The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: – 2.1 That the lands in question owned by the State Government of Odisha came to be acquired by the Government of India under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1957).
That respondent issued the demand notice dated 15.03.1984 for a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards premium for Government land and Rs.
By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has interpreted Section 2(d) of the Act, 1957 and has observed that the State Government can be said to be person interested in land and therefore, entitled to the compensation over and above in lieu of losing the rights over the land. It is submitted that thereafter once the declaration under Section 9 of the Act is issued on the publication in Official Gazette of the declaration, the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances as per Section 10 of the Act.
It is submitted that therefore, once the land or the rights vested in the Central Government and/or in a Government company (under Section 11), the same is vested absolutely free from all encumbrances and the State Government is not entitled to recover any amount of premium of the land or the compensation or any rental except the royalty leviable under Section 18(a) of the Act, 1957. It is submitted that therefore, the State Government is entitled to the premium/compensation/rentals with respect to the lands in question of the land vested or rights so vested in the Government company.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
However, as per Section 11 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10, the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that a Government company is willing to comply, or has complied with such terms and conditions as the Central Government may think fit to impose, direct, by order in writing, that the land or the rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government under Section 10 or continuing to so vest, vest in the Government company either on the date of publication of the declaration or on such other date as may be specified in the direction. Thus, as per Section 11, the Government company in whose favour the order has been issued by the Central Government shall be deemed to be the lessee and shall be liable to pay the compensation/rental, etc., to the State Government being ‘person interested’.
The State Government being the original owner can be said to be deemed lessor and ‘person interested.’
As per Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, the Government company in whose favour the order is issued under Section 11 can be said to be the deemed lessee of the State Government. If the submission made on behalf of the appellant is accepted in that case nothing would be paid towards the lands except the amount of royalty under Section 18(a) of the Act, which is for extraction of minerals.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
SHAH)…………………………………J.
Case Title: MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD Vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA (2023 INSC 63)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000220-000220 / 2023
