CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 554 · Decided: 13-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 13, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
MP. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973: Scope of 
Held operation of Adhiniyam in relation to mining is void-Adhiniyam 
regulates building planned development and developments incidental and 
ancillary thereto-The operation of Adhiniyam does not trench upon the 
provisions of Central Act viz. Coal Act, Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition 
and Development) Act and Mines and Minerals (Regulation and 
Development) Act, 1957. 
Constitution of India 1950-Legislative competence-Doctrine of 
D · occupiedfield-Applicability, of 
E 
F 
The second respondent- Chairman of the Special Area Develop-
ment Authority (SADA), Singrauli passed orders under section 26 of 
the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 
directing the appellant to pull down the construction of the office 
buildings staff quarters etc. made by the appellant contrary to the 
provisions of the Adhiniyam. The appellant filed a writ petition in t~e 
Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the said directions which 
considered the question as to whether the provisions of the Adhiniyam 
overlapped the field occupied by the provisions of the Coal Act, the 
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act and Mines and 
Minerals (Regulations and Dvelopment) Act, 1957 and dismissed the 
petition holding that these Acts have not occupied the field covered by 
the Adhiniyam and therefore, the Act was intra vires the power of the 
legislature. 
G 
Appellant preferred an appeal in this Court contending that when 
the mining operations are to be carried out under the aforesaid 
provisions, it would include the building operations under the Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1960 made under the Act. Therefore, the operation 
of the Adhiniyam stands excluded. On behalf of the second respondent-
SADA it was contended that Adhiniyam regulates the development 
H 
area under the Adhiniyam including the construction of buildings 
554 
.. 
CENTRAL COALFIELDS v. STATE 
555 
within the notified development plan in the zones; the appellant had A 
constructed the building without obtaining prior permission from the 
SADA and that, therefore, the construction was in contravention of 
section 26 of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, the action was correctly taken 
and the Central Acts have no application as regards the building 
operations are concerned. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. There is no overlapping of the operation of the Adhi-
niyam vis-a-vis the Central Acts. [559 G] 
B 
2. Under the Coal Act and the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and C 
Development) Act, the mining area stands vested in the appellant and it 
is entitled to carry on mining operations under the Act and the Rules. 
The operation of Adhiniyam in relation to mining operation is void. 
Construction of office building, staff quarters, providing facilities for 
successful and effective mining operations, the welfare measure and 
providing right to residence and civic amenities to the staff and D 
workmen are incidental or ancillary to the main purpose i.e. mining 
operation under the Act and the Rules. The Adhiniyam regulates 
building planned development ,and the developments incidental and 
ancillary thereto. Under these circumstances the High Court has 
rightly held that the operation of Adhiniyam to the above extent does E 
not trench upon the field of operation under provisions of the Central 
Acts. Both could harmoniously co-exist and operate in the respective 
areas without colliding with each other. [559 D to F] 
3. Excluding mining development, when the zonal plan was pre-
pared and it was published for building operations, it would be a notice F 
to the appellant and if such a zonal plan comes in conflict with the 
smooth and effective building operations in the mining area and would 
impede its operations which are regulated as ancillary or incidental and 
concomitant necessity under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and 
other Central Acts, then it would always be open to the appellant either 
to bring it to the notice of the Director who is competent to make the G 
plans and have it corrected or in case such an objection was taken but 
was not acceded to, it would be open to the appellant to have it 
challenged in an appropriate proceeding and have it declared that it 
runs contrary to and impinge upon the mining operations under the 
relevant provisions 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.