LexBHARAT COKING COAL LTD. versus MADANLAL AGRAWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. MADANLAL AGRA WAL NOVEMBER 20, 1996 [A.M. AHMADI, CJ., SUHAS C. SEN AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973: Sections 2(h) (xi), (o) 3 and 26. 'Mine '-Extended meaning-Explanation of-Held: all properties which fell within the definition of 'mine' in S.2 (h) and which were used over a period of time and not temporarily and which were required for proper functioning of the mine, whether or not belonged to owner of mine, would vest in the Central Government by virtue o/S.3-Hence, even though D lands and buildings solely used/or purposes of office or residence of officers and staff of mine which did not belong to owner of mine but be/dnged to another person, right, title and interest therein, vested in Central Government-Mines Act, 1952. One M instituted a suit for eviction of the appellant from the E land and buildings allegedly owned by him adjacent to the coal mine which had vested in the Central Government by virtue of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The coal mine was owned by United Mining Company. The case of M was that he had in his individual capacity purchased certain properties together with structures thereon by registered deeds of sale and built further structures and remodelled F them. The United Mining Company took these structures on monthly rent. The structures were utilised as office premises of the coal mine as also staff quarters. Eviction was sought for non-payment of monthly rent for several years. However, even before the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act came into force the management of the coal G mine along with the disputed properties were taken over by the Central Government. No objection was taken thereto by the plaintiff. It was only three years later that M filed the suit. In cross-examination before trial court M stated that he was the director of the United Mining Company and that the other director was his own brother. H The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. In appeal the Division 886 BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. MADAN LAL AGRAWAL 887 Bench of the High Court held that the appellant had defaulted in A .. payment of rent, was liable to be evicted and that the suit premises had not vested in the Central Government by virtue of the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act. Therefore, an eviction order was passed against the appellant. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. B The question before this Court was whether the right, title and interest ofM in the suit premises had vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Allowing the appeal, this Court c HELD : I.I. The suit premises fall within the ambit of the definition of 'mine' in Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and as such had vested in the Central Government on the appointed day by virtue of the provision of Section 3 of the Act, even though these premises might not have been in the ownership of the D United Mining Company. (909 Df 1.2. The idea behind the Nationalisation Act appears to be that the Government wanted to take over and run the coal mines so as to ensure rational, co·ordinated and scientific development and E utilisation of coal resources. The object of the Act was to subserve the common good and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act should not be construed in a way to frustrate the working of the coal mines altogether and thereby stop or bring down production of coal by the nationalisation of coal mines. The extended meaning given to 'mine' was to ensure that the activity of mining of F coal could be carried on in an uninterrupted fashion to ensure that after taking over of the mine, the Central Government is in a position to operate the mine and extract coal and do everything that is needful for the purpose of working the mine. (900 GU, 901 A) 2.1. Section 3 of the Act which deals with acquisition of the G - rights of owners of coal mines in relation to the coal mines, requires to be interpreted in the light of the objects for which the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was enacted. The contention that Section 3 was limited application and only took away the rights of the owners specified in the Schedule is not borne out of the scheme of the Act H 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A and also the wording of Sectio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.