{"id":78298,"date":"1996-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996"},"modified":"2018-05-03T20:54:12","modified_gmt":"2018-05-03T15:24:12","slug":"bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Subhas C. Sen, Sujata V. Manohar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADANLAL AGRAWAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nSUBHAS C. SEN, SUJATA V. MANOHAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     (With C.A. Nos.1727\/1990,\t1728\/1990,  1729\/1990,
\n\t    1730\/1990, 1731\/1990 and 4673\/1994)
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSEN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This appeal  arises out  of a  suit instituted  by\t one
\nMadanlal Agrawal  for eviction of Bharat Coking Coal Limited
\nfrom land  and buildings  allegedly owned by him adjacent to
\nthe coal mine known as Victory Colliery, which had vested in
\nthe  Central   Government  by\tvirtue\tof  the\t Coal  Mines
\n(Nationalisation) Act,\t1973.  Victory Colliery was owned by
\nUnited mining  Company private\tLimited.  The  case  of\t the
\nappellant is  that the\tcompany was  practically a  one\t man
\ncompany. If  the corporate  veil is lifted, it will be found
\nthat Madanlal  Agrawal was  de facto  owner of\tthe company.
\nMadanla Agrawal’s  case is  that he  had in  his  individual
\ncapacity  purchased   certain\tproperties   together\twith
\nstructures  thereon   by  registered  deeds  of\t sale  dated
\n7.7.1949 and  24.3.1950 and  built  further  structures\t and
\nremodelled them.  The United  Mining Company Private Limited
\ntook these structures on monthly rent. These structures were
\nutiltised as  office premises  of Victory  Colliery as\talso
\nstaff quarters.\t Eviction  was\tsought\tfor  non-payment  of
\nmonthly rent for several years.\n<\/p>\n
     Bharat Coking  Coal Limited  in its  written  statement
\naileged that the said properties were bought with the moneys
\nbelonging to  the colliery  and as  such the  land  and\t the
\nstructures really  belonged  to\t the  company.\tThe  alleged
\npayment of  rent by Victory Colliery to Madanlal Agrawal was
\nonly a\tpaper transaction  and\tfor  tax  benefit.  All\t the
\npurchases were\tmade by United Mining Company and sources of
\ninvestment came from the funds of the said company.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be mentioned  that even  before the  Coal Mines
\n(Nationalisation) Act  came  into  force  on  1.5.1973,\t the
\nmanagement of  Victory\tColliery  along\t with  the  disputed
\nproperties were\t taken over  by the  Central  Government  on
\n1.1.1973. No  objection was  taken thereto by the plaintiff.
\nIt was\tonly on 1.1.1976 the plaintiff issued a legal notice
\nto the\tappellant to  vacate the  suit premises\t and to\t pay
\narrears of  rent from  January, 1973  till the filing of the
\nsuit. Title  Suit   (T.S. Non.7\/6  of 1976) for eviction was
\nfiled  on   2.2.1976.  On   21.5.1979,\tthe  Ist  Additional
\nSubordinate  Judge   dismissed\tthe  suit  with\t costs.\t The
\nrespondent preferred  an appeal\t against  the  judgment\t and
\ndecree passed  by the  Trial Court.  It was  allowed by\t the
\nDivision Bench\tof the\tPatna High Court. The High Court was
\nof the\tview that  right, title\t and interest  in  the\tsuit
\npremises had  not vested  in the  Central Government. Bharat
\nCoking Coal  Limited in\t respect of  the suit premises was a
\ntenant under  Madanlal Agrawal.\t Since it  had defaulted  in
\npayment of  rent for  the period  from January, 1973, it was
\nliable to  be evicted  from the suit premises. Therefore the
\nrespondent’s suit was decreed. A further direction was given
\nto pay\tthe arrears  of rent to the tune of Rs. 66,000\/- and
\nmesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
     The Trial Court on examination of the facts came to the
\ncorclusion that\t there was  no relationship  of landlord and
\ntenant between\tthe plaintiff  and the\tdefendant. It  found
\nthat Bharat  Coking Coal  Limited was  maintaining the\tsaid
\npremises since\tvesting of  Victory Colliery  in the Central
