Holding

The Supreme Court held that no further extension of the Claims Commission’s term or additional directions to prepare PAF/PDF lists could be granted, as the Commission had already exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining matters beyond the Court’s explicit 03.11.2022 directions.

Summary

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) sought extensions and directions from the Supreme Court to finalize compensation and rehabilitation benefits for land oustees of four villages (Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, Kirpsira) acquired for coal mining. The Court had earlier, in its 03.11.2022 judgment, fixed the Gopalpur model for ten villages and barred any re‑determination of awards for those villages, while directing the Claims Commission to only compute differentials for the remaining four villages under the R&R Act, 2013. The petitioners later filed miscellaneous applications requesting an extension of the Commission’s term, preparation of PAF/PDF lists, and expedited disposal of cases. The Court held that the Commission had already exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining matters beyond the scope of the earlier directions, including suitability of resettlement sites and reopening finalized cases. Consequently, the Court declined to extend the Commission’s term, dismissed the applications for PAF/PDF preparation, and ordered the pending High Court writ petition on compensation methodology to be decided promptly. MCL was directed to pay compensation after the High Court’s final order, and all miscellaneous applications and interlocutory applications were dismissed.

Issues considered

The Supreme Court’s authority to extend the term of the Claims Commission for finalising compensation in Ratansara.
Whether the Claims Commission can be directed to prepare PAF/PDF lists and determine R&R benefits for the four villages.
Whether the Commission may entertain issues beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions, including suitability of resettlement sites and reopening finalized awards.
The jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate disputes on compensation calculation and payment.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Compensation claimCommissionMahanadi CoalfieldsCompensation to land ousteesRehabilitation and resettlementGopalpur Model

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 158 : 2025 INSC 22

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr.
v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 2662/2023
In
M.A. No. 231/2019
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6933 of 2007)
03 January 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the extension of the term of the Claims
Commission, and determining the Rehabilitation and Resettlement
benefits of the villages acquired by the appellant-MCL

Headnotes†

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 – Compensation claim – Rehabilitation and Resettlement
benefits – Determination, of land oustees of four acquired
villages – Villages acquired by the appellant-MCL – Claims
Commission appointed for determining the claim of
compensation in respect of vast portions of lands acquired –
Commission set up for carrying out the exercise for 14
villages – Report submitted by the Commission in relation to
the village Gopalpur – Recommendations approved and made
it an order of the Court – Following the Gopalpur model, the
Commission submitted further reports which were approved –
Several applications moved by the MCL and land owners
seeking a range of directions – By order dated 03.11.2022,
this Court held that the Gopalpur Model for determining the
compensation was applied in respect of 10 villages which
reports were approved by the courts, and the issues stood
finalized and there could be no re-determination, and this Court

* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 159

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

would not entertain Miscellaneous Application – In regard to
four villages-Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and Kirpsara,
no award approved on the said date – However, Miscellaneous
Applications filed – Directions sought as regards extension
of time to finalise the report of village Ratansara by the Nodal
Officer, Claims Commissioner; directions to Commission to
prepare the PAF/PDF list determining R&R benefits of any or
all four remaining villages out of 14 villages acquired by the
MCL; and directions to direct the Commission to decide their
cases at the earliest:
Held: No further order for extension of the term of the Commission
can be passed – Directions as prayed for by the Committee to
direct the Commission to prepare PAF/PDF list determining the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits of the four villages cannot
be issued – Commission entertained the cases filed by the land
oustees of whose reports have already been finalized and approved
by this Court – Commission also travelled beyond the directions
given by this Court by entertaining the issues raised by the villagers
and land oustees of four villages with regard to Rehabilitation
and Resettlement benefits – Only additional exercise which the
Commission had to carry out was the differential payable after
the re-determination in respect of all the elements-market value,
solatium, and further interest – This Court clearly earmarked the
task of the Commission and of the other authorities and given final
directions which had to be followed – Commission appears to have
entertained the issues with regard to the suitability of resettlement
sites for shifting of the eligible land oustees – Commission should
not have entertained any of these issues, when all the issues
alluded and dealt with thoroughly by this Court vide order dated
03.11.2022 – MCL already raised objections with regard to the
method of calculation, the said issue was transferred to the High
Court and is pending – High Court to decide the writ petition
expeditiously – MCL to make payment towards the compensation
immediately after the final judgment passed by the High Court.
[Paras 15-26]

List of Acts
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957;
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
160 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Compensation claim; Commission; Mahanadi Coalfields;
Compensation to land oustees; Rehabilitation and resettlement
benefits; Gopalpur Model .

