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family
unit for the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation. The
self-serving affidavits executed by the father, brother and
nephews of the respondent cannot be taken as the basis of
determining whether the holding of the respondent was in excess
of the threshold of two acres. Such affidavits create no interest in
the land particularly when the persons who executed them
do not fall within the ambit of the phrase ‘family’. [Para 12]
[515-G-H; 516-A-B]
3. The Single judge and the Division bench of the High
Court have proceeded on the basis that 2.01 acres of land was
acquired from the respondent relying on the certificate of the
Land Acquisition Collector and the view of the Personnel
Manager. However, as stated above, an affidavit in favour of the
respondent does not transfer rights in the property. The view of
the Personnel Manager is ex facie contrary to the tripartite
agreement, and the High Court ought not to have relied on it.
[Para 13][516-B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.2887-
2889 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2013 of the High Court
of Calcutta in APOT No.410 of 2013 arising out of W.P. No.1650 of
2008.
Kaustubh Shukla, Adv. for the Appellant.
Pratik R. Bombarde, Adv. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of
the High Court of Calcutta dated 9 September 2013, by which it affirmed
the judgment of a Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The issue is whether the respondent is entitled to employment
by the appellant in lieu of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.