LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person is entitled to employment based on land acquired, when the land holding is computed by including land of relatives.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Case Name: Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anadinath Banerjee
[Judgment Date]: 23 July 2021
Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 512
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M.R. Shah, J
Can a person claim employment under a rehabilitation scheme based on land acquired from their family members, or is it limited to land owned in their own name? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Court clarified that for employment eligibility under a land acquisition rehabilitation scheme, only the land owned by the individual claimant would be considered, not the land owned by relatives, unless they are dependents. This judgment interprets the scope of “family” in the context of land acquisition and rehabilitation.
Case Background
Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, proposed an expansion scheme for its Sonepur Bazari Open Cast Project in West Bengal. A tripartite agreement was reached between the company, landowners, and the state government. As per the agreement, a person whose land was acquired would be entitled to employment with ECL if the acquired land was at least 2 acres. Anadinath Banerjee, the respondent, claimed eligibility for employment under this scheme.
The Land Acquisition Collector issued a certificate on 14 January 1993, stating that Anadinath Banerjee owned 0.300 acres of land in his name. However, the certificate also mentioned that after considering affidavits from relatives, his total land holding was 2.01 acres. ECL rejected Banerjee’s claim, stating that the minimum requirement of 2 acres was not met by the land owned by him in his name.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1990 | Land acquired for Sonepur Bazari Open Cast Project. |
| 14 November 1990 | Meeting held to finalize list of land loser families for jobs/subsistence allowance. |
| 8 November 1991 | Rehabilitation list of thirty-seven eligible candidates prepared. |
| 14 January 1993 | Land Acquisition Collector issues certificate for Anadinath Banerjee’s land holding. |
| 14 October 1996 | Writ petition filed by Anadinath Banerjee seeking employment was disposed of by directing the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent. |
| 30 April 2013 | Single Judge of the High Court allowed Anadinath Banerjee’s claim. |
| 9 September 2013 | Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s order. |
| 23 July 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeals filed by Eastern Coalfields Limited. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, Anadinath Banerjee filed a writ petition which was disposed of by directing the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent. The Personnel Manager of ECL rejected Banerjee’s claim because his own land holding was less than 2.04 acres. Banerjee then filed another writ petition before the High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the claim, relying on the Land Acquisition Collector’s certificate and the Personnel Manager’s view that the land belonging to the respondent admeasuring about 2 acres was acquired for the purposes of the project. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. Eastern Coalfields Limited then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 617 of the erstwhile Companies Act 1956: Defined a government company.
- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The court referred to Section 16 and the second schedule of the Act, which refers to ‘affected families’ for the preparation of the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme. Section 3(m) defines ‘family’ as:
“(m) ―family includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him:
Provided that widows, divorcees and women deserted by families shall be considered separate families.
Explanation.—An adult of either gender with or without spouse or children or dependents shall be considered as a separate family for the purposes of this Act;” - Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952: Section 2(g) defines family.
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: Section 2(f) defines family.
Arguments
Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Eastern Coalfields Limited):
- The appellant argued that the respondent did not have title to land in excess of two acres.
- The land holding of relatives cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely on the basis of self-serving affidavits.
- The respondent was given sufficient opportunities to establish that his holding was in excess of 2 acres, but he failed to do so.
- The eligibility criteria for employment under the tripartite agreement required that the land acquired should be at least 2 acres and it should be owned by the claimant.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (Anadinath Banerjee):
- The respondent argued that the Land Acquisition Collector’s certificate showed that his total land holding was 2.01 acres, including land from relatives.
- The respondent relied on the order passed by the Personnel Manager, which, according to him, admitted that land belonging to the respondent admeasuring about 2 acres was acquired for the purposes of the project.
