Prior settlement does not bar compensation for continuing environmental damage despite technical impossibility of fresh assessment.

The dispute involves compensation for land degradation caused by open-cast coal mining by North Eastern Coalfields (the Company) in the Ledo area, Assam.

While some compensation was paid between 1993 and 1995 as "full and final settlement," the Ledo Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity (the Samity) continued to seek damages for ongoing pollution

Following a series of litigations, the Gauhati High Court in 2008 directed a fresh assessment.

The Additional District Magistrate (ADM) subsequently assessed compensation at ₹2,98,31,308/- for the period 1989–2006

This assessment was set aside by the High Court in 2014, with a direction for a joint field verification and fresh determination

In 2015, a joint verification revealed that a fresh assessment for 1989–2006 was no longer feasible as mining had ceased in 2006

Consequently, a meeting on 05.06.2015 resolved to revive the previously assessed amount of ₹2,98,31,308/-

The Company challenged this resolution, while the Samity sought its enforcement

1. Whether the Samity’s claim is barred by the principles of estoppel and waiver due to the 1993–1995 settlements?

2. Whether the claim is barred by res judicata in light of previous PIL and human rights proceedings?

3. Whether the Samity has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition as an unregistered body?

4. Whether the resolution to pay ₹2,98,31,308/- is legally sustainable when the underlying assessment was previously set aside and a fresh assessment was found impossible?

The court emphasized that the damage caused by mining pollution is a "continuing damage," and prior payments do not absolve a company of liability for ongoing degradation

It applied the principle that substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations, such as the registration status of a representative body

Regarding res judicata, the court held the doctrine only applies when a matter is "directly and substantially in issue" and finally decided, which was not the case for the full compensation period

The court also relied on Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, noting that while societies must generally follow bylaws to sue, the court may overlook technicalities to prevent the deprivation of rights

The court found that the Company's defense of "full and final settlement" from 1995 failed because pollution-induced land degradation is a continuous tort, making the number of affected ryots dynamic rather than static

On the issue of locus standi, the court ruled that since the Samity's members were undisputedly affected, technical hurdles regarding the Samity's legal status should not bar substantial justice

Regarding the 2015 resolution, the court acknowledged a legal impasse: a fresh assessment was mandated by the Division Bench but was factually impossible due to the efflux of time (nearly 10 years since mining stopped)

While the 2015 resolution to revive a "set-aside" assessment was technically flawed, the underlying entitlement to compensation remained valid

To resolve this, the court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to bypass the impossible task of precise quantification

It held that while the members were entitled to compensation, the original figure of ₹2.98 Crores could not be sustained due to the lack of fresh verification

To balance the equities, the court awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakh)

The Petitioner-Company (North Eastern Coalfields) was directed to pay this amount to the affected persons/Samity members within 60 days of the judgment