MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. versus MATHIAS ORAM & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 19-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 750 
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
MATHIAS ORAM & ORS. 
(SLP (Civil) No. 6933 of 2007) 
JULY 19, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition: 
c 
Acquisition of land in tribal areas - Resolving of socio-
economic issues - Need for - Explained - HELD: 
In the 
instant case, the lands were taken in acquisition as far back 
as in the year 1987, but the land-owners were never paid any 
compensation for their lands - After more than 20 years of 
0 acquisition, . de notification of lands proposed - It has been 
stated that even no steps were taken for determining the 
market value of the lands - At the instance of the Court, the 
Solicitor General of India framed a scheme through which the 
whole matter could be resolved and compensation be paid 
E not only to writ petitioners-respondents but to all those whose 
lands were acquired - The scheme stated to have been 
agreed to by the Central Government and the company for 
which the lands were acquired -
Counsel for the writ 
petitioners-respondents has given his express consent to the 
Scheme - The scheme approved by the Court with certain 
F clarifications and modifications as stated in the order - Coal 
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 - ss. 
4(1 ), 7, 9, 11 and 13 - Mines and Mineral (Development & 
Regulation) Act, 1957 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Forest 
G 
H 
Conservation Act, 1980 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Grss Domestic Product' and 'Human Development Index' 
in Indian context-Need to maintain a balance-Discussed. 
750 
MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. & ANR. v. MATHIAS 751 
ORAM & ORS. 
Constituent Assembly debate dated 25. 11. 1949-
A 
referred to. 
Human Development Report 2009 (published by 
UNDP)-referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CIVIL) No. 
B 
6933 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2006 of the High 
Court of Orissa in W.P. (C) No. 11463 of 2003. 
c 
Mahabeer Singh, Aishwarya Bhati, Rashid Khan, Karan 
Singh Bhati for the Petitioners. 
Gopal Subramanium, Sol. General, Balaji Subramanian, 
J.R. Das, S. Mishra, P.P. Nayak for the Respondents. 
D 
The order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
AFT AB ALAM,J. 1. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly . 
on November 25, 1949 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect 
E 
of the Constitution of India made one of the most incisive 
remarks on it: 
"On the 26th of January 1950, India would be a democratic 
country in the sense that India from that day would have a 
F 
government of the people, by the people and for the 
people. The same thought comes to my mind.'What would 
happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she· be able 
to maintain it or will she lose it again? This is the second 
thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious 
G 
as the first. .. 
... On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into 
a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and 
in social and economic life we will have inequality. In 
politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic 
life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic 
structure, continue to deny the" principle of one man one 
value. How long shall we continue to live this life of 
contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality 
B 
in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it 
for long, we will do so only by putting our political 
democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at 
the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from 
inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy 
c 
which this Assembly has so laboriously built up." 
What would have been Dr. Ambedkar's reaction to the 
facts of this case? This is one of the thoughts in our mind 
while dealing with the case. 
D 
2. Since independence India has indeed covered a long 
way on the path of development and economic growth. It 
continues to take long strides on that path. But how far have 
we been able to live down the fears expressed by Dr. 
Ambedkar about our democratic Constitution? How far have 
E we been able to get rid of the contradictions ;n our life? This 
case raises these difficult questions. 
F 
3. We are anxious that India should develop and grow fast 
and become strong to take its rightful place in the comity of 
nations. 
4. Development is reckoned in terms of investments in 
urban inf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.