- The respondent claimed that the High Court was correct in holding that he was eligible for employment under the rehabilitation scheme.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Employment | Land holding should be at least 2 acres and owned by the claimant | Appellant |
| Eligibility for Employment | Land holding can include land from relatives | Respondent |
| Documentary Evidence | No documentary evidence to show the respondent had title to land in excess of two acres | Appellant |
| Documentary Evidence | Land Acquisition Collector’s certificate shows a total land holding of 2.01 acres | Respondent |
| Affidavits | Affidavits from relatives cannot be the basis of determining land holding | Appellant |
| Affidavits | Affidavits from relatives should be considered to determine land holding | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the respondent is entitled to employment by the appellant in lieu of the acquisition of lands, when the land holding is computed by including land of relatives.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the respondent is entitled to employment by the appellant in lieu of the acquisition of lands, when the land holding is computed by including land of relatives. | The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to employment because the land holding of relatives cannot be included to determine the eligibility for employment. Only the land owned by the individual claimant would be considered. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 617 of the erstwhile Companies Act 1956 | Parliament | Defined a government company. |
| The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Parliament | The court referred to Section 16 and the second schedule of the Act, which refers to ‘affected families’ for the preparation of the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme. Section 3(m) defines ‘family’. |
| Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 | Parliament | Section 2(g) defines family. |
| Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 | Parliament | Section 2(f) defines family. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The respondent did not have title to land in excess of two acres. | Accepted. The Court noted the respondent’s actual land holding was 0.300 acres. |
| The land holding of relatives cannot be included in the holding of the respondent merely on the basis of self-serving affidavits. | Accepted. The Court held that such affidavits do not transfer rights in property. |
| The respondent was given sufficient opportunities to establish that his holding was in excess of 2 acres, but he failed to do so. | Accepted. The Court noted the respondent did not produce any documentary evidence to support his claim. |
| The Land Acquisition Collector’s certificate showed that his total land holding was 2.01 acres, including land from relatives. | Rejected. The Court held that the certificate included land from relatives and not the respondent’s own land. |
| The order passed by the Personnel Manager admitted that land belonging to the respondent admeasuring about 2 acres was acquired for the purposes of the project. | Rejected. The Court held that the Personnel Manager’s view was contrary to the tripartite agreement. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court considered the definition of family under Section 3(m) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and noted that relatives who are not dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family unit for the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation.
- The Court also referred to the definition of ‘family’ under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to support the view that the term ‘family’ generally includes wife, children, and dependent family members.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that rehabilitation benefits should be based on the actual land ownership of the claimant, not on the land owned by relatives. The Court emphasized that self-serving affidavits from relatives do not transfer property rights and cannot be the basis for determining eligibility for employment under a rehabilitation scheme. The Court also noted that the Personnel Manager’s view was contrary to the tripartite agreement.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on actual land ownership | 40% |
| Rejection of self-serving affidavits | 30% |
| Adherence to the tripartite agreement | 20% |
| Failure to produce documentary evidence | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Tripartite Agreement: Employment if land acquired is at least 2 acres
Land Acquisition Collector’s Certificate: Respondent owns 0.300 acres + 1.71 acres through affidavits from relatives = 2.01 acres
Court: Affidavits do not transfer title, only land owned by the claimant can be considered
Court: Respondent does not meet the 2-acre requirement
Conclusion: Respondent not eligible for employment
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
- The Court emphasized that the tripartite agreement required the claimant to own at least 2 acres of land for employment eligibility.
- The Court rejected the inclusion of land owned by relatives based on self-serving affidavits, stating that such affidavits do not transfer property rights.
- The Court relied on the definition of ‘family’ under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to clarify that the term ‘family’ generally includes wife, children, and dependent family members.
- The Court noted that the respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claim that he owned more than 2 acres of land.
- The Court held that the Personnel Manager’s view was contrary to the tripartite agreement and should not have been relied upon by the High Court.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “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’.”
- “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.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- For employment under land acquisition rehabilitation schemes, only the land owned by the individual claimant is considered, not land owned by relatives.
- Self-serving affidavits from relatives do not transfer property rights and cannot be the basis for determining eligibility for rehabilitation benefits.
- The term ‘family’ in the context of rehabilitation schemes generally includes wife, children, and dependent family members.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for employment eligibility under a land acquisition rehabilitation scheme, only the land owned by the individual claimant would be considered, not the land owned by relatives, unless they are dependents. This clarifies the interpretation of the term “family” in the context of such schemes and sets a precedent for future cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anadinath Banerjee clarifies that employment benefits under land acquisition rehabilitation schemes are tied to the individual’s land ownership, not to the collective land holdings of their family. This decision reinforces the importance of clear documentation of land ownership and provides guidance on the interpretation of “family” in such contexts.