Calcutta High Court affirms the Principle of “Equitable Restitution for Discontinued Beneficiary Schemes”
Commentary on Smt. Mamta Banerjee & Anr. v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. (F.M.A. 358/2019, judgment dated 20 May 2025)

1. Introduction

This appeal before the Calcutta High Court arose from a decades-long tussle between the heirs of a “land-loser” and Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), a public sector mining company. At its core lies the Land Loser Scheme (1979), under which ECL granted either employment or 20,000 metric tonnes (MT) of saleable coal to persons whose agricultural land had been acquired for mining. Late Badal Banerjee—whose widow Smt. Mamta Banerjee and son Joy Banerjee are the present appellants—received only 2,100 MT during his lifetime. Multiple rounds of writ litigation ensued when ECL later claimed that Badal was covered, not by the Land Loser Scheme, but by the “Free Sale Scheme” and consequently refused further supply.

The impugned Single-Judge order (8 Jan 2018) had dismissed the appellants’ fourth writ petition, essentially on grounds of delay, alleged want of title, and the fact that another branch of the family had already received employment. The Division Bench (Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty & Reetobroto Kumar Mitra) has now reversed that finding, recognised Badal’s unfulfilled entitlement, and—because the original scheme stands abolished—directed ECL to pay a lump-sum compensation of ₹25 lakhs.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court sets aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allows the appeal.
• It conclusively holds that Badal was a land loser; ECL’s own internal documents and note-sheets constitute binding admissions to that effect.
• Time-bar and laches are rejected because the appellants and their predecessor continuously pursued the claim; delay was largely occasioned by ECL’s inaction.
• The Court clarifies that the Land Loser Scheme is not a “contract” but a statutory-flavoured policy giving rise to enforceable public-law rights.
• As the scheme itself now stands discontinued, specific performance (i.e., supply of the remaining 17,900 MT of coal) would be “unenforceable”; instead, an equitable monetary restitution is awarded.
• Respondent’s prayer for stay was expressly refused.

3. Analytical Commentary

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

1. State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhav (1995 (4) SCC 683)
   – Relates to discretionary refusal of writ relief owing to delay. The Court distinguishes it on facts: unlike Bhailal Bhav, Badal had persistently pressed his claims. Delay, the Bench observes, was “caused by ECL’s stone-walled response”.
2. Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2006 (4) SCC 332)
   – Reinforces that laches can defeat stale claims. The Bench notes continuous cause of action and repeated representations in the instant case, thereby neutralising Tarsem Singh’s applicability.
3. Hariom Shiv Kumar v. Municipal Corp., Ahmedabad (2019 (2) SCC 329)
   – Restates that disputed facts rarely fit writ jurisdiction. Here, because ECL’s own documents removed factual controversy, writ jurisdiction was perfectly tenable.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Admissions trump denials. The Division Bench treats ECL’s internal note dated 25 Feb 1995 and the General Manager’s letter dated 27 Sep 1996 as unequivocal acknowledgments of Badal’s “land-loser” status. In public-law proceedings, a governmental admission—internal or external—binds the authority unless specifically withdrawn or disproved.

b) Scheme-based entitlements ≠ Private contracts. ECL’s argument that the claim resembled “specific performance of a contract” falls flat; the Court clarifies that when a public authority frames a benefit scheme, beneficiaries acquire statutory-like rights enforceable through writs. Therefore, traditional notions of readiness–willingness do not apply.

c) Equity steps in when policy becomes defunct. Having found ECL in breach but acknowledging abolition of both schemes, the Bench invokes Cardozo’s famous caution (“no knight-errant” yet guided by “consecrated principles”) to justify monetary compensation. The Court relies on the equitable maxim “Equity regards as done that which ought to have been done”.

d) Separate estates, separate entitlements. The grant of compassionate employment to Jiten (son of Badal’s uncle) cannot extinguish Satish’s branch rights. The Court deftly applies the basics of succession law: Kenaram’s estate devolved per stirpes into two distinct shares.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Precedential Value on Scheme-Discontinuance: Courts may grant monetary restitution where execution of an abolished public-benefit scheme is impossible but accrued rights subsist.
• Admissions Doctrine Strengthened: Internal notes, if not retracted or explained, can decisively tilt writ proceedings.
• Delay Jurisprudence Balanced: The ruling re-emphasises that persistent pursuit of rights neutralises laches, especially when administrative assurances induced the delay.
• Compassionate-Appointment Analogies Clarified: Benefit to one heir under a family tree does not ipso facto satisfy obligations owed to another co-sharer.
• Monetary Benchmarks: Though fact-specific, the ₹25-lakh figure may act as a rough yardstick in future “coal in lieu of land” disputes, pending legislative or policy clarity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Land Loser Scheme (1979): A policy granting either employment or 20,000 MT of coal to landowners whose property was compulsorily acquired for mining.
• Free Sale Scheme: A contemporaneous ECL policy allowing lifting of coal on a commercial footing, without the “land-loser” eligibility filter.
• Writ Petition (Article 226): A constitutional remedy enabling High Courts to issue directions to any State body for enforcement of legal rights.
• Specific Performance: A contractual remedy compelling a party to fulfil promised acts (e.g., deliver goods). The Court clarified that a statutory scheme doesn’t constitute a contract.
• Laches / Delay: A doctrine barring relief if a claimant “sleeps over his rights” and the delay prejudices the respondent. Continuous representations usually defeat a laches defence.
• Admission: A statement—oral, written, or by conduct—accepting certain facts; in litigation, binding unless withdrawn or explained.

5. Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Smt. Mamta Banerjee & Anr. v. ECL crystallises a pragmatic yet principled approach when statutory-flavoured benefit schemes are retrospectively discontinued. Recognising the futility of directing ECL to supply coal under a non-existent scheme, the Bench instead awarded equitable restitution, signalling that rights once vested cannot be defeated by administrative abolition. Equally significant is the Court’s treatment of administrative admissions and its calibrated rejection of laches where the claimant was—as here—caught in a “convoluted maze of litigations” not of her own making.

Future disputes involving discontinued public-benefit schemes—be they mining, infrastructure, or rehabilitation—will likely invoke this precedent for equitable compensation. By marrying doctrinal fidelity with equitable innovation, the Division Bench has advanced the cause of substantive justice without transgressing constitutional limits.