Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar [1994] INSC
333 (13 May 1994)
Yogeshwar
Dayal (J) Yogeshwar Dayal (J) Kuldip Singh (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (5) 129 JT 1994 (4) 173 1994 SCALE (2)1011
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.- The present appeal
by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a public sector undertaking, is directed
against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench,
Ranchi dated 20-8-1987 whereby the Single Judge modified the decree passed by
the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, dated 27-2-1976 by which the
suit filed by the plaintiff (predecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein)
was decreed.
By the
said order the State of Bihar was restrained from interfering with
the possession of the appellant from the entire land of Khewat
No. 11 of Village Kenduadih.
131
2.The brief facts are that M/s East India Coal Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), a
joint stock company, had filed the suit, out of which the present appeal has
arisen. The Company was carrying on coal mining operations in Village Kenduadih
in the District of Dhanbad. After the enactment of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1972 a notification was issued by the Central Government by which the
right, title and interest of the Company got vested in M/s Bharat Coking Coal
Limited (in short 'BCCL') which is an undertaking under the Central Government
with effect from 1-5-1972.
Accordingly
BCCL was substituted in place of the erstwhile Company as the plaintiff in the
suit.
3.The
Company had taken a mining lease of an area of 627 bighas of land from Brahmottardars
Gouri Prasad Singh Khawas and others on 14-12-1891 and was carrying on coal mining
operations in the aforesaid area. Later, the Maharaja of Jharia disputed the
said rights and the Company took a fresh mining lease from Maharaja of Jharia
on 1-10-1894. Later on in 1911 the Company got
the entire surface land of that village from three tenure holders on the basis
of three registered deeds for purposes of extraction of coal etc. The various
mining leases were for 999 years. The Company was recorded of those lands as Khewatdars
in Khewat No. 11 Tauzi No. 8.
4.The
Company had several collieries, bungalows, staff quarters, labour quarters,
pits, inclines, quarries, pump-houses, workshops, coal depots, railway sidings
and other things connected with the coal mining operations. No part of the
surface land was used for agricultural purposes. However, on a small portion of
the surface land some shops had been set up by the shopkeepers and a small
cinema house had also been set up for the benefit and entertainment of the
employees of the collieries on the condition that they will have to vacate by
removing the structures whenever required by the Company for mining purposes on
fifteen days' notice.
5.It
appears that the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') came into force on 25-9- 1950 and a notice under Section 4 of the Act
asking the Company to deliver possession of the land of Khewat No. 11, as the
same had been vested in the State of Bihar, was served on it. The Company
appeared before the authority under the Act and submitted that it was only a
mining lessee and not a proprietor or intermediary and hence the land did not
vest in the State. The Company lost the case before the authorities and
challenged their decision before the High Court by way of a writ petition but
ultimately withdrew the same on the directions of this Court asking the Company
to get the matter decided by a regular suit in a civil court. Thereafter the
Company filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen.
6.The
question for determination is whether the right, title and interest of theCompany
in respect of the surface land of the suit property had vested in the State of
Bihar or not? 132 7.Since the Company was not an intermediary within the
meaning of the Act, the whole question turns on the meaning and contents of
Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
8.
Sections 10(1) and 11 of the Act provide as under:
"10.
(1) Subsisting leases of mines and minerals.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, where immediately before the date of vesting of the
estate or tenure there is a subsisting lease of mines or minerals comprised in
the estate or tenure or any part thereof, the whole or that part of the estate
or tenure comprised in such lease shall, with effect from the date of vesting,
be deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the holder of the said
subsisting lease for the remainder of the term of that lease, and such holder
shall be entitled to retain possession of the leasehold property.
11.
Buildings and lands appurtenant to mines.- Where by virtue of Section 9 or
Section 10, any lease of mines and minerals comprised in an estate or tenure is
deemed to be given by the State, all buildings and lands not included in such
lease, whether comprised in that or any other estate or tenure, which vest in
the State by operation of this Act and are in the use and occupation of the
lessee for purposes connected with the working or extraction of the mines and
minerals comprised in the lease, including the lands upon which any works,
machinery, tramways or sidings appertaining to the mines are situate, shall be
deemed to have been leased by the State to that lessee with effect from the
date of vesting of the estate or tenure, and the lessee shall be entitled to
retain possession of all such buildings and land subject to the payment of such
fair and equitable ground rent as may be agreed upon between the State and the
lessee, or in default of agreement as may be fixed by a Mines Tribunal
appointed under Section 12." 9.The trial court took the view that the
whole estate in dispute had vested in the State and by virtue of Sections 10(1)
and II of the Act the estate is deemed to have been leased to the Company by
the State Government. The trial court also took the view that under Section 10
of the Act, the Company became the mining lessee under the State of Bihar for
the remainder of the terms of the lease of 999 years granted in the year 1894.
10.It
was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that since the Company was the mining
lessee, the entire leasehold land, including surface land, would be deemed to
have been leased by the State Government within the meaning of Section 10 of
the Act.