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application No.
2662 of 2023
In
M.A. No. 231 of 2019
In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6933 of 2007
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2022 of the Supreme
Court of India in MA No. 231 of 2019
And
M.A. (D) No. 28318 of 2024 In M.A. No. 231 of 2019
In SLP(C) No. 6933 of 2007
With
Interlocutory Application Nos. 137789 of 2024 & 137791 of 2024
And
M.A. (D) No. 30630 of 2024 in SLP(C) No. 6933 of 2007
With
Interlocutory Application Nos. 148429 & 148427 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Salvador
Santosh Rebello, Raghav Sharma, Prateek Tanmay, Ms. Kritika,
Jaskirat Pal Singh, Ms. Manisha Gupta, Ms. Arzu Paul, Ms. Deepti
Arya, Rishikesh Haridas, Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Ms. Pooja Gill,
Anup Kumar, Amiya Kumar Behera, Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Ms.
Shruti Singh, Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Satyajit Mahanty, P Vamshi Rao,
Abhishek Choudhury, Madhusudan Jena, Prashant Bhushan,
Kamal Kishore, Ms. Kajal Giri, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Manoranjan
Paikaray, Ms. Anindita Pujari, Ms. Rohini Musa, Gurmeet Singh
Makker, Ms. Priyanka Das, Abhishek Atrey, Sughosh Subramanyam,
Pratyush Shrivastava, A. Venayagam Balan, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
R. Chandrachud, Jogy Scaria, Shibashish Misra, Vishal Arun,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 161

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

Shankar Divate, Ashok Panigrahi, Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan,
Mudit Sharma, Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, Satya Mitra, Rahul Shyam
Bhandari, Ms. Neha Rathi, S. Verma, Aftab Ali Khan, S. K.
Srivastava, Mansur Ali Khan, Gurjeet Singh, Rahat Ali Chaudhary,
Ms. Mahetaba Asrar, Advs. for the appearing parties.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. The captioned M.A. No. 2662 of 2023 in M.A. No. 231/2019 has
been filed by the Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal Officer, Claims
Commission, Bhubaneswar seeking extension of time to finalise the
report of village Ratansara.
2. The captioned M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 in M.A. No.231/2019 has
been filed by the Applicant-Manikeswari Bisthapita Committee through
its Secretary praying to direct the Commission to prepare the PAF/
PDF list determining R&R benefits of any or all four remaining
Villages namely Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Kiripsira and Ratansara out
of 14 villages acquired by the MCL in compliance of the order dated
03.11.2022 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 231 of 2019.
3. The captioned M.A. (D) No.30630/2024 has been filed by the eight
applicants praying to direct the Commission to decide their cases
at the earliest.
4. It may be noted that the Claims Commission had submitted the
status report showing the progress of the proceedings before it as on
27.06.2024, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.01.2024.
Vide the said order dated 23.01.2024, this Court had extended the
term of the Commission till 15.07.2024, after recording the statement
of the Secretary of the Commission that the Commission shall finalise
the claims in respect of Village Ratansara by June, 2024. This Court
had also directed the Commission to submit the report with regard
to the finalization of the claims in respect of the Village Ratansara
on or before 01.07.2024. The Commission, therefore, has submitted
the report dated 01.07.2024 updating the Court about the term of
the Commission and the work pending with the Commission.
162 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

