Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Mariyanus Marandi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......under the coal bearing area (acquisition and development) act, 1957, along with the statutory interest. it is further contended that as a matter of fact the land though were acquired for the eastern coalfields ltd. under the aforesaid act but it was not acquired for any limited period of 15 years and furthermore, the compensation amount, which was supposed to be paid for acquisition, was in fact deposited by the eastern coalfields ltd. before the tribunal through a cheque and the same has already been collected by the father of the petitioner and this fact was. in fact though within the knowledge of the petitioner and yet it was suppressed by him. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the writ petitioner has also made a wrong statement that the land was acquired by virtue of a written agreement with the eastern coal-fields ltd., whereas the fact is that no written agreement was at all executed between the petitioner-eastern coalfields ltd. and the father of the petitioner.4. learned counsel for the respondent submits on the contrary that no part of the statement contained in the writ application filed by the respondents-writ petitioner is false or misleading.....

Judgment:

ORDER

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. This Review application has been filed by the respondent-petitioner Eastern Coalfields Ltd. for review of the order dated 1.8.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6602 of 2007.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is that the writ petitioner in the aforesaid writ application by making a wrong statement in Para 5 of the aforesaid writ application has obtained the order under which the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has been directed to assess the compensation amount, payable to the petitioner for the land which was originally acquired under the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, along with the statutory interest. It is further contended that as a matter of fact the land though were acquired for the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. under the aforesaid Act but it was not acquired for any limited period of 15 years and furthermore, the compensation amount, which was supposed to be paid for acquisition, was in fact deposited by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. before the Tribunal through a cheque and the same has already been collected by the father of the petitioner and this fact was. in fact though within the knowledge of the petitioner and yet it was suppressed by him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the writ petitioner has also made a wrong statement that the land was acquired by virtue of a written agreement with the Eastern Coal-fields Ltd., whereas the fact is that no written agreement was at all executed between the petitioner-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and the father of the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits on the contrary that no part of the statement contained in the writ application filed by the respondents-writ petitioner is false or misleading and as a matter of fact, the writ petitioner still insists that the land was acquired for a period of 15 years only and compensation for the aforesaid period has though been paid, but no further compensation has been paid for continuation of the occupation of the petitioner's land by the petitioner-Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

5. From the order dated 1.8.2008, it appears that after considering the entire facts and submissions made by the petitioner and recording its observations on the documents annexed to the writ petition, this Court had directed the respondents-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in the said writ application to consider the petitioner's claim 'if not already considered' (emphasis supplied) and if any amount of compensation is found payable then to pay the same along with the statutory interest.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Review-petitioners, it appears that the claim for compensation as made by the father of the petitioner was earlier considered and paid. Even if this is so, then the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6602 of 2007 does not prohibit in any manner, the respondents-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to pass appropriate orders in the light of all relevant facts and in accordance with the directions contained in the aforesaid order and to record Its reasons in support of the decision taken by it on the petitioner's claim after affording him an opportunity of hearing.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to make any review of the order dated 1.8.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6602 of 2007. Accordingly, this review application is hereby dismissed.