Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.7 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to order a criminal investigation into complaints of creating of fake Gram Sabha documents.

10.8 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order/relief that this Hon'ble Court may please deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including grant of cost of the instant litigation.

5. In WPC No. 1247/2022, WPC No. 698/2022, WPC No. 560/2022 and WPC No.302/2022, essentially, prayers are same. Prayers are made for setting aside Sections 4(1), 7(1), 9(1) and 11(1) notification issued under the CB Act. Declarations are sought that (i) CB Act is ultra vires to the Constitution of India; (ii) CB Act cannot be invoked in case of State Government owned company or where acquired land ultimately benefits a private company; (iii) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for short, Act of 2013, and Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, for short, PESA Act of 1996, will apply in cases of acquisition under the CB Act. Prayer is also made for a direction for a Court monitored investigation into the complaint of creating fake Gram Sabha resolutions.

14. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava submits that though the Constitution Bench in M/s. Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Others , reported in AIR 1961 SC 954, and in State of West Bengal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1241, had upheld the validity of the CB Act, this Court can consider the validity of the CB Act. It is submitted that while in M/s. Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. (supra), the validity was judged on the touchstone of Article 19(1)(g) and 31(A) of the Constitution, in State of West Bengal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the legislative competency of the CB Act. He placed reliance on Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Others, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 65. It is submitted that under the provisions of the Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, for short, FR Act, 2006, the petitioners have community rights over the forest area and the provisions of CB Act are inconsistent with the same. He has also referred to Section 13 of the FR Act, 2006, which provides that save as otherwise provided in that Act and the provisions of the PESA Act of 1996, the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. He has submitted that the CB Act is also inconsistent with PESA Act of 1996 as provisions of consultation with the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats before making acquisition of land in the scheduled area for development projects and before re-settling or rehabilitating persons effected by such projects is conspicuously absent in the CB Act.

30. In view of the above, it will be impermissible for this Court to venture into examining as to whether the CB Act is ultra vires for the reason that according to Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, the provisions of CG Code, 1959, the FR Act, 2006 or the PESA Act of 1996 are not in sync with the provisions of the CB Act and that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided validity of CB Act, CG Code, 1959, the FR Act, 2006 or the PESA Act of 1996 had not come into being.

31. In view of the above discussion, the plea raised with regard to unconstitutionality of the CB Act has no merit.

43. Coal is a major mineral. The provisions of the PESA Act of 1996 are not applicable to major minerals which is evident from Section 4(k) of the PESA Act of 1996. In Naresh Singh (supra), Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that It will be clear from the language used in section 4 of the PESA Act of 1996 that the embargo therein is not on Parliament but on Legislature of a State. It was further held that the acquisition of land in the Scheduled Areas in that case being for mining by a government company under law made by Parliament, namely, the CB Act or the Act of 1894, section 4(i) of the 1996 Act does not apply to such acquisition. Therefore, there can be no applicability of PESA Act of 1996 in respect of acquisition made under CB Act.