5. As per the Status Report submitted by the Claims Commission, the
work pending before the Commission as on 27.06.2024 was as under: -
“(i) To dispose of 2836 (2581 as on 31st December, 2023
+ 255 in 2024) Nos. of Civil Cases and 232 (228 + 4)
Nos. of Misc.
Cases filed by land oustees of 10 villages pursuant to
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.07.2013
and 10.07.2017.
(ii) To dispose of 24 (16+8) Nos. of cases pursuant to the
direction of the High Court of Orissa issued in various
Writ petitions.
(iii) To dispose of 194 (57+137) Nos. of cases filed by the
villagers of Jhupurunga and Tumulia after finalization of
the Report for substitution of legal heirs of awardees and
correction of computer-generated mistakes.
(iv) To Certify suitability of Rehabilitation sites for shifting
of eligible land oustees who are entitled to R&R benefits.
Once the Rehabilitation site is ready, the Commission
shall issue necessary certificate as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 10.7.2017.
(v) Determination of R&R benefits of land oustees of 4
acquired villages namely Jhupurunga, Tumulia, Kiripsira
and Ratansara by the Commission subject to appropriate
direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to that effect.”
6. The Original Writ Petitioner i.e., Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL)
has filed a detailed reply to the Part-I report for Village Ratansara
dated 27.06.2024 and to the progress status report dated 27.06.2024.
Raising objections against the report of Village Ratansara dated
27.06.2024 submitted by the Claims Commission, the MCL has stated
that the Claims Commission had completely erred in its methodology
of calculating the compensation for Village Ratansara and has also
ignored the express directions of this Court given vide judgment
dated 03.11.2022 passed in M.A. No. 231 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.
6933 of 2007. According to the MCL, since the MCL had objected
to the Commission’s methodology of calculation, this Court vide the
order dated 10.10.2023 had transferred the issue to the High Court
of Orissa. The W.P. (C) No. 39185 of 2023 preferred before the
High Court in this regard is pending. It is further stated by the MCL
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 163

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

that so far as the payment of compensation for the structures was
concerned, the MCL has already made payment without prejudice
to rights and contentions as regards the calculation method.
7. As regards the other pending work shown by the Commission in its
status report dated 27.06.2024, the petitioner MCL has raised strong
objections by preparing following tabular chart:

S. Purported Ground of MCL for closure of the Commission
No pending works
mentioned
by Claims
Commission
01 To dispose of At para 68.iii.c of order dated 03.11.2022, this
2836 Nos. of Hon’ble Court had directed that, “This court is of
Civil Cases and the opinion that the Commission could not reopen
232 Nos. of determinations based upon change of policies of
Misc. Cases filed the State given that the benefits adjudicated by it
by land oustees based on factual determinations has crystallised.
of 10 villages. In many cases, MCL has actually provided
employment to several individuals. Consequently,
it is held that all cases that have been adjudicated
and were approved by this court cannot be
reopened”. Since the PAF list of the 10 villages
have been approved by the Hon’ble Court, the
Claims Commission cannot re-open those cases.
Subsequently Hon’ble Court in its order dated
10.10.2023 had directed that, “in case of any
grievance by any party with respect to any order
or report of the Claims Commission, the grievance
should be first articulated before the High Court,
in appropriate proceedings.” The Commission
cannot hear all of such cases as is sought to be
heard, as the same pertain to the villages whose
reports have already been finalised, and have
been approved by this Hon’ble Court and this
Hon’ble Court has thereafter in express directions
given vide Judgement dated 03.11.2022 stated
that there shall not be any re-opening in so far as
the 10 villages are concerned. Thus, the act of the
Claims Commission would amount to re-opening
of cases which have already attained finality and
the same cannot be permitted. In view of the
above, the Claims Commission cannot re-open
the cases of 10 villages.
164 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

02 In 24 Nos. of writ The Claims Commission is hearing cases in
petitions Hon’ble so far as the 10 villages which issues have
High Court already attained finality. The said issues were
has directed kept pending by the Claims Commission and not
the Claims decided in order to prolong the work of the Claims
Commission to Commission instead of completing the main task
dispose these assigned by this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court
cases. has vide its Order dated 03.11.2022 passed in
M.A No. 231 of 2019 expressly directed that all
the issues which have attained finality in so far as
the 10 villages the same shall not be re-opened,
and therefore, the question of hearing or deciding
any of such cases by the Claims Commission
does not arise.
03 To dispose of The villages acquired under CBA by MCL, apart
194 Nos. of from the villages in Sundargarh District, R&R
cases filed by Policy of Govt. of Odisha, 2006 is applicable
the villagers of and District Collector is the competent authority
Jhupurunga and to redress the grievances, pertaining to R&R
Tumulia. benefits, of the project affected families.
As per para 68.iii.a of the judgement dated
3.11.2022 of this Hon’bie Court the R&R Policy
2006 as amended by the 2013 policy more
specifically Clause 20, clearly provides that
there shall be a District and Directorate Level
grievance redressal mechanism for project
affected persons. The same has been set up
and can hear all of such grievances if any.
Hence, the Collector, Sundargarh can also
hear the grievance related to R&R benefits of
these 04 villages as is similarly done in other
areas. In case of any grievance regarding
amount of compensation or apportionment
of compensation, CBA Tribunal is constituted
w/s 17 of CBA Act, 1957 to hear the grievances
of the project affected families (land losers). A
Statutory Tribunal set up under the CBA Act is
functioning in Jharsuguda District Odisha. As
there is well settled mechanism in the Odisha
R&R Policy and in CBA Act to redress the
grievance of the affected families (land losers),
the same can be dealt with appropriately.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 165

