'Judiciary Has Strong Sense Of Justice': Calcutta HC Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation Over Land Acquired By Eastern Coalfields Ltd After 30 Yrs

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the judiciary upholds social justice and fairness, guided by the principle that equity treats as done what ought to have been done. In complex cases involving competing rights, courts may need to innovate—within the bounds of equity and good conscience—to find a just and balanced solution. This case is one such instance.

These observations were made by the Court while awarding compensation of ₹25 lakhs to the Appellants, noting that Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) had failed to extend the benefits under the Land Loser Scheme despite acquiring their land.

Brief Facts:

The appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition filed by Mamata Banerjee and her son Joy Banerjee, the widow and son of Late Badal Banerjee, seeking enforcement of benefits under the 1979 “Land Loser Scheme” introduced by Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). The scheme provided for employment or 20,000 metric tons of coal as compensation to those whose land was acquired for mining purposes.

Under the scheme, those who lost at least two acres were entitled either to a job for themselves or a family member on compassionate grounds, or 20,000 metric tons of coal from ECL for sale in the open market.

The Writ Petition was heard and disposed of on 23rd July 2014, directing the authority to consider the petitioners' claim and issue a reasoned order. The court held that Coal was allotted to Badal following ECL's acquisition of 0.22 decimal of his land. Secondly, ECL's note sheet dated 25th February 1995 and letter from its General Manager dated 27th September 1996 unambiguously acknowledged Badal as a land loser entitled to benefits under the Land Loser Scheme.This order was never challenged by ECL.

Following the order dated 23rd July 2014, the appellants were called for a hearing by the respondent authorities. Despite placing on record the letter dated 27th September 1996, the authority held that coal issued to Badal was under the Free Sale Scheme, not the Land Loser Scheme.

It further stated that employment had already been given to Badal's cousin Jiten (son of Madan, Badal's uncle) under the scheme, and no provision currently existed for issuing coal to land losers. Based on these findings, the authority passed an order on 9th October 2014, which was challenged by the appellants through Writ Petition No. 500 of 2014.

The Appellants submitted that Badal was unable to lift the desired quantity of coal at the material time, and could not disentitle Badal from lifting the coal at all.

They referred to several documents, including ECL's admissions of Badal's status as a land loser and his entitlement under the scheme (pages 99A, 123A, 208/208A). Notably, the key letter dated 27th September 1996 from ECL's General Manager, submitted during the hearing before the authority, was ignored in the 9th October 2014 order. The order is silent on this letter, reflecting ECL's inability to address the issue and undermining its claim that Badal was covered under the Free Sale Scheme.

The respondents raised three key objections: first, that Badal did not own two acres of land and therefore was not eligible under the Land Loser Scheme; second, that due to financial constraints, Badal was neither ready nor willing to lift the coal, rendering the present claim—essentially one for specific performance—unsustainable; and third, that there was an unexplained delay of 12 years in asserting the claim, with the first Writ Petition filed in 1992 despite the cause of action arising in 1980.

Observations:

The court noted that Mr. Dutta's first contention is contradicted by records, particularly the letter dated 25th September 1996, which affirms Badal's status as a land loser under the scheme—an assertion to which Mr. Dutta offered no rebuttal. As for the 27th September 1996 letter, while admitted, it was dismissed as an internal document, a claim that does not negate its evidentiary value.

It further noted that the second argument—that Badal lacked funds to lift coal and thus failed to fulfil a contractual obligation—is unfounded. There was no contract between Badal and ECL; his entitlement arose from a statutory scheme, not a private agreement. Therefore, the notion of readiness or willingness is inapplicable.

The court also noted that third, the delay argument is factually flawed. Records show that Badal made continuous representations from 1980 to 1998. ECL remained silent throughout and even assured favorable consideration when the first Writ Petition was withdrawn.

It further noted that Meeting minutes from 1994 confirm ECL granted 20,000 metric tons of coal, of which 2,100 metric tons were lifted. Badal had even sought to lift coal in limited quantities (25 MT/day). Additionally, a note sheet dated 31st May 1990 confirms ECL's possession of Badal's land without explanation.

It further observed that a weak objection was raised that Jiten, son of Madan (Badal's uncle), had already received a compassionate appointment. However, as Kenaram's estate was equally inherited by his sons Satish and Madan, the appointment of Madan's son cannot discharge ECL's obligation toward Badal, son of Satish. Thus, ECL has no valid basis to deny Badal and his successors the benefits of the Land Loser Scheme, which have been wrongfully withheld since 1980.

The court said that It is not in dispute that Badal's land had been acquired by ECL, as admitted from the documents discussed hereinbefore, namely the two note sheets, the letter of the General Manager, and the particulars of land at page 208.

It further added that Badal's entitlement to the land not having been questioned by ECL at any point of time, the question of Badal failing to provide any document of title was redundant. It is also not in dispute that the estate of Satish and Madan were distinct and separate. Thus, any usufruct to Madan as a land loser cannot be construed as such to cover the entitlement of Satish (Badal's father).

The court held that certain cases involve complex and competing rights, requiring a delicate balance. In such instances, the Court must innovate—not arbitrarily, but guided by enduring common law principles of equity and good conscience—to achieve a fair resolution. The present case is one such situation.

It concluded that the appellants endured immense hardship due to the apathetic stance of the authorities and prolonged denial of their rightful claim. Given that ECL acquired Badal's land in 1980 and the dispute persisted for over 32 years, the Court held that justice would be served by directing ECL to pay ₹25 lakhs as lump sum compensation.

Accordingly, the present appeal was disposed of.

Case Title: SMT. MAMATA BANERJEE AND ANR. - VERSUS – EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.

Case Number: F.M.A. NO. 358 OF 2019

Judgment Date: 20/05/2025

Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv., Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Diptendu Acharya, Adv., Mr. TamaghnaChattopadhyay,Adv.,….. for the Appellants

Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Akanksha Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Madhumanti Chakraborty, Adv.,….. for the Respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order