\nGovernment. The\t cost  of  repairs,  electricity  and  water
\ncharges in  respect of the suit premises were to be borne by
\nthe United  Mining Company  on behalf of the colliery before
\nits notionalisation.  Madanlal Agrawal, the plaintiff stated
\nin cross-examination  that he was the director of the United
\nMining Company.\t The other  director was his own brother. He
\nalso stated  that he had got the account books to prove that
\nhe purchased  the suit premises out of personal funds but he
\ndid not\t file the same. He also stated that the Company used
\nto pay\trent of the suit property but he did not produce the
\nrent receipts.\tHe also\t admitted that he could not say when
\nhe constructed\tthe house  and what  was the total cost. The
\nexpenses of  electricity and  water connections\t in the suit
\nproperties were\t paid  by  the\tUnited\tMining\tCompany.  He
\nadmitted in  the cross-examination  that  the  employees  of
\nUnited\tMining\tCompany\t were  in  occupation  of  the\tsuit
\npremises. The  office store,  compressor room, garage etc. o
\nthe Victory  Colliery were  in the suit properties. The suit
\npremises were  used by United Mining Company exclusively for
\nthe purpose  of Victory\t Colliery. The\tTrial judge observed
\nthat “it  appears that\tplaintiff.”  The Trial judge came to
\nthe conclusion\tthat in view of these facts and also in view
\nof the\tprovisions of  the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act,
\nthe suit  was not  maintainable and  the plaintiff  was\t not
\nentitled to any of his claims.\n<\/p>\n
     In appeal, it was held by a Division Bench of the Patna
\nHigh Court that the plaintiff\/appellant was the owner of the
\nsuit premises  of which\t Bharat Coking\tCoal Limited was the
\ntenant and  as it  had defaulted  in payment  of  rent\tfrom
\nJanuary, 1973 onwards, it was liable to be evicted. The High
\nCourt came  to the  conclusion on  the\t strength of a share
\ncertificate that  Madanlal Agrawal  became a  shareholder of
\nUnited Mining  Company for  the first  time in\t1951 but had
\npurchased  the suit properties in the year 1949.\n<\/p>\n
     That being\t the position,\tit was\theld that  the\tsuit
\npremises had  not vested in the Central Government by virtue
\nof the\tprovisions of  the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act.
\nTherefore, an  eviction order  had to  be  passed  for\tnon-
\npayment of rent against Bharat Coking Coal Limited.\n<\/p>\n
     Before this Court, the argument on behalf of Bharat
\nCoking Coal Limited, the appellant was confined to the scope
\nof Coal\t Mines (Nationalisation)  Act, 1973. The validity of
\nthe finding of the High Court that United Mining Company was
\na tenant  of  Madanlal\tAgrawal\t has  not  been\t challenged.
\nTherefore, the\tonly question  that falls  for determination
\nbefore us  is whether  the  right,  title  and\tinterest  of
\nMadanlal Agrawal  in the  suit premises\t have vested  in the
\nCentral Government  by virtue of Section 3 of the Coal Mines
\n(Nationalisation) Act, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     Even before the Nationalisation Act was passed, various
\nlegislations were  passed in  regard to\t coal mines  for the
\npurpose of preservation of coal and safety of miners working
\nin the Coal mine.\n<\/p>\n
     In 1952,  the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act,
\n1952 was  passed. The  purpose of the Act was declared to be
\n“it is\texpedient in  the public  interest that\t the Central
\nGovernment should take under its control the regulation.” of
\ncoal mines  to the  extent hereinafter provided.” Under this
\nAct, the  private ownership of coal mines was not disturbed,
\nbut mining  operations were  strictly regulated. A Board was
\nset up\tfor the\t purpose of  maintenance of  safety in\tcoal
\nmines  and   for  conservation\t of  coal.  “Mine”  was\t not
\nseparately defined  in the  Act but by Section 3(1) “Agent”,
\n“Mine” and “Owner” were given the same meaning as in Section
\n3 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923.\n<\/p>\n
     The Mines\tAct, 1952 came into force on 1st July, 1952.
