- (1.) HEARD Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Sheela Prasad tearned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by Order dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure -6) by which the petitioners have been informed that their claim for compensation for acquisition of 24.27 Acres of land cannot be allowed, because it was found that the Central Coalfields Limited would not require the lands in future. The admitted case of the parties is that by a Notification dated 31.3.1983 issued under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the aforementioned lands of the petitioners mentioned in the impugned communication dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure -6) was acquired by the Government - According to the petitioner, these lands were their Raiyati lands and since the acquisition was made under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition of Development) Act, 1957 as is apparent from the Notification itself contained in Annexure -1, they automatically became entitled to compensation which was to be paid to them strictly in terms of Section 13 of the aforementioned Act. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the ' Notification having been issued strictly in terms of the aforementioned Act and the relevant provisions there under, the respondents were bound to pay compensation to them. However, notwithstanding the fact that the respondents did initiate steps for payment of compensation, yet no compensation was paid rendering their right to receive compensation futile. Representations after representations were filed and instead of doing the needful by compensating the petitioners for the acquisition, the respondents ultimately have come out with the impugned communication dated 17.1.2002 whereby and whereunder it has been communicated to the petitioners that since the Central Coalfields Limited would not require the lands in future, therefore compensation cannot be paid to them at this stage.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mrs. Sheela Prasad, the respondents do not deny the payment of compensation. She refers to paragraph 11 of the Counter Affidavit and states that the petitioner will be paid interest as per law for delayed payment provided the lands are not denotified. At paragraph 14 of the Counter Affidavit it has further been stated that inspite of the Notification, the respondents are not debarred from taking necessary action for denotification of the land because the petitioners are still carrying out cultivation work thereon and they are not economically weak. She placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in "WP(C) No. 4149 of 2002" delivered on 31.7.2003. In that case, the lands were acquired in the year 1985 under , the provisions of the same Act and similar to the facts of this case, the respondents later on came out with a stand that the lands were not found feasible and it was accordingly decided that the lands will have to be denotified and returned to the Raiyats.;