LexUNION OF INDIA versus M/S. KHAS KARANAPURA COLLIERY LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·354 UNION OF INDIA v. ·MIS. KHAS KARANAPURA COLLIERY LTD. April 15, 1968 ;.,,_ [R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S." HEGDll, JJ.] • '.: 9"< . CiiJlstitu:ion of India, 1950, Art. 226--Jurisdiction of court to deal .. With _-qU~siign not specifically raised in writ petition-Land of lesttl for wjnnfog-coo1 notified under s. 4(1) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition .ami Development) Act (20 of 1957)-lf lessee aggriev.d-Wri• petition filed;ifllltput 5 months after issue of notifiCation-lf amounts to /aches. .A B Tiit'¥espondent was a lessee of 1401 bighas of land and was carrying C -oil ·mining operations on the land for winning coal. On 9th October 1963, the appellant-Government issued a notification under s. 4( 1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, giving notice of the Government's intention to prospect for coal in f200 bighas .<Jf the leasehold land. These 1200 bighas covered land, on which, amongst other buildings, a railway siding, boiler roo~s, office rooois1 fan house and air shaft premises were situate. On 23rd March 1964, the D respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the notifica- tion as contravening s. 4( 4) of the Act. and the High Court quashed the notification. In appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) In the premises notified, processes ancillary to the get- ting, dressing or preparation for sale of coal obtained as a result di the mining operations were being carried on, and therefore the impugned E notification violated the second limb of s. 4( 4) and was invalid. ·[787 D-EJ . (2) Though no specific case under the second part of. s. 4(4) was pleaded in the writ petition, all the facts neces5ary for determining the question were before the Court and the matter was fully argued in the High Court without any objection. Therefore, it could. not he urgood that it was open to this Court to consider that aspect of the case. F [787 F: 788 Al (3) Under s. 5 of the Act the effect of the notification was to re- quire the respondent to bring to a halt all his operations in the notified area till action was taken under s. 7 or till the period prescribed in that section came to an end. Therefore, the respondent was aggrieved by the ·impugned notification. !787 BJ · ( 4) The delay in filing the writ petition was not sufficient to refuse G relief to the respondent [786 Gl ( 5) J.lf the notification was invalid, it is not for this Court to decide whether any other area of the leasehold could have been notified. [788 Bl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 332 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree, dated October 30, 1964 H <Jf the Patna High Court in Misc. Judi. Case No. 643 of 1!164. Syed Mohammed and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. ... UNION v. K: K. COLLIEllY (Htgde, !,) 785 A A. K. Sen, S. C. Banerjee and A. K. Nag, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J.-In this appeal by certificate the question for deci- sion is whether the Higl]. Court of Patna was-correct in its conclu- sion that the notification No. S. 0. 29_91 issued by the Union B Government on October 9, 1963 under s. 4(1)* of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, (No. 20 of 1957 )-hereinafter called "the Act" is violative of sub-s. (4) of that section. B E F G H The facts of the case fall within a narrow compass. The res- pondent, Khas Karanpura Colliery Limited, tooT on lease 1401 bighas of land in mouza sale in the district of Hazaribagh as per a registered lease deed of July 8, 1949, for the purpose of winning coal. Thereafter it commenced working the colliery in 1952. Certain seams were opened up. Electric transmission lines were put up, staff quarters, office quarters, houses for labourers, hospital, school etc. were built. _ For the purpose of despatching the ~oal. a separate railway track was constructed and a railway siding 6uilt. These works were completed long before the impugned notification was issued. Under the notification in question 1 ZOO bighas of land were notified with a view to acquisition, which included areas on which the railway siding, staff quarters, boiler house, houses for labourers etc. were constructed. The respondent challenged the validity of the said notification in MJC No. 643 of 1964---'an application unaer _Art. 226 of the Constitution-before the High Court. The main contention taken in the writ petition was that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.