UNION OF INDIA versus M/S. KHAS KARANAPURA COLLIERY LTD.

Hegde, J.-In this appeal by certificate the question for decision is whether the Higl]. Court of Patna was-correct in its conclusion that the notification No. S. 0. 29_91 issued by the Union 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.

p. 785, margin A

The facts of the case fall within a narrow compass. The respondent, 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 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.

p. 785, margin B

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 the notification in question contravenes sub-s. ( 4) of s. 4. The High Court accepted that contention and quashed the notification.

p. 785, margin E

. The. ~aterial facts are more or less admitted. Along with its wnt petit10n the respondent produced a plan· of the colliery showing therein the railway the railway siding, labour quarters, office premises and various other buildini:s 'put up on the laad. I~- had ·also sh~wn therein the actual places where mining operations were earned on. The correctness of t!lls plan has not been

p. 785, margin F

Wbe_, ~10C4 !'

p. 785, margin G

,~ ............... ......................

p. 785, margin G

~from ~ctually o~. a~iuarY ~ d~q disputed. From that plan it is seen tllat in a considerable po_rtion of the land notified under s. 4 ( I) there are prmiiises on wliich processes ancillary to the. getting, diessing or preparation for sale of coal obtained as a result of the mining operation arc· beiDg carried on. · There is. also no doubr that if the respondent is deprived of the benefit of those ~ses it would be. difficult, if not impossible for it, to continue to work the colliery. B

pp. 785–786, margin H

The High Court has come to the conclusion tllat in determining the area in which coal mining operations is being actually carried on, one is not to take into consideration merely those spots where actual digging is going on, but also areas which are sufficient to constitute a commercial or economic urut, and if so viewed, the c entire leasehold may be justifiably considered as areas on whidl coal mining operations are actually bci.Jlg carried on. Alternatively, it held that the entire notified area had to be excluded bccalllC in parts of that area mining operations arc actually being carried on and in the remainin~ parts there are j>remises on whfoh procesaes ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation fot''sale of coal obtained as a result of the mining operations are being carried. In other words the entire area is' exempt from being notified wider s. 4(1) either because it is protected by the first part of s. 4(4) or by its second part. These conclusions were ch8llenged before us.. It was urged on fiehalf of the appellant that the words "any land in which coal mining ·operations are actually carried on" found in the first part of s. 4 ( 4) do not permit of a liberal inter- E pretation so as to bring in the conception of a commercial or economic unit; they merely mean the actual area where mining is talcing place. As regards tlfo alternative conclusion based on the second part of s. 4 ( 4) it wasi urged that on the pleadings. t)l6re was no occasion for the High Court to consider whether the requirements of that part are satisfied. Jn additioo, two other F contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant. They are ' ( i) no relief under Art. 226 should have been given as - the r~ndent was guilty of !aches, and (ii) the writ petition was premature. We are in agreeriient with the High Court that there is no substance in the last contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. As seen earlier, the impugned notification was issued on October 9, 1963 ·and the writ petition was filed on March 23, 1964, well within Six months of the date of the notification. This delay is not sufficient to refuse the relief prayed for.

p. 786

In support of the contention that the petition was premature, Dr. Syed Mohemmad, learned counsel for the appellant, uraed that the respondent has no real grievance yet, as only a notification under s. 4(1) had been issued; further proceedings are yet to take place, and the respondent can be aggrieved only when a notifica- . tion under section 7t is issued. We think'that ihis contention is misconceived. As soon as the notification under s. 4 ( 1) was issued, in view of s. S:j: the mining lease granted in favour of the respondent ceased to have effect for so long as that notification was in force._ Too effect of thaCiiotificatiOn was to require the respondent to bring to a halt all his operations in the area not!fied till action was taken under s. 7 or till the-period prescribed in that section came to an end. Hence it cannot denied that the respondent was seriously aggrieved by the fmpiigneu notification. · -

pp. 786–787

This takes us to the remaining two conteiiuons noticed earlier. ---It was strenuollsly argued by Dr. Syed Mohammed _-that s. 4(1)

p. 787, margin B

empowers the Government to notify al! lands excepting those in which coal mining operations are actually being carried_ on; the notification in question has excluded 201 bighas in which mining was actually carried on; hence there is nothing illegal in that notification. He wanted us to construe the words "any land in which coal mining operations are being actulilly carried" strictly. The High Court has rejected this contention after taking into consideration the purposes of the Act, its preamble and the various provisions therein. But we have not thought it necessary to go into that controversy :is in our opinion the impugned notification definitely _ violates the second limb of s. 4 ( 4) and hence it is invalid. It covers land on. which amongst other ·buildings, railway siding, boiler-rooms, office room, fan house· and air shaft premises are situate. It cannot be denied that in these premises processes ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of coal obtained as a result of the mining operations are being carried on. This conclusion of ours is resisted· on the _plea that in the writ petition no .specific case is pleaded under the second part of sub-s. ( 4) of s. 4 and therefore it is not open for us to consider that aspect ·of the case. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that

p. 787, margin B

th~ ~nor the pleadings on this J,X>int are rath"'r vague; but all the- facts A necessary for determimng that question are before the court. That aspect of the case appear& to have been fully argued · before the High Court without any objection. The High Court has considered and decided that question. Hence the appellant cannot now be pennitted to contend that for want of n~essary pleadings . that q_uestion cannot be gone into. If areas in which those premises are B situate could not have been notified under s. 4 ( 1 )-as in our judg· ment they could not have been-it is not for us to decide whether any of the other areas included in the lease-hold could have been notified; we cannot make out a new notification for the appellant.

pp. 787–788, margin F

One other contention was vaguely touched at the hearing of the appeal, and that was that though there are ten seams m the c colliery only four seams are at present worked after obtaining the necessary permission, the remaining sii seams are not yet opened up for the working; hence those seams cannot be said to-have been wiirked on the date of the notification. Mr. A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the _respondent, urged that ~I! the ten seams were being W<>rkoo. in contormity with the provisions . of law: According to D him, once permission is obtained for grading the coal in a seam and he says that su~h permission had been obtained in respect

p. 788

ail the seams, in law it means that those seams are being actually worked. . We need not go inio this question in view of our earlier oonclusion~ At the hearing reference was made to the decision of this Court in Messrs. B11rrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of lndia( The·rule laid down in that case does not bear on any of the issues arising for. decision in this appeal.

p. 788

For the reasons mentioned· alY>ve, this appeal fails and is dismissed . with costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.

p. 788

...

p. 788