Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Ekate of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors  INSC 665 (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 562 the
Madhya Pradesh High Court dated May 3, 1985 made in Misc.Pet. No. 1260/82 The
appellant challenged in the above writ petition the directions dated 4.5.81,
order dated 30.9.81 and a further order dated 9.6.82 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 s.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 overlaps 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 Addl.
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
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 ob- taining
prior permission from the SADA and that, therefore, the construction was in
contravention of s.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", s.2(d) defines
"building operations", s.2(f) defines "development", s.2(g)
defines "development plan", s.2(i) defines "existing land use
map" and s.2(j) 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 ss. 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 563 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 this behalf."
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 s.15(1), s.16 comes into operation which
provides that:- "(1) On the publication of the existing land use map under
s. 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.)
s.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, 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
Any constructions if had been made prior to
the coming into force of development plan, it does not come within the
prohibition contained under s.26. But thereafter, s.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 s.29 and by the State Government or the Central Government or any
local authority or special authority under s.27. The Director has been given
power to grant permission either unconditionally or conditionally or refuse the
same under s.30. A right of appeal by the ag- grieved person is given under
s.31 to the appellate authority and a further revision to the State Government
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 con- formity with the provisions of
the Adhiniyam, after the publication of the plans as required ultimately under
s.25 of the Act. Any contravention thereof would be a contravention under s.26
of the Adhiniyam and the authority has the power to take appropriate action as
required there- under.
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 564 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 over laps 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 ameni- ties 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 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 impinge 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 Govt. would do its best. Or
it may be open to the appellant to have it challenged in an appropriate forum.
appeal is dismissed accordingly but without costs.