\nIt dealt with mines generally. “Mine” was defined by Section
\n2(j) as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(j)     `mine’\t  means\t     any
\n     excavation where  any operation for
\n     the purpose  of  searching\t for  or
\n     obtaining minerals\t has been  or is
\n     being carried on, and includes:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  all borings, bore-holes and
\n     oil well,\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) all shafts  in or  adjacent to
\n     and belonging to a mine,\t whether
\n     in the course of being sunk or not,\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     all levels  and\tinclined
\n     planes  in\t  the  course  of  being
\n     driven,\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) all open-cast workings,\n<\/p>\n
     (v)  all\tconveyors    or\t  aerial
\n     ropeways provided\tfor the bringing
\n     into or  removal  from  a\tmine  of
\n     minerals or  other articles  or for
\n     the removal of refuse therefrom,\n<\/p>\n
     (vi) all  adits,\tlevels,\t planes,
\n     machinery,\t    works,     railways,
\n     tramways,\t and   sidings\t in   or
\n     adjacent  to  and\tbelonging  to  a
\n     mine;\n<\/p>\n
     (vii)     all  workshops,\tsituated
\n     within the\t precincts of a mine and
\n     under the\tsame management and used
\n     solely for\t purposes connected with
\n     that mine ora number of mines under
\n     the same management,\n<\/p>\n
     (viii)    all  power  stations  for
\n     supplying\telectricity  solely  for
\n     the the purpose of working the mine
\n     or number\tof mines  under the same
\n     management,\n<\/p>\n
     (xi) any premises\tfor  time  being
\n     used for  depositing fefuse  from a
\n     mine, or  in which any operation in
\n     connection\t with\tsuch  refuse  is
\n     being carried  on,\t being\tpremises
\n     exclusively occupied  by the  owner
\n     of the mine,\n<\/p>\n
     (x)  unless exempted by the Central
\n     Government by  notification in  the
\n     official gazette,\tany premises  or
\n     part thereof, in or adjacent to and
\n     belonging to  a mine,  on which any
\n     process ancilliary\t to the getting,
\n     dressing or preparation for sale of
\n     minerals\t or  of\t coke  is  being
\n     carried on;\n<\/p>\n
     “Owner” was defined by Section 2(1)
\n     as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(1).    `owner”,\t when\tused  in
\n     relation  to   a  mine,  means  any
\n     person   who   is\t the   immediate
\n     proprietor or lessee or occupier of
\n     the mine or of any part thereof and
\n     in the  case of a mine the business
\n     whereof is\t being being  carried on
\n     by a  liquidator or  receiver, such
\n     liquidator or  receiver and in  the
\n     case of a mine, owned by a company,
\n     the  business   whereof  of   being
\n     carried on\t by  a\tmanaging  agent,
\n     such managing  agent; but\tdoes not
\n     include   a   person   who\t  merely
\n     receives a\t royalty, rent\tor  fine
\n     from the  mine, or\t is  merely  the
\n     proprietor of  the mine, subject to
\n     any lease, grant or licence for the
\n     working   thereof, or is merely the
\n     owner   of\t  the\tsoil   and   not
\n     interested in  the minerals  of the
\n     mine; but\tany contractor\tfor  the
\n     working  of  a  mine  or  any  part
\n     thereof shall  be subject\tto  this
\n     Act, in  like manner  as if he were
\n     an owner from any liability;\n<\/p>\n
     The limited  nature of  the definition of `mine’ in the
\nMines Act  was explained  in the case of Serajuddin & co. v.
