Date of Judgement:
01stApril 2022

Coram/judge:
The Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian

Parties to the Case:
Appellant-M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Respondent - Mahendra Pal Bhatia &Ors.

Legal provisions

• Section 2 (h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973- it lays down an extensive and inclusive definition of ‘mine’.
• Section 8 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973–lays down provision for payment of certain amount to owners of coal mines on account of nationalisation.
• Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971- which deals with appeals regarding order of the estate officer made in respect of any order of eviction from public premises.

Overview

• The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 was enacted by the parliamentto provide for the acquisition & transfer of the title, right, and interest of the owners with regard to coal mines. The Schedule had a list of 711 mines located in different parts of the country. The Schedule enumerated the names & addresses of the owners of those mines. It also specified the amount payable to owners in light of Section 8 of the Nationalisation Act.
• Serial No.92 of the Schedule listed the name of the coal mine “East Godhur”. The owner of themine was “East Godhur Colliery CompanyPvt. Ltd.,Dhandad” and the compensation payable to the owner was decidedto be Rs.4000.
• In 1984, the Estate Officer, Dhanbad initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, against Bhatia brothers and others, on the ground that they were unauthorised occupants of plot nos. 553, 554, 555, 556 and 559 to 564 located in a village of District Dhanbad. An order of eviction was passed in these proceedings.
• The Order was set aside by the District Courtinan appeal. The case was sent back to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer passed a fresh order &dropped the eviction proceedings on the ground that the respondents were authorized occupants. But the said order of theEstate Officer was set aside by the District Court in an appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section9 of the Act.
• The order of the District Court was set aside by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondents and the matter got back to the District Court.
• The District Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed eviction. The order of the District Court was set aside by a single judge bench of the High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondents. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal. Such confirmation order was impugned in the present appeal.
• The property in question was purchased long prior the date of coming into force of the Nationalisation Act, by an individual Jamini Mohan Majumdar, under a registered sale deed. His occupation was described as that of a manager at East Godhur Colliery.
• Majumdar had sold the land in question under four different sale deeds. Proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act were initiated thereafter.
• The respondents contended that the property was private and did not form a part of the “mine”. The respondent relied on the report of the Court Commissioner, wherein there was no sign of any colliery in the land in question. There was a two-storey building on the disputed plot, with Godhur Colliery being located 3 KM away.
• It was further contended that the property did not belong to the company which owned the East Godhur Coal Mine and the land in question was not used as a coalmine.
• The Learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in New Satgram Engineering Works & Another v. Union of India &Ors, wherein it was held that the question whether something was a “mine" or not would essentially be a question of fact and that when the facts were seriously disputed, the High Court was to assign the case to the civil court.

Issue

Whether the property occupied by the respondents and their predecessors was covered under definition of the expression “mine” in Section 2(h) of the Nationalisation Act?

Judgement Analysis

• It was observed that the objections raised by the respondent should be rejected in the light of the statutory prescriptions. Section 3(1) of the Nationalisation Act, declares that on the appointed day, which was 01.05.1973, the interest of the owners in relation to the coalmines stood transferred and shall absolutely restwith the Central government without any encumbrances.
• Corporate houses or business entities owning coalmines were not transferred to and vested in the Central Government, the coalmines were. The ownership of the land was immaterial. The land which fell within the definition of “mine” under the Nationalisation Act, stood transferred and vested with the Central Government.
• Clause (xi) of Section 2(h) lays down that that even the lands and buildings used solely for the location of the management, sale, offices for the residence of staff were to be included in the definition of the term “mine”. The contention that the land was private property of Majumdar, and his occupation as Manager of a colliery was not relevant, would not be sustainable. The focus of Section 2(h) read was on the property and not on the owner of the property.
• The contention that the disputed land was not used as a colliery was irrelevant as clause (xi) of Section 2(h) used the words “wherever situated”. Hence it may be factually incorrect to say that the property was not part of a colliery.
• Report of a Court Commissioner who carried out inspection probably after two or three decades of nationalization could not be strongly relied on. In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Madanlal Agrawal,the ApexCourt 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. The Apex 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 in the process of nationalization of coal mines.
• Hence, the impugned orders of the High Court were contrary to the statutory provisions and hence liable to be set aside. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. The order of eviction stood confirmed.

Conclusion

After a series of judgements and appeals, the Apex court finally decided upon the matter related to eviction of respondents from a land under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Definition of ‘mine’ under the Act was construed and held that it envisages a very wide meaning and was not only restricted to mere the site of the mine.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement