Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of
M.P. & Ors  INSC 669 (13 December 1994)
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION: 1995 SCC (2) 11 JT 1995 (1) 561
1995 SCALE (1)13
of the cause title is allowed. Intervention application is dismissed.
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 3-5- 1985, made in Miscellaneous Petition No.
1260 of 1982. The appellant challenged in the above writ petition the
directions dated 4-5-1981, order dated 30-9-1981 and a further order dated
9-6-1982 passed by the second respondent-Chairman of Special Areas Development
Authority (for short 'SADA,), Singrauli, in the District of Sidhi of M.P.
directing the appellant under Section 26 of the M.P Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'Adhiniyam') to pull down the constructions of the
office buildings, staff quarters etc. made by the appellant contrary to the
provisions of the Adhiniyam. In the High Court, the controversy centered round
the question as to whether the provisions of the Adhiniyam overlap the field
occupied by the provisions of the Coal Act, the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act and Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act,
1957 (for short 'the Act'). The Division Bench held that these Acts have not
occupied the field covered by the Adhiniyam and that, therefore, the Act is
intra vires the powers of the legislature. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petition.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
is contended by Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, that
when the mining operations are to be carried out under the aforesaid
provisions, it would include the building operations under the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') made under the Act. Therefore,
the operation of the Adhiniyam stands excluded. Dr Ghatate, learned Senior
Counsel for the second respondent, resisted the contention contending that
Adhiniyam regulates the development area under the Adhiniyam including the
construction of buildings within the notified development plan in the zones;
the appellant had constructed the buildings in Morwa and Jayanthi Villages
without obtaining prior permission from the 13 SADA and that, therefore, the
construction was in contravention of Section 26 of the Adhiniyam. He,
therefore, contends that the action was correctly taken and the Central Acts
have no application as regards the building operations are concerned. The question,
therefore, is as to what is the exact scope of the operation of the Adhiniyam.
2(c) of the Adhiniyam defines 'building', Section 2(d) defines "building
operations", Section 2(f) defines 'development', Section 2(g) defines
"development plan", Section 2(i) defines "existing land use
map" and Section 2(i) defines "land". A conspectus of these
definitions would indicate that the Adhiniyam intends to apply to carrying out
of the development of the building, engineering, mining or other operations in,
on, over or under any land or-the making of any material change in any building
or land or in the use of either and includes sub- division of any land within
the zoning plan and the land use map made under the provisions of the Act.
38 in Chapter VII empowers the State Government by a notification to establish
Town and Country Development Authority which authority has been given power to
develop the land. In Chapter 111, it is empowered to make survey by the
Director, preparation of regional plans, finalisation thereof under Sections 6
to 9. Section 10, thereafter, envisages that:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, on or after the date of publication
of the draft regional plan, no person, authority, department of Government or
any other person shall change the use of the land for any purpose other than
agriculture, or carry out any development in respect of any land contrary to
the provisions of the draft plan, without the prior approval of the Director or
an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director in
IV deals with preparation of the planning area and development plans. Sections
13 to 15 envisage making or preparation of developmental plans and existing
land use maps. By publication under Section 15(1), Section 16 comes into
operation which provides that:
"(1) On the publication of the existing
land use map under Section 15- (a) no person shall institute or change the use
of any land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than
that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing
of the Director." [Proviso and clause (b) are not material for the purpose
of this case, hence omitted.]
Section 24, the State Government have kept the power with them to control and
use of the land for overall development as per the plans of the Adhiniyam.
Section 24(2) gives power to the State Government to remove difficulties in the
implementation of the provisions of the.
Act. Section 25 postulates that "after
coming into force of the development plan, 14 the use and development of land
shall conform to the provision of the development plan". In other words,
after it has come into force the development of the land shall be only in
conformity with the developmental plan. In other words it is confined to
building operations. Any constructions if had been made prior to the coming
into force of development plan, it does not come within the prohibition
contained under Section 26. But thereafter, Section 26 expressly prohibits
constructions except under planned development of land with prior permission.
For permission, when needed, an application in that behalf shall be made by any
person under Section 29 and by the State Government or the Central Government
or any local authority or special authority under Section 27. The Director has
been given power to grant permission either unconditionally or conditionally or
refuse the same under Section 30. A right of appeal by the aggrieved person is
given under Section 31 to the appellate authority and a further revision to the
State Government under Section 32.
a reading of these provisions would clearly indicate that the Adhiniyam intends
to operate within the zonal plans or the developed area plans and the land use
map published under the Adhiniyam and construction of the building or
development of the land shall be made in conformity with the provisions of the
Adhiniyam, after the publication of the plans as required ultimately under
Section 25 of the Act. Any contravention thereof would be a contravention under
Section 26 of the Adhiniyam and the authority has the power to take appropriate
action as required thereunder.
question, therefore, emerges, whether the construction made by the appellant is
in conformity with the land use map prepared by the SADA and the zonal plan. In
the reply given to the show-cause notice issued by the SADA the appellant had
admitted that SADA published the plan but initially it was contended that the
plan was not extended to the two villages in which constructions had been
carried out for which notice was given. It was also stated that the Collector
had acquired the land of 130 acres and odd in Village Punjrah for construction
of office buildings, staff quarters, workers' buildings etc. for which there
was no notice issued by SADA. At the time of hearing, the contention that the
map was not applicable to the two areas was given up. In the writ petition, no
specific plea was taken that these two villages are within the mining areas and
that the zonal declaration overlaps the mining area. It is seen that under the
Coal Act and the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, the
mining area stands vested in the appellant and it is entitled to carry on
mining operations under the Act and the Rules. The operation of Adhiniyam in
relation to mining operation is void. Construction of office building, staff
quarters, providing facilities for successful and effective mining operations,
the welfare measures and providing right to residence and civic amenities to
the staff and workmen are incidental or ancillary to the main purpose i.e.
mining operation under the Act and the Rules. The Adhiniyam regulates building
planned development and the developments incidental and ancillary thereto.
Under these circumstances, the High Court has rightly held that the operation
15 of Adhiniyam to the above extent does not trench upon the field of operation
under provisions of the Central Acts.
Both could harmoniously coexist and operate
in the respective areas without colliding with each other. The provisions being
construed in that backdrop and operational efficacy, we are of the considered
view that there is no overlapping of the operation of the Adhiniyam vis-a-vis
the Central Acts.
question emerges that when mining operations are carried on including actions
relating to building operations incidental or integral to the mining
operations, whether the Adhiniyam gets attracted? As stated earlier, excluding
mining development, when the zonal plan was prepared and it was published for
building operations, it would be a notice to the appellant and if such a zonal
plan comes in conflict with the smooth and effective building operations in the
mining area and would impede its operations which are regulated as ancillary or
incidental and concomitant necessity under the provisions of the Act, the Rules
and other Central Acts referred to hereinbefore, then it would always be open
to the appellant either to bring it to the notice of the Director who is
competent to make the plans and have it corrected or in case such an objection
was taken but was not acceded to, it would be open to the appellant to have it
challenged in an appropriate proceeding and have it declared that it runs
contrary to and impinges upon the mining operations under the relevant
provisions of the Act or Rules. Since on the facts of this case that question
was not raised or controverted, we need not express any opinion in this behalf.
If it were such a case that building operations of the appellant are within the
mining area and the plan of the Adhiniyam is sought to be implemented in that
area, it may be open to the appellant to raise such objections and the
authorities would consider and dispose it of according to rules or approach the
Government to remove the difficulties and the State Government would do its
Or it may be open to the appellant to have it
challenged in an appropriate forum.
appeal is dismissed accordingly but without costs.