M/S. BURRAKUR COAL CO., LTD. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 10-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

February 10. 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
M/s. BURRAKUR COAL CO., LTD. 
v. 
[1962] 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(And connected petition) 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Coal Min<S-Law providing for prospecting for coal and ac-
quisition-Validity-"Unworked land", meaning of-"To under-
take any operation in the land", meaning of-Coal Bearing Areas 
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), ss. 4, 5, 6, 7, 
8, lJ, 14-Constitulion of India, Arts. 31A(1)(e), 31(2). 
The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 
1957, was enacted, as indicated in the preamble, for providing 
for the acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or 
likely to contain coal deposits, and under s. 4(1) of the Act, the 
Central Government was empowered to issue a notification with 
reference to its intention to prospect for coal from land in any 
locality. By s. 5(b) any mining lease granted to a person and in 
respect of which a notification had been issued shall cease to have 
effect, and under s. 7 the Central Government was entitled to 
acquire the mining rights within a period of two or three years 
from the date of the notification. On July 28, 1960, the Central 
Government published a notification under s. 4(1) of the Act in 
respect of an area included in the colliery in which the petitio-
' 
ners had acquired mining rights. Between the year '932 and 
the month of May, 1960, the colliery was not worked because it 
was uneconomical to work it, but the petitioners made an appli-
cation on December 3, 1959, to the Coal Board for permission to 
reopen the Colliery and though no reply was received from 
the Board, the petitioners commenced drilling operations in 
May, 1960, but discontinued them from August 12, 1960, in view 
• 
of the notification. The petitioners challenged the validity of 
the notification on the ground that the preamble of the Act and 
ss. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 show that the Act was applicable only to un-
worked mines which must mean virgin lands, and not to those 
which were being worked at the time of notification or which 
were worked in the past, whereas the petitioners' coalfield had 
been worked and the working had ceased for some time only due 
to the unremunerative market for the produce. The petitioners 
also contended that the Act contravened Arts. 19(1)(g) and 31(2) 
of the Constitution of India on the grounds (r) that the effect of 
a notification under the Act was to prevent an owner or lessee of 
a mine from working for two or three years, which was too long 
• 
a period and, therefore, the restrictions could not be regarded as 
' -
' 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
45 
reasonable, (2) that the Act did not contain any provision for 
compensation for the deprivation of the petitioners' right to 
carry on their business for two or three years, and (3) that s. r3 
of the Act, though it dealt with the payment of compensation, 
did not provide for compensation for mineral rights. 
Held: (1) that the expression "unworked land" occurring in 
the preamble of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Deve-
lopment) Act, 1957, means land which was not being worked at 
the time of the notification issued under the Act and includes 
dormant mines. 
Where the object or meaning of a enactment is not clear, 
the preamble may be resorted to to explain it. 
In re the Kera/a Education Bill, I957. [1959] S.C.R. 995, 
referred. 
(2) that the Act is applicable not only to virgin lands but 
also to dormant collieries or unworked lands, including mines 
which were worked in the past but mining operations therein 
are not being carried on at present. 
(3) that the expression "to undertake any operation in 
the land" in s. 5(b) of the Act refers to the undertaking of an 
operation on land not for the first time only but at the resump-
tion of an operation which had been abandoned or discontinued.· 
The resumption of the working of a rnine after a casual closure 
or a closure in the ordinary course of the \VOrking of a mine 
would not fall within the bar created bys. 5(b). 
(4) that the restrictions imposed upon an owner or lessee 
of a mine by which he is prevented from working his mine for a 
certain period of time under ss. 4 and 5 of the Act are not un-
reasonable and that the Act does not contravene Art. l9(1)(g) of 
the Constitution. 
(5) that such restrictions amount to a modification of his 
rights within the meaning of Art. 31A(1)

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