Prior compensation does not bar claims for continuing damage caused by mining-induced land degradation.

The dispute concerns compensation for land degradation caused by open-cast coal mining operations by North Eastern Coalfields (the "Petitioner-Company") in the Ledo area of Assam.

While the Petitioner-Company claimed that full and final compensation was paid between 1993 and 1995, the Ledo Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity (the "Samity") alleged continuous damage to agricultural land.

In earlier litigation (W.A. No. 58/2008), the Division Bench observed that damage from mining pollution is continuous and prior payments do not absolve future liability.

Consequently, an assessment in 2008 fixed compensation at Rs. 2,98,31,308/-, but this was set aside in 2014 by the High Court, which ordered a fresh joint field verification.

A joint verification in May 2015 concluded that a fresh assessment for the period 1989–2006 was "not possible" due to the lapse of time and cessation of mining.

However, a subsequent meeting on 05.06.2015 resolved to revive the previously set-aside assessment of Rs. 2.98 Crores.

The Petitioner-Company challenged this resolution as arbitrary, while the Samity sought its enforcement.

1. Whether the writ petition filed by the Samity was maintainable given its status as an unregistered body.

2. Whether the Samity’s claim was barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver, or res judicata due to prior settlements and litigations.

3. Whether the decision to revive a previously set-aside compensation assessment of Rs. 2,98,31,308/- was legally sustainable when a fresh assessment was deemed impossible.

The court applied the principle that substantial justice must take precedence over technical considerations.

Regarding maintainability, it referenced Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and relevant precedents (Hemant Gupta v. Ramasubramanian; Advocates’ Association, Bangalore v. District Registrar), noting that while a society generally sues through authorized officers, technical bars should not prevent affected citizens from seeking relief.

The court also applied the doctrine of "continuous cause of action" in environmental damage, establishing that past settlements do not bar claims for ongoing degradation.

Regarding res judicata, the court held that the principle only applies where a matter was directly, substantially, and finally decided between the parties.

The court rejected the Petitioner-Company's technical objections regarding the Samity's legal standing, emphasizing that the members’ lands were undeniably damaged by mining operations, necessitating a focus on substantial justice.

On the issue of estoppel and res judicata, the court found that the Division Bench had previously ruled that mining pollution causes continuing damage, meaning the 1993-1995 settlements could not cover the entire period up to 2006.

Furthermore, prior PILs did not result in a final adjudication of the specific compensation amounts for 1989–2006.

However, the court found merit in the Petitioner-Company's argument that the 05.06.2015 Minutes were flawed; the authorities could not mechanically revive an amount (Rs. 2.98 Crores) that the High Court had already set aside, especially after a joint verification confirmed that a fresh, accurate assessment was now impossible.

To resolve this impasse, the court determined that while the entitlement to compensation was established, the lapse of time prevented precise quantification.

It held that although the exact damages for the 1989–2006 period could no longer be assessed, the affected persons were entitled to relief.

To balance the equities, the court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakh) to be paid by North Eastern Coalfields within 60 days.

The plea of res judicata and estoppel raised by the Company was expressly rejected.