LexTHE LODNA COLLIERY CO. LTD. versus BHOLA NATH ROY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1'U
l'tJ 'f1 l'r•l.P BU.th
••
Dtoli H•"" Na/A
SU.,A
sui. J.
1962
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Court had ordered that the hearing of the appeals
be expedited and heard on cyclostyled record but
the record was not made ready for a long time. We
also .find that a large number of documents were
included in the books prepared for ueo of tJrn court
to \vhich no reference was ma.de at the Bar during
the course of the hearing. Wo trust that the oaee
will bo taken up for hearing with the least practi-
cable delay a.nd disposed of according to law.
The appellants in the two appeals will be
entitled to their costs both in this Court and
the High Court. The costs of tho trial court will
be the cost in the cause.
Appeals allowed. Cases remitted.
THE LODNA COLLIERY CO. LTD.
v.
BHOLA.NATH ROY
(B. P. SINH.4, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRA.GA.D.KA.R
and RAGilUJIAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Lalthraj
lan&--Permanently selt/.,J,-Owmra'
rigll lo
,<Ub-soil mintrai..
The question arising for decision was whether a pcnon
with whom a re1umed invalid Lakhraj (revenue free) land
was permanently 11ttfled had rights in the sub-soil minerals or
not.
Held, that the right of property of the persons with
whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land had been settled, being
the same as of the Zamindars, extended to the sub-soil min·
era ls of the land held by them.
Ranjit Singlo v. Kali DMi Dt.bi (1917) L.R.44 I.A. 117,
referred to.
Bari Narain Singh v. Sri Ram Chakrabarli (1910) L. R.
37 I.A. 136, DurgaPrasad Singh v. Braja Nath Boae (1912)
L.R. 39 I.A. 133. Sashi Bhuaan Mwa v. Jyoti Prasad Singlo
Deo, (1916)L.R.44 I.A.46 and Raghtmath Roy Marwari v. Raja
of Jhms, (1919) L.R. 46 I.A. 158, held not applicable.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 405 of 1966.
2 S.d.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
687
Appeal·· from the judgment and decree dated
September 11, 1952, of the Calcutta High Court in
Appeal from Original Decree No. 162 of 1949.
M.C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, B.
Sen, S. N. Mitkherji and B. N. Ghosh, for the
appellant.
N. C. Chatterjet, J.C. Gho8e, S. P. Ghose, and
P.K. Chatterjee, for the respondents.
196,2. January 19 The judgment of the Court
was delivered by
RAGHUllAR DAYAL J.-Tbis appeal on a certifi-
cate granted by the High Court at Calcutta, raises
the question whether the person with whom a
resumed invalid Lakhraj (revenue free) land was
permanently settled has rights in the sub-soil
minerals or not. The necessary facts are briefly
these:-
The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the land
in suit in C. S. Khatian No. 6II and Sub-Khatians
Nos. 612 and 613 of village Sripur in
Touzi
No. 2597 of the Burdwan Collectorate.
The Maharaja of Burdwan is the proprietor of
the lands in village Sripur appertaining to Touzi
No. 12 of Burdwan Collectorate. He let out those
lands to the Pals and Goswamis of Sripur in Putni
right. The Putnidars also took coal mining lease
of those lands from the Maharaja and, thereafter,
both the Maharaja and the Putnidars granted the
coal mining lease of those lands to one P. K.
Chatterji of Ikrah who, in his tur.n, granted a sub-
lease of the same to Messrs. Lodna Colliery Co. Ltd.,
th!' predecessor-in-interest of the defendant company,
the Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd.
A portion of the lands in suit subsided and on
enquiry the plainti.1Fs found that the defendant
company had cut away a large quantity of the
11162
Tl.. Lotln• Colliery
Co. Ltd.
v.
11""4 Nath Roy
RaghularDayal J,
lie
n. IMN C.11;,.y
C.. LU.
••
..,.11' ... lioy
~ .. -- Dl!JWI J.
688 SUPREME COURT &EPORTS [1962) SUPP.
underground coal from the lands in 1111it. It ie on
account of IU.ch unjustified conduct of the defen·
dant company that the plaintilfs, on the buia of
their proprietary right, uaed for the recovery of
damages for coal wrongfully taken away by the
defendant from the land in suit and for other
wrongs. The defendant company oonteeted the
suit and denied the plaintiffs alle>ged ri{lhte on the
ground, inter a&, that the plaintiffs had no ti,le to
the sub·soil of the land in suit and consequently to
the ooal. The oontention really is that the land in
suit had been permanently settled with the plaintilra
after it had been resumed ae invalid Lakhraj land
and that such settlement conferred no better right.II
than what they originally p<l188118Cd on acoount of
the land in suit being grq,nted to their predelie88Ql'll·in·
interest under Brahmottar anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.