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

04 Certify the At para 68.iv.a of order 03.11.2022, this Hon’ble
suitability of Court had directed that:
Resettlement
“On the point of housing plots, it is hereby declared
sites for shifting
and directed that the State and MCL are under
of eligible land
an obligation to ensure that the land acquired
oustees, as
by it in those areas which are to be developed,
directed by
have to be developed. The State Government
the Hon’ble
shall ensure that at least three nodal officers
Supreme Court
from the departments concerned are deployed
vide order dated
for facilitating this task of coordinating with
10.07.2017
allagencies and ensuring that the development of
the plots duly takes place to enable the Collector
to make the necessary allotments within the time
indicated”.
Hence, the commission has no role to play in
Resettlement sites for either allotment of plots or
shifting of the project displaced families.
05 Determining The Petitioner MCL, the Land oustees, and
R&R benefits District Administration after holding a meeting,
of land oustees addressed a letter dated 25.01.2024 (at page 59
of 4 acquired of the Vol-Il documents of Claims Commission
villages, namely dated 27.06.2024), to the Claims Commission
Tumulia, to prepare the PAF list. However, the Claims
Kiripsira, Commission vide its Letter dated 12.02.2024
Jhupurunga, (at page 71 of the Vol-II documents of Claims
and Ratansara, Commission dated 27.06.2024) refused to do the
the Commission same, stating that there is no direction from this
subject to the Hon’ble Court to prepare the PAF list. In order
appropriate to obviate any further delays, the Petitioner MCL
direction of herein itself preparing and finalising the PAF list
the Hon’ble for village Jhupurunga as per the principle set
Supreme Court. by this Hon’ble Court in M.A. 231 of 2019 in
SLP(C) No. 6933 of 2007 dated 03.11.2022, in
consultation with the 03 nodal officers appointed
by State Government. After preparation of PAF
lists it will be sent to Collector, Sundargarh for
approval. On approval of the PAF list by Collector,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement benefits will be
provided to the villagers according to the approved
list. The same procedure is being followed in other
districts coming under the coalfield area of MCL
in the state of Odisha. Similarly, the PAF list for
Tumulia, would be prepared by the Petitioner
MCL. In so far as village Kiripsira and Ratansara
166 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

is concerned, the same does not fall within
the Coal Block of MCL, and this Hon’ble Court
vide its Order dated 15.07.2013 passed in SLP
(C) No. 6933 of 2007, stated that since village
Ratanrasa and Kiripsara was transferred by
the Union of India to other companies, only
payment of compensation is the liability of MCL
and it may recover the said amount from the
successor company. The Petitioner states that it
is also pertinent to note that the in practice, and
otherwise in all acquisitions the modality adopted
is that the Petitioner MCL carries out the survey
and preparation of the Project Affected Persons
(PAF) list and thereafter the same is submitted
to the District Administration which verifies the
same and consequent to such verification the
District Collector approves the PAF list. Once such
PAF list receives the approval from the District
Collector, the Petitioner MCL extends the R&R
benefits to the persons as figuring in the approved
PAF List. Hence, the commission has no role
either in preparation of PAF list or in extending
employment & Monetary Compensation.

8. We had heard the concerned learned counsels for the parties on
06.08.2024 permitting them to file brief note of submissions, which
they have filed.
9. Though the case has a chequered history, to put it in nutshell, the
Claims Commission was appointed by this Court vide the order dated
19.07.2010 passed in SLP(C) No. 6933 of 2007, for determining the
claim of compensation in respect of vast portions of lands acquired
by the Central Government in Village Gopalpur and others of the
District Sundergarh, Orissa. The said Commission was set up for
carrying out the exercise for the following villages.
(i) Sardega
(ii) Jhupurunga
(iii) Ratansara
(iv) Tikilipara
(v) Siarmal
(vi) Tumulia
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 167

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

(vii) Karlikachhar
(viii) Kulda
(ix) Bankibahal
(x) Balinga
(xi) Garjanbahal
(xii) Bangurkela
(xiii) Kiripsira
(xiv) Lalma R.F.
10. Out of the afore stated villages, part payment was already made
at the relevant time in case of villages Sardega and Tikilipara and
full payment was made in case of villages Bankibahal and Balinga,
however the possession was not fully taken.
11. Based on the Report submitted by the Claims Commission in relation
to the village Gopalpur, this Court had passed an order dated
19.04.2012 approving the recommendations contained therein and
made it an order of the Court.
12. Following the Gopalpur model, the Commission had submitted the
reports for the villages Balinga, Bankibahal, Sardega and Tikilipara,
and this Court vide the order dated 08.08.2012 had approved the
said reports, and observed that the Commission may follow as far as
practicable, the same basis in other villages for which compensation
was yet to be fixed. It further appears that thereafter vide the
order dated 10.04.2013, this Court accepted and approved the
Commission’s Reports with respect to villages Kulda and Garjanbahal,
and vide the order dated 15.07.2013 for the village Karlikachhar.
It further appears that this Court also took notice of the fact that
the lands in two villages namely Kiripsara and Ratansara were
transferred by the Central Government to some other Companies,
and therefore observed that the payment of compensation would be
MCL’s liability at the initial stage, and it could later recover the sums
from the successor companies.
13. This Court disposed of the said SLP on 10.07.2017 after receiving the
report from the Commission and considering the recommendations
made by the Amicus Curiae in respect of the outstanding issues.
168 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

The Court observed that “we are broadly in agreement with the
recommendations made by the learned Amicus. We, however, leave
it open to the appellants or any other affected parties to put forward
their objections before the High Court/ Commission since we are
inclined to leave such matters to be dealt with by the High Court/
Commission.”
14. It appears that thereafter several applications were moved by the
MCL and also by the land owners seeking a range of directions, and
some had also filed the contempt proceedings. This Court vide the
detailed judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed in M.A. No. 231 of 2019
in SLP (C) No. 6933 of 2007 along with other Contempt Petitions
disposed of the same after dealing with all the contentious issues
and recording the findings thereon. The Court gave final directions
in Paragraph 68 as under: -
“Conclusions and Directions
68. Having regard to the following discussion, it is held
as follows:
i. Re point no.1 - compensation for the land acquired:
cut-off date for determining compensation for land
acquired is to be based upon the cut-off date approved
by this court in relation to village Gopalpur, i.e.,
September 2010. At the same time, it is directed that
since common cut-off date has been accepted, all
benefits flowing from it, including statutory interest
upon compensation and solatium, is determinable
on the basis of that cut-off date for the entire
acquisition.
ii. Re point no. 2 - on the applicability of the R&R Act,
2013: the R&R Act cannot apply prior to the date
it was brought into force i.e., before 01.01.2014.
In the present case, it applies from the date the
Central Government issued a notification bringing
into force the proceedings of the First, Second and
Third Schedules to the enactment specified in the
Fourth Schedule, which in this case was the CBA
Act. The date therefore, on which the R&R Act, 2013
is applicable from, is 28.08.2015. Additionally, the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 169