The
trial court, however, referred to the definition of "mine" in Section
2(m) of the Act which reads as under:
"2.(m)
'mine' means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for
or obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on, but does not include any
works, machinery, tramways or sidings appertaining to a mine and a mine shall
be deemed to be 'in operation' if a notice of the commencement of its operation
has been given under Section 14 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923 (4 of 1923) to
the 133 District Magistrate of the district in which such mine is situated and
the discontinuance of the operation thereof has not been notified to the
competent authority." 11.After reading this definition the trial court
took the view that the land wherein actual excavation or mining operation is
not going on, is excluded from the mine. Therefore, Section 10 of the Act does
not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. It, however, took the view that
Section 11 of the Act lays down that where by virtue of Sections 9 and 10 of
the Act any lease of mines and minerals comprised in an estate or tenure is
deemed to be given by the State all buildings and lands not included in such
lease, whether comprised in that or any other estate or tenure, which vest in
the State by operation of this Act and are in the use and occupation of the
lessee for purposes connected with the working or extraction of mines and
minerals comprised in the lease, including the lands upon which any works,
machinery appertaining to the mines are situate, shall be deemed to have been
leased by the State to the lessee with effect from the date of vesting of the
estate or tenure, and the lessee shall be entitled to retain possession of all
such buildings and land subject to the payment of such fair and equitable
ground rent as may be agreed upon between the State and the lessee, or in
default of agreement as the case may be, fixed by the Mines Tribunal appointed
under Section 12 of the Act.
12.It
was the case of the plaintiff that the Company had taken a lease of underground
mining rights from the proprietor and that of surface land from the tenureholders.
It was also the case of the plaintiff that under Section 10 of the Act the
mines comprised in the estate and leased to it by the proprietor, and not the
surface land which was separately leased to it by the tenureholders. That is
why Section 11 of the Act has been enacted for covering all cases of surface
land not included in the lease of mines within the meaning of Section 10 of the
Act.
13.
The trial court accepted this contention.
14.
The Single Judge of the High Court, however, took the view that the land where
shops have been built or cinema house or such like things have been built are
not covered under Section 10 or Section 11 of the Act. The trial court found,
and it was not disputed before the High Court, that the plaintiff was carrying
on operation extensively throughout the entire area of the village and all over
the surface of the village the Company's office, air shafts, inclines,
quarries, pits and railway sidings etc., are scattered; that in order to
provide amenities to, and for catering the needs of, its labourers and
employees numbering about 5000 to 6000, the Company had established a bazaar
known as Kenduadih Bazaar and had set up a cinema hall by granting land to its
owner.
15.The
High Court took the view that the cinema and bazaar portions of the land would
not get protection of Section 10 read with Section 11 of the Act and had
accordingly modified the trial court decree to that extent.
134
16.It will be noticed that the original lease in favour of the plaintiff is a
subsisting lease for extraction of mines and minerals comprised in the entire
estate. Merely because in a very small part of it, by way of amenities to the
employees working at the mines, a portion is reserved by way of bazaar for
purchase of daily needs of the employees and for a cinema house, it cannot be
said that the subsisting lease is being used for a purpose other than those of
mines and minerals. As stated earlier the term "mine" has been
defined in Section 2(m) of the Act. It merely defines what "mine" is.
There is no definition of "subsisting lease of mines and minerals".
The lease itself was for mining operations during the period of the lease. It
does not require that every area must be under actual mining operation. It was
not the case of the State that there were no minerals in the area where the
shops and cinema hall are there.
The
lease being a long-term lease of 999 years, it will take its own time for the
lessee to work on different portions of the area. Purpose of Section 10 of the
Act was to exclude subsisting leases for purposes of mining or minerals. It
contemplated that the land should not be used for agricultural purposes or such
like purposes to enjoy the benefit of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
17.We
are of the view that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 10
of the Act and ignoring the full effect of Section 11 of the Act. The trial
court was in any case right in including buildings and land which were
appertaining to the mines and which were not covered under Sections 9 or 10 of
the Act to be covered under Section 11 of the Act. But we are of the view that
it is not a true interpretation of Section 10(1) of the Act so long as the area
is covered by lease for mining. The estate or tenure comprised in such lease
which vests in the State would be deemed to have been leased by the State
Government to the holder of lease. Section 11 comes into operation when certain
leases do not include the buildings and land as part of the lease. In our view,
on the facts of the present case, the lease is such that everything in the area
of the lease vest in the State Government and is deemed to have been leased by
the State Government to the lessee, namely the plaintiff appellant.
18.The
lease in the present case is of the entire village for purposes of mining.
Therefore, everything comprised in the village on vesting in the State would be
deemed to have been leased by the State Government to the lessee.
19.We
accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 20-8-1987 and hold
that the plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for and it is declared that
the appellant is a lessee under the State of Bihar and is entitled to retain
possession of the entire surface land in dispute under Section 10 of the Act
itself and the order of defendant 2 in the suit, as affirmed by the Deputy
Collector, Dhanbad directing the plaintiff to deliver possession of the land in
dispute is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Defendants/respondents are
hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the
plaintiff over the entire land of Khewat No. 11 of 135 Village Kenduadih. There
is, however, no order as to costs of the present proceedings.
Back