Central
Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors [2005] Insc 458 (1 September 2005)
C.K.
Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan
(Arising
out of S.L.P (c) No. 6374 of 2002) WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5454.and 5452./2005 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 6422 &
6465 of 2002) C.K. Thakker, J.
Special
leave granted.
The
present appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the High Court
of Jharkhand, Ranchi on January 25, 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 462, 472
and 473 of 2001. By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed intra court appeals filed by the appellant herein confirming the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
To
appreciate the controversies raised in the present group of appeals, few facts
in the first matter (Central Coal Fields Limited v. State of Jharkhand &
Others) may be noted.
The
appellant Central Coal Field Limited ('Company' for short) is a Government
Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 having its
registered office at Darbhanga, Ranchi. It is one of the subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited. The
Company owns various coal mines in Districts Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamou and Ranchi. The Company is carrying on
business in extracting, selling and distributing coal. It is the case of the
Company that for the purpose of mining activities, it acquired land through
Central Government for mining purposes under the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. It is also asserted by the Company
that it acquired rights over colliery and mining area by virtue of Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1973. According to the Company, Section 3 of the said Act provides that on
the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to
coal mines specified in the Schedule "shall stand transferred to and shall
vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances". In
view of the aforesaid provision as also Section 10 of Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the land as well as the rights over
the land stood vested in the Central Government and the State Government
thereafter had no right, title or interest in the land or rights over such land
and no proceedings for recovery of rent could be effected nor any charge could
be levied by the State Government from the appellant. In spite of clear legal
position, Certificate Proceedings against the appellant for realization of
surface rent for mining areas in possession of the Company were initiated by
the Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad.
The
Company, therefore, objected to those proceedings by filing objections on June 12, 1991, inter alia contending that the
proceedings were against Sections 9 and 9A of the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It was also contended that the Bihar
& Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 would not apply to the case and
proceedings were, therefore, required to be dropped. Ignoring valid objections
of the Company, an interim order was passed by the Certificate Officer directing
the appellant-Company to pay an amount of Rs.78,16,712/-. According to the
appellant-Company, even the Central Government was of the view that the State
Government had no such power which is clear from the letter dated February 12,
1999, addressed by the Director of Mines and Coal, Government of India to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. The appellant-Company stated that
the interim order dated February
2, 1999 was passed
without considering the objections filed by it and without giving an
opportunity of being heard. A petition was, therefore, filed being CWJC No. 651
of 1999 (R). The learned Single Judge allowed the petition by an order dated September 20, 1999, set aside the order of the
Certificate Officer and directed him to dispose of the objections filed by the
Company by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. The Certificate
Officer, however, rejected the objections and held the Company liable to pay
rent and accordingly an order was passed on June 08, 2000.
Being
aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition being CWJC
No. 2535 of 2000. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties,
dismissed the petition observing that it was not disputed that order had
already been passed by the Certificate Officer against which the
appellant-Company could file an appeal as provided under the Bihar & Orissa
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The Court also observed that the Appellate
Authority would consider the question as to delay in filing the appeal, which
had occurred as the appellant-Company had approached the High Court.
The
Company filed Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. It was argued on behalf of the Company that the learned Single
Judge was not right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy particularly when the point was concluded by a decision of
Division Bench in Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation
Limited v. State of Bihar & Others, AIR 1984 Patna 280. Dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of
learned Single Judge, the Division Bench observed that Section 60 of the Bihar
& Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 went to suggest that the right
of appeal was "unfettered" and the jurisdiction of the appellate
forum "plenary and unbound". Whether the appellant was or was not
liable to pay surface rent or lease money could be decided by the Appellate
Authority. The Authority could also consider the basic question as to
maintainability of Certificate Proceedings, but it could not be said that the
learned Single Judge had committed an error of law in dismissing the petition
on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Regarding the decision of
the Division Bench in National Coal Development Corporation, the Court observed
that the contention as to availability of alternative remedy was not raised in
that case. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. The
appellant has challenged the said order.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The
learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the demand made by the
State Government for payment of surface rent in a coal bearing mining area and
initiation of proceedings for taking coercive steps for recovery of such rent
were not sustainable in the light of the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 as also the Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
Act, 1973. It was also contended that in view of the decision of the Division
Bench in National Coal Development Corporation holding that the State
Government had no authority to demand surface rent, the High Court ought not to
have dismissed the petitions/letters patent appeals on the ground of
alternative remedy. In any case, when the question of jurisdiction had been
raised, the High Court ought to have decided it, as it would go to the root of
the proceedings.
It
was, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are required to be set aside
by remanding the matters to the High Court to be decided in accordance with
law.
The
learned counsel appearing for the State Government, on the other hand,
supported the orders passed by the High Court.
He
submitted that the points which have been argued before this Court were urged
before the High Court and the High Court held that in the light of statutory
provisions, the appellant was bound to avail of the alternative remedy.
Regarding earlier decision of the Division Bench, the High Court rightly
observed that the point as to availability of an alternative remedy was never
raised.
No
fault, therefore, can be found against the impugned orders and the appeals
deserve to be dismissed.
Having
heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeals deserve
to be disposed of by making certain observations. It is no doubt true that
according to the appellant- Company the Certificate Proceedings could not have
been initiated under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914,
in view of the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and also
the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. But it also cannot be
overlooked that the action has been taken under the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act. 1914 and the appellant- Company was directed to make
payment. The said order is subject to appeal under Section 60 of the said Act.
A reading of the order dated November 17, 1999
passed by the Certificate Officer makes it clear that before taking the action,
an opinion of the Advocate General of the State of Bihar was sought by the respondent.
Referring to the provisions of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972,
the Advocate General opined that such amount could be claimed by the State
Government from the appellant-Company. Reference was made to Sections 6 and 7
of the said Act and it was observed that the State Government had power to make
demand of rent from the appellant-Company. In view of the above position, it
cannot be said that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had
committed an error of law in dismissing the petitions and appeals by allowing
the appellant to avail of an alternative remedy of filing appeals.
Those
orders, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity. As observed by the
Division Bench, the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Bihar & Orissa
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise all
contentions including the contention as to the jurisdiction of the State
Government and/or its officers in initiating Certificate Proceedings against
the Company. Regarding the earlier decision in National Coal Development
Corporation, the High Court was right in observing that the contention
regarding alternative remedy was neither raised nor considered nor a finding
had been recorded thereon. In view of the said fact also it would be
appropriate if the appellant-Company is granted liberty to approach the
Appellate Authority by filing appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914.
Since
the appellant-Company had filed petitions, intra court appeals and the appeals
in this Court, it would be in the interest of justice and we direct, that if
appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are
filed within a period of two months from today, the Appellate Authority will
entertain them without raising any objection as to limitation. The Appellate
Authority will hear the parties and decide the appeals in accordance with law
as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from filing of the
appeals without being influenced in any manner by the observations made by the
learned Single Judge, the Division Bench or by us in the present appeals. We
may clarify that we are disposing of the appeals upholding the preliminary
objection of the State Government regarding availability of alternative remedy
of appeals and we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion one way
or the other on merits and all contentions of all parties are kept open.
For
the foregoing reasons, the appeals are disposed of. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Back