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

report which was finalised before that date cannot
be interfered with. The land owners and displaced
families residing in the villages for which reports
were prepared earlier than 28.08.2015, would not
therefore be entitled to the benefits of the R&R Act,
2013. Hence, the benefits of the R&R Act apply
to displaced families and land owners of Kiripsira,
Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia.
iii. Re point no. 3, 4 and 5:
a. It is held that the R&R Policy 2006 as amended by
the 2013 policy applies for the purpose of employment
benefits.
b. A family unit would comprise of head of family or
father, a major son, and an unmarried daughter having
regard to the definition and the note appended thereof.
In case, for some reason, the major son cannot be
given employment, and there exists a major grandson,
he would then be eligible for consideration. In other
words, two members (father and son or father and
grandson) would be eligible for employment and not
three, in addition to the unmarried daughter who is
also to be treated as separate unit.
c. This court is of the opinion that the Commission could
not reopen determinations based upon change of
policies of the State given that the benefits adjudicated
by it based on factual determinations has crystallised.
In many cases, MCL has actually provided employment
to several individuals. Consequently, it is held that all
cases that have been adjudicated and were approved
by this court cannot be reopened.
iv. Re point no. 6:
a. On the point of housing plots, it is hereby declared
and directed that the State and MCL are under an
obligation to ensure that the land acquired by it in
those areas which are to be developed, have to be
developed. The State Government shall ensure that
at least three nodal officers from the departments
170 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

concerned are deployed for facilitating this task of
coordinating with all agencies and ensuring that the
development of the plots duly takes place to enable
the Collector to make the necessary allotments within
the time indicated. These nodal officials shall be
duly empowered by the state, through appropriate
notifications to issue all necessary consequential
orders, for the implementation of resettlement and
rehabilitation measures. The Chief Secretary of the
Orissa State Government shall select the officers, and
issue the necessary notifications. Furthermore, the
State shall ensure that these officers are not posted
out, for at least 3 years, or till the task of rehabilitation
and resettlement is completed.
b. The Collector shall ensure that the plots earmarked
are duly notified for the concerned villages and land
owners by giving due publicity and adequate notice.
The views of the landowners shall be ascertained
and noted, for which purpose, adequate notice shall
be given, specifying the venue, date and time of
consultation.
c. In case any individual land owner(s) are not interested
for allotment of the plots, it is open for them to state
so. The Collector shall in such event record their
disclaimer expressly in writing and issue a certificate.
In that event the displaced family would be entitled
to a one-time cash settlement of Rs.25 lakhs.
d. After ascertaining the number of displaced families’
entitlements, and having regard to the availability of
plots, the Collector shall conduct a draw of lots, and
if needed, more than one draw of lots, whereby plots
are allotted to the concerned displaced families. In
case, for any reason such plot or plots cannot be
handed over within two years, or are not available,
the leftover families so to say would be entitled to the
one-time compensation of Rs.25 lakhs with interest
@ 7% per annum, for two years.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 171

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

v. Re point no. 7:
a. The State shall ensure that all facilities and amenities
are developed in accordance with the Third Schedule
to the R&R Act, 2013 within three years in which
plots are handed over to the displaced families or
in any event within three years from the date of this
judgment. The necessary funding for this purpose
shall be by MCL, in addition to the State’s obligation
to spend its resources.
b. The members of the SC/ST communities shall be
entitled to the preservation and protection of their
status in view of Section 42 of the R&R Act, 2013.
Consequently, the concerned Collectors shall ensure
that appropriate caste certificates are issued in this
regard, given that land owners have been moved
involuntarily and would have to migrate to other areas.
vi. This court further directs that compensation
determination in any event shall be completed and
payments made within six months from today. The
Commission shall ensure that this task is taken up
as far as possible and completed within that time
frame. Consequently, the Commission shall finalize
the reports for villages Kiripsira and Ratansara. As
regards the reports of Jhupuranga, and Tumulia, the
Commission shall complete the task of redetermining
compensation within three months. The State shall
ensure that compensation in respect of four villages
is determined in accordance with the R&R Act,
2013. Wherever compensation has not actually been
disbursed, the State shall do so within 6 months from
pronouncement of this judgment.
vii. MCL is under an obligation to ensure that employment
benefits are granted and extended and offers are
made in accordance with the 2013 policy in all cases
where the lists of those who opted for employment
has not been finalised. It is clarified in this regard
that wherever employment has been obtained, the
same shall not be reopened. Likewise, the question of
172 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

