LexM/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. versus MAHENDRA PAL BHATIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 287 [2022] 13 S.C.R. 287 287 M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. MAHENDRA PAL BHATIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2015) APRIL 01, 2022 [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973: ss.2(h), 3 – Coal mines – It is not the corporate houses or the business entities owning coal-mines that are transferred to and vested in the Central Government, but it is the coal-mines that are transferred to and vested in the Central Government – If the land fell within the definition of the expression “mine” under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under s.3(1) – As could be seen from clause (xi) of s.2(h), even the land and building used solely for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff are also included in the definition of the word ‘mine’ – In the instant case, the contention that the property was the private property of one ‘J’ and that his occupation as Manager of a colliery was irrelevant, would fall to the ground – The focus of s.2(h) r/w s.3(1) is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is – Similarly, the objection that the land in question was not used as a colliery is also irrelevant in view of the fact that clause (xi) of s.2(h) uses the words “wherever situated”. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD 1. Section 3(1) of the Nationalisation Act, declares that on the appointed day, which was 01.05.1973, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal-mines specified in the Schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central government free from all encumbrances. [Para 12][291-E] 2. What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government, were not corporate houses or business entities owning coal-mines. What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal-mines. In other words this A B C D E F G H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 13 S.C.R. Nationalisation Act, was little different from the statutory enactments nationalizing institutions such as banks, insurance companies etc. Therefore, the ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the expression “mine” under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1). [Para 13][291-G-H; 292-A] 3. The contention that the property was the private property of one ‘J’ and that his occupation as Manager of a colliery was irrelevant, would fall to the ground. The focus of Section 2(h) read with Section 3(1) is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is. Similarly, the objection that the land in question was not used as a colliery is also irrelevant in view of the fact that clause (xi) of Section 2(h) uses the words “wherever situated”. In any case the contention that the property was not part of a colliery, may be factually incorrect. [Paras 15 and 16][293- D-E] 4. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Madanlal Agrawal, this Court clarified that the extended meaning given to the word “mine” was to ensure that the activity of mining coal could be carried on in an uninterrupted fashion. This Court also cautioned “that the Act should not be construed in a way to frustrate the working of the coal mines altogether, thereby stop or bring down production of coal by the nationalization of coal mines”. Therefore, the impugned orders of the High Court run contrary to the statutory prescriptions and hence liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned orders of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. [Paras 18 and 19][294-D-F] Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Madanlal Agrawal (1997) 1 SCC 177 : [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 886- followed. New Satgram Engineering Works & Another v. Union of India & Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 570 : [1981] 1 SCR 406 - referred to. A B C D E F G H 289 Case Law Reference [1981] 1 SCR 406 referred to Para 17 [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 886 followed Para 18 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2015 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 272 of 2013. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Anirudh Singh, Ms. Pallavi Barua, Krishanu Barva, Advs. for the Appellant. Arijit Mazumdar, Shambo Nandy, Abhinav Mukerji, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.