Calcutta High Court: An appeal was filed by Mamata Banerjee and her son seeking enforcement of the entitlements due to her late husband Badal Banerjee under the Land Loser Scheme of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), following the acquisition of his land for mining purposes and ECL’s subsequent denial of coal allotment. A Division Bench of Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, JJ., set aside the order of the Single Judge and held that Mr. Banerjee was indeed a beneficiary under the Land Loser Scheme, as evidenced by uncontroverted admissions and official documents of ECL, and directed the company to compensate the appellants with a sum of ₹25 lakhs in lieu of the undelivered coal.
This case arises out of a long-standing dispute concerning the entitlement of Late Badal Banerjee, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants Mamata Banerjee (widow) and Joy Banerjee (son), under the “Land Loser Scheme” of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). The litigation, which began in 1992 and spanned over three decades, centered on whether Badal was entitled to receive coal under the scheme, which promised either employment or 20,000 metric tons of coal to individuals or their families whose lands (minimum two acres) had been acquired by ECL for mining purposes.
The facts trace back to the original landowner, whose estate was divided between his two sons, one being the father of Badal Banerjee and another. The appellants contended that land belonging to Mr. Badal Banerjee was acquired by ECL, and pursuant to the 1979 Land Loser Scheme, wherein he had been permitted to lift approximately 2100 metric tons of coal. However, further lifting was stalled due to his financial incapacity. He maintained that he was covered under the Land Loser Scheme, whereas ECL later denied this, asserting instead that coal had been issued under the Free Sale Scheme.
Initially, Mr. Badal Banerjee filed a writ petition in 1992, which he withdrew in 1995 based on assurances from ECL that they would allow him to lift coal. When this assurance did not materialize, he filed another writ in 1998, which was dismissed for default in 2008. By then, Mr. Banerjee had passed away. The appellants subsequently initiated fresh litigation, which was dismissed on res judicata grounds, and the appeal and later SLP were also unsuccessful. However, liberty was granted by the Supreme Court to seek restoration of the 1998 petition, which was allowed in 2013, with substitution of the appellants in place of Mr. Banerjee.
The writ petition was disposed of in 2014 with the direction to ECL to consider the appellants’ claim and pass a reasoned order. However, ECL, in its order dated 09-10-2014, rejected the claim stating that Mr. Banerjee’s entitlement fell under the Free Sale Scheme and not the Land Loser Scheme. It also took the stand that since a nominee of another brother, ie., his son had already received employment, no further benefits were due to the family. This decision was challenged through a fourth writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge, and hence the present appeal.
The Court found that multiple documents and internal communications of ECL, including a letter dated 27-09-1996 from its General Manager, unequivocally acknowledged Mr. Banerjee as a land loser. These documents, though termed “internal” by ECL, were held to be clear admissions of liability that could not be simply dismissed. The Court noted that the ECL’s position was inconsistent and that it failed to deny or explain several key documents as evidence of Mr. Banerjee’s entitlement. Furthermore, it held that the compassionate appointment of Jiten (son of Badal’s uncle) could not satisfy ECL’s obligation towards Mr. Banerjee’s lineage.
The Court rejected ECL’s arguments on the grounds of delay, laches, and lack of contractual performance. It emphasized that Mr. Banerjee’s had been diligently pursuing his rights through repeated representations and that the delays were attributable to ECL’s inaction and unfulfilled assurances. The claim was not contractual in nature but flowed from a statutory scheme.
Though the Court acknowledged that both the Land Loser Scheme and Free Sale Scheme had been abolished and reinstating coal entitlement now would be unenforceable, it held that justice required compensation. Relying on equitable principles, the Court directed ECL to pay a lump sum of ₹25 lakhs to the appellants within six weeks in lieu of the undelivered balance quantity of coal (17,900 metric tons), recognizing the appellants’ prolonged suffering and the administration’s apathy.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Single Judge dated 8th January 2018 was set aside. On the aspect of balancing the rights of the parties, the Court directed the respondents to disburse an amount of ₹25 lakhs in favour of the appellants.
[Mamta Banerjee v. Eastern Coalfields Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4421, decided on 20-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv., Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Diptendu Acharya, Adv., Mr. Tamaghna Chattopadhyay, Advocates for the Appellants
Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Akanksha Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Madhumanti Chakraborty, Advocates for the Respondents