reopening entitlements for employment, based upon
the interpretation of this court shall not be reopened
in case of villages where reports have been accepted
through previous orders.
viii. In the event any family undertakes that its members
are not desirous or do not wish to opt for employment,
the State shall, through the nodal officers, ensure
that the disclaimer is voluntary, and that one-time
compensation indicated in the 2006 policy or under the
R&R Act, 2013 or the one-time offer of Rs.16 lakhs by
MCL, as submitted by the learned ASG (whichever is
more beneficial), is paid to the family concerned. The
Collector must ensure the same is provided.
ix. The court hereby directs that the Commission should
complete its task and that its report should be the
basis for disbursement of compensation, one-time
rehabilitation package of Rs.25 lakhs per family as
indicated above and employment offer within one
year from today. In case of any vacancy in the Office
of Chairman of the Commission, the Chief Justice of
the Orissa High Court shall nominate a retired judge
of that court. In the event of any other vacancy, the
Government of Orissa shall nominate the concerned
members. However, it is clarified that the government
nominees should not be ex-officio or part time
members, and should be of the rank and status of
Additional Secretary, with experience in the Social
Welfare or Revenue Departments at senior levels.
x. It is further directed that all concerned landowners
who have continued to occupy the lands shall vacate
it upon the deposit of compensation. MCL shall be
immediately granted possession of such lands. The
Collector or the concerned authority shall issue a
certificate in this regard which shall entitle them to
the one-time rehabilitation payment or payment in
lieu of compensation or any other benefit under the
Act, according to the choice exercised by them in
the manner indicated above.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 173

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

69. It is lastly directed that any fresh dispute, on account
of calculation of compensation, disbursement of benefits
etc., would be adjudicated by the High Court. This court
will not entertain miscellaneous application in individual
cases in this regard.”
15. From the said judgment dated 03.11.2022 passed by this Court, it
is explicitly clear that this Court after elucidating the issues involved
had unequivocably held in Paragraph 32 thereof that the Gopalpur
Model for determining the compensation was applied in respect of the
villages for which reports were prepared and approved by the courts
(Gopalpur, Sardega, Balinga, Bankibahal, Tikilipara, Garjanbahal,
Kulda, Karlikachhar, Siarmal, and Bangurkela). However, in regard
to four villages i.e., Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and Kirpsara,
no award was approved on the said date.
16. The Court further held in Paragraph 34 as under: -
“34. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the
First Schedule of the R&R Act, 2013 is applicable to the
acquisition in question, made by the Central Government
in favour of MCL, in respect of the villages, the reports of
which were not approved prior to 28.10.2015. Accordingly,
the compensation based upon the market value for the four
villages i.e., Tumulia, Jhupuranga, Ratansara, and Kirpsara
have to be re-determined in accordance with the provisions
of the First Schedule to the R&R Act, 2013. Since the
extent to land involved, identification of land owners, and
the basic market value along with solatium and interest
payments, have been determined, the only additional
exercise which the Commission has to carry out is the
differential payable after the re-determination in respect
of all the elements i.e., the market value, solatium, and
further interest. It is also further clarified that the villages in
respect of which this court has already approved reports of
the Commission, and entitlements have been determined,
even availed of, or pending implementation, i.e., the other
ten villages, the issues shall stand finalized - there can be
no re-determination on the basis of the present judgment.”
17. The Court after analyzing each and every point meticulously gave
clear and precise directions in Paragraphs 68 and 69 quoted above
174 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and also directed that any fresh dispute on account of calculation of
compensation, disbursement of benefits etc. would be adjudicated
by the High Court, and this Court will not entertain Miscellaneous
Application in individual cases in this regard. Despite such clear
conclusions and directions, the present Miscellaneous Applications
have been filed seeking directions.
18. In M.A. No. 2662/2023, the Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal
Officer, Claims Commissioner, Bhubaneshwar had sought extension
of time to finalise the report of village Ratansara till the end of 30th
June, 2024.
19. It may be noted that the said Miscellaneous Application was filed
in November, 2023. As mentioned hereinabove, this Court had
vide the order dated 23.01.2024 extended the term of Commission
till 15.07.2024 after recording the statement of Secretary of the
Commission that the Commission shall finalise the claim in respect
of the village Ratansara by June, 2024. However, the Commission
has submitted the status report showing the progress and pendency
of work before it as on 27.06.2024.
20. It is pertinent to note that this Court in the judgment and order dated
03.11.2022 had clearly held that the villages in respect of which this
Court has already approved the reports of the Commission determining
the entitlements in respect of the 10 villages, the issues had stood
finalized, and there could be no re-determination on the basis of the
said judgment. Accordingly, it was directed in Paragraph 68 (iii)(c)
that the Commission can not reopen determinations based on change
of policies of the State, given that benefits adjudicated by it based
on factual determination has been crystalized and consequently, all
the cases that have been adjudicated and approved by this Court
can not be reopened. However, the Commission appears to have
entertained the cases filed by the land oustees of 10 villages, whose
reports have already been finalized and approved by this Court.
21. Similarly, the Commission also appears to have travelled beyond the
directions given by this Court in the said judgment dated 03.11.2022,
by entertaining the issues raised by the villagers and land oustees of
four villages namely Tumulia, kiripsira, Jhupuranga and Ratansara
with regard to R&R benefits. With regard to these four villages, it
may be noted that this Court in Paragraph 34 of the judgment dated
03.11.2022 had specifically held that “since the extent of land involved,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 175