\nWorkmen (A.I.R.\t 1966 SC  921), where  it was pointed out by
\nthis Court  that `mine’\t in Section  2(j) of  the Mines\t Act
\nclearly excluded  an office  of a  mine which was separately
\ndefined by  Section 2(k) as meaning an office at the surface
\nof the\tmine concerned.\t The office of the mine, even though
\nsituated on the surface of the wine, did not fall within the
\ndefinition of `mine’.\n<\/p>\n
     A much more extended meaning of `mine’ was given in the
\nCoal Mine (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 by which the
\nmanagement of  coal mines in India was vested in the Central
\nGovernment on  and  from  the  appointed  date,\t i.e.,\t30th
\nJanaury, 1973.\tThe coal  mines specified in the Schedule to
\nthe Act\t were deemed  to be  mines of  which the  management
\nvested in the Central Government by virtue of the provisions
\nof Section  3(2). It was further provided that, if after the
\nappointed day,\tthe existence of any other coal mine came to
\nthe knowledge  of the  Central Government,  whether after an
\ninvestigation or  in pursuance\tof an intimation given to it
\nunder sub-section  (5) or  otherwise, the Central Government
\nwas empowered  to issue\t an order making a declaration about
\nthe existence  of such\tmine on\t and from  the date  of such
\ndeclaration. The management of such mines was also deemed to
\nhave vested  in the  Central Government\t and such coal mines
\nwere deemed  to have  been included  in the  Schedule.\tSub-
\nsections (3), (4), and (6) of Section 3 provided as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “(3) If any  error or  omission  is
\n     notified\tin   the   Schedule   in
\n     relation to  the name or address of
\n     the owner of a coal mine, the owner
\n     of such  mine shall,  within thirty
\n     days from\tthe date  on which  this
\n     Act  receives  the\t assent\t of  the
\n     president,\t bring\t such  error  or
\n     omission  to   the\t notice\t of  the
\n     Central Government,
\n     (4)  If, after  the appointed  day,
\n     the    Central\tGovernment    is
\n     satisfied,\t  whether    from    any
\n     information  received   by\t it   or
\n     otherwise, that  there has\t ben any
\n     error, omission  or  misdescription
\n     in relation to the particulars of a
\n     coal   mine included,  or deemed to
\n     be included, in the Schedule or the
\n     name and  address of  the owner  of
\n     any such  coal  mine,  it\tmay,  by
\n     notified order, correct such error,
\n     omission or  misdescription, and on
\n     the issue\tof such\t notified  order
\n     the   relevant   entries\tin   the
\n     Schedule  shall  stand    corrected
\n     accordingly:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided    that    no    such
\n     correction in relation to ownership
\n     of a  coal mine shall be made where
\n     such ownership is in dispute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  Every\t  person    in\t charge,
\n     immediately  before  that\tdate  on
\n     which this\t Act receives the assent
\n     of the president, of the management
\n     of any coal mine, being a coal mine
\n     not  included   or\t deemed\t  to   e
\n     included on  the said  date in  the
\n     Schedule, shall  within thirty days
\n     from the  said date,  intimate  the
\n     Central  Government  the  name  and
\n     location of  such mine and the name
\n     and address of the owner thereof.
\n     (6)  Where is a dispute with regard
\n     to the declaration made by the Coal
\n     Board under  the Coking  Coal Mines
\n     (Emergency Provisions)  Act,  1971,
\n     to the  effect  that  a  coal  mine
\n     contains\t coking\t    coal,    the
\n     management of such coal mine shall,
\n     notwithstanding anything  contained
\n     in the said Act vest in the Central
\n     Government\t under\t this  Act   and
\n     nothing  contianed\t  in  the  first
\n     mentioned Act  shall apply,  or  be
\n     deemed ever  to have applied to the
\n     said coal mine”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     For the  purpose of  this case, it is important to note
\nthat the  Schedule appended  to the  Act was  not treated as
\nfinal and  conclusive. Every  person in charge of management
\nof coal\t mine which  was not  included in the schedule had a
\nduty to\t intimate to  the Central  Government, the  name and
\nlocation of  such mine and the name and address of the owner
\nthereof. The  words specifically  not defined  in Section  2
\nwere assigned the meanings given to them in Section 3 of the
\nMines Act,  1952 `Mine’,  However, was\tgiven  a  very\twide
\nmeaning under Section 2(g).\n<\/p>\n
     The extended definition of `mine’ specifically included
\nall lands,  buildings and  equipments belonging to the owner
\nof the\tmine and  adjacent to  or situated on the surface of
\nthe mine  where the  washing of\t coal or manufacture of coke
\nwas carried  on. It  also included  all lands  and buildings
\nother than  those referred  to above  wherever situated\t and
\nwere solely  used for  location of  management as well as of
\nliaison office or the residence of officers and staff of the
\nmine. In  other words,\tbuildings used\tfor the residence of
\nthe officers  and staff\t etc. had to be treated as `mine’ in
\nspite of  the fact  that such  lands and buildings might not
\nhave belonged  to the owner of the `mine’ in ordinary sense.
