Contractual Mining Disputes Not Maintainable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Land Inspection

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that contractual disputes involving disputed facts cannot ordinarily be decided in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, while disposing of a petition filed by villagers alleging that South Eastern Coalfields Limited failed to restore agricultural land damaged during mining operations.

In Mohan Gadari and Others v. South Eastern Coal Field Limited and Others, Justice Deepak Khot considered claims that underground mining and depillaring activities had rendered the petitioners’ agricultural land uncultivable. The villagers relied on a 2006 agreement under which the company had allegedly undertaken to restore the land within three years after completion of mining operations.

The petitioners argued that the failure to restore the land violated their livelihood rights under Articles 21 and 300-A and invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The respondent company, however, contended that the land had already been restored and that the dispute involved factual controversies unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings.

The Court observed that the photographs produced by the petitioners did not conclusively establish the condition of the land and noted that the matter involved “allegations and counter-allegations.” Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that writ courts are not meant to enforce contractual obligations or grant relief akin to specific performance where disputed questions of fact arise.

However, recognising that the petitioners were poor villagers dependent on agriculture, the Court directed the competent authority to inspect the land through an independent surveyor in the presence of the petitioners. It ordered that if the land is found uncultivable, restoration work must be completed within three months; otherwise, a reasoned speaking order must be passed on the petitioners’ representation.