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Anr. v.
Mathias Oram & Ors.

identification of law owners, and the basic market value along with
solatium and interest payments, have been determined, the only
additional exercise which the Commission has to carry out is the
differential payable after the re-determination in respect of all the
elements i.e. the market value, solatium, and further interest.” This
Court had clearly earmarked the task of the Commission and of the
other Authorities and given final directions in Paragraph 68 and 69
thereof, which had to be followed accordingly. The Commission also
appears to have entertained the issues with regard to the suitability
of resettlement sites for shifting of the eligible land oustees, taking
recourse to the order passed by this Court on 10.07.2017.
22. In our opinion, the Commission should not have entertained any of
these issues, when all the issues have been alluded and dealt with
thoroughly by this Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2022.
23. Now, so far as the report submitted by the Commission for the village
Ratansara is concerned, it appears that out of the three members,
one member of the Commission has given dissenting opinion as
regards the Method of calculation adopted by the Commission in
its report dated 27.06.2024. Since, the petitioner MCL had already
raised objections with regard to the Method of calculation, this Court
vide the order dated 10.10.2023 had transferred the issue to the
High Court of Orissa and the Writ Petition (C) being No. 39185/2023
in this regard is pending before the said High Court. As stated
by the petitioner MCL, it has already made payment towards the
compensation for the structure, without prejudice to its rights and
contentions as regards the Method of calculation, however, has not
made payment with regard to the compensation for the land, by
stating that the said compensation shall be paid as per the order that
may be passed by the High Court of Orissa in the pending petition.
24. In view of the above, it is directed that the High Court shall decide the
Writ Petition (C) being No. 39185/2023, as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this
order. The MCL shall make payment towards the compensation
immediately after the final judgment and order is passed by the High
Court in this regard. It is clarified that that we have not expressed any
opinion on the correctness of the Method of calculation adopted by the
Commission so far as village Ratansara is concerned and the High
Court shall decide the same considering the rights and contentions
176 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the parties as may be legally permissible. It is needless to say
that the either of the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to challenge
the order of the High Court, if they desire to do so in accordance
with law.
25. In the aforesaid premises, no further order for extension of the
term of the Commission is passed. The M.A. No. 2662/2023 stands
disposed of accordingly.
26. So far as M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 is concerned, the Applicant-
Manikeswari Bisthapita Committee has prayed to direct the
Commission to prepare PAF/PDF list determining the R & R benefits
of the four villages namely Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Kiripsira and
Ratansara. In view of the clear and explicit conclusions and directions
given by this Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2022, and in view
of the above order passed by this Court in M.A. No. 2662/2023, no
such directions as prayed for could be issued. Suffice it to say that it
shall be open for the applicant/claimants to raise the issues, as may
be permissible under the law, before the concerned authorities of the
State, in view of the directions given by this Court in the judgment
dated 03.11.2022.
27. In that view of the matter the M.A. (D) No.28318/2024 is dismissed.
All pending I.A.s filed therein also stand dismissed.
28. The M.A. (D) No.30630/2024 has been filed by the eight applicants
praying to direct the Commission to decide their cases at the earliest.
The said M.A. also does not survive in view of the above order and
is dismissed. All pending I.A.s filed therein also stand dismissed.

Result of the case: MA’s and IA’s dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain