LexKALI PRASAD AGARWALLA & OTHERS versus BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ j 1 't ,,._ 1 l KALI PRASAD AGARWALLA & OTIIERS A v. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTIIERS MARCH 31, 1989 [G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.) B Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973: ss. 2(h)(iv ), 2(h)(vi), 3, 5 & ~Land used for carrying on mining operations adjacent to a coal mine-Whether a mine-Whether vested in Central Government- Owners right, title and interest-Whether extinguished. Practice and Procedure: Whether parties entitled to retract from c evidence let in. Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 provided for vest- ing an estate or tenure in the State. Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 defines a 'mine' ,to mean any excavation 0 where any operation for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on. Sub-clause (iv) thereto includes therein all open cast workings aild sub-clause (vi) takes in all lands, buildings etc., in or adjacent to a mine and used for the· purposes of the mine. Section 3(1) provides for acquisition of rights of owners in respect of coal mines by the Central Government. Section 5( l) empowers l?. the Central Government to direct vesting of the said tights in a Govern- ment company. Section 6(1) refers properties vested in the Central Government free from mortgages etc. The appellants instituted a suit in respect of a large expanse of land for declaration of their homestead right thereto. The possession in F the zamindari right was settled to their ancestor in 1949. They, there- fore, claimed ownership of leasehold land. The respondent Government-company resisted the suit on the grounds, firstly, that the disputed land formed part of a colliery which had vested in the Central Government and thereafter in the company G under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act and secondly, that the interest claimed by the plaintiffs, automatically stood extinguished with the vesting of the estate of the plaintiffs' lessor by reason of the notification issued under s. 3 of the Land Reforms Act. The trial court negatived all the defences and decreed the suit. H 283 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 2 S.C.R. A Reversing the said decree, the High Court held that the lease granted to the plaintiffs was an encumbrance which was annihilated with the issuance of the notification under s. 3 of the Land Reforms Act, and that the lease having thus come to an end the plaintiffs had no title to be declared. It further found that the suit lands were adjacent to a coal mine and were being used for the purpose of the said mine. Therefore, it B held that the suit lands were more within the meaning of the Nationali· f. c sation Act, and that what vests under that Act is the mine and not ~ merely the interest of the owner of the mine. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: 1.1 The evidence on record both for the plaintiff· appellants and the defendant-respondents makes it evident that the land was being used for the purpose of the mine for carrying on the mining operations in respect of the part of the seam lying immediately below the surface. There cannot be any working mine without the surface being included in that concept. If the surface does not form part of the D concept of mine, it is not possible to have any excavation. Section 2(h)(iv) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act includes open cast working within the definition of 'mine.' [289E-F[ 1.2 The suit land was also adjacent to a coal mine and was being f- used for the purposes of the said mine, namely, stacking of the coal and E effecting local sale thereof. It was therefore, a mine as defined under s. 2(h)(vi) of the Act. [289G) 2. Under s. 3 of the said Act, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances. It F was immaterial whether the mine belonged to the State or to a private party. The appellant's title to the said land, if any, thus stood extinguished. [289H; 290A) G State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1196411 SCR 371, refer· red to. 3. The parties went to trial knowing fully well what they were required to prove. They have adduced evidence of their choice in support of the respective claims. That evidence has been considered by both courts below. The appellants cannot now turn round and say that the evidence should not be looked into. This is a well accepted H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.