\nIt will\t also appear  from the definition of `mine’ that the
\nphrase “belonging  to the  owner of the mine” was only to be
\nfound in  sub-clause (x)  and sub-clause  (xii)\t of  Section
\n2(g). The  legislative intent  obviously was to bring lands,
\nbuildings and  equipments which did not belong to the owners
\nbut were  used in  the running\tof the\tcoal mine within the
\nambit of  the word  `mine’. The intention appears to be that
\nthe Central Government after taking over of the mine must be
\nin a position to run the mine as it was being run previously
\nwith all  the plants,  equipments,  machineries,  lands\t and
\nbuildings. Even\t if some  of the properties mentioned in the
\ndefinition did\tnot belong  to\tthe  owner,  those  will  be
\navailable to the Central Government for running the mine. As
\nthis provision\tmight lead to a conflict with other laws, it
\nwas expressly  provided by Section 12 that the provisions of
\nthis  Act   shall  have\t  effect  notwithstanding   anything
\ninconsistent therewith\tcontained in  any other\t law. In the
\nSchedule annexed  to the  Act, names  and addresses  of\t the
\nmines, management  of which  was taken\tover as\t well as the
\nnames of  the owners of the mines were given, “Victory. P.O.
\nDhansar” was  mentioned at  Serial No.68  and United  Mining
\nCompany Limited\t has been shown as the owner of the mine. By
\nvirtue of  Section 3  read with\t the extended  definition of
\nmine given  in the  Act. not  only  the\t colliery,  but\t the
\nbuildings which\t are being  utilised  for  location  of\t the
\nmanagement and\tthe office of the mine as also for residence
\nof the officers and staff of the mine were brought under the
\nmanagement of the Central Government. If the office building
\nbelonged to  a person  other than the Colliery Company which
\nowned the  mine, then  it was his duty to draw the attention
\nof the\tCentral Government  to the fact that these buildings
\neven though  included in  the definition of `mine’, actually
\ndid not\t belong to  United Mining  Company Limited which was
\ndescribed generally  as the owner might have been corrected.
\nBut  even  if  such  an\t error\ttook  place  which  required
\ncorrection, the\t  owner\t of the\t lands and buildings falling
\nwithin sub-clasuse (xi) of clause (g) of Section 2 could not
\nget back  the management  or control  over these  lands\t and
\nbuildings. It  is of  significance  to\tnote  that  Madanlal
\nAgrawal who  is a  Director of United Mining Company Limited
\ndid not\t raise any  objection to  the description  of United
\nMining Company\tLimited as the owner of the coal mine at any
\npoint of time and did not seek for any correction. It is not
\nhis case  that he  was unaware\tof the\twide  definition  of
\n`mine’ given in this Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The Coal Mines (Taking over of Management) Act. 1973
\nwas followed  by the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973.
\nThe extended  definition of  `mine’ that was given under the
\nCoal Mines (Taking  Over of  Management) Act was retained in
\nSection\t 2(h)\tof  the\t  Nationalisation  Act\t with\tsome
\nmodification.\n<\/p>\n
     The object of the Nationalisation Act was stated to be-
\n     “An  Act\tto   provide   for   the
\n     acquisition  and  transfer\t of  the
\n     right, title  and interest\t of  the
\n     owner in  respect of the coal mines
\n     specified in  the schedule\t with  a
\n     view  to\treorganising   and   re-\n<\/p>\n
     constructing such\tcoal mines so as
\n     to\t  ensure   the\t rational,   co-\n<\/p>\n
     ordinated\t    and\t      scientific
\n     development and utilisation of coal
\n     resources\t consistent   with   the
\n     growing reqirements  of the county,
\n     in order  that  the  ownership  and
\n     control  of   such\t resources   are
\n     vested in\tthe State and thereby so
\n     distributed as best to subserve the
\n     common   good   and   for\t matters
\n     connected therewith  or  incidental
\n     thereto.”\n<\/p>\n
     A\tdeclaration was made in the Act in Section 1A which
\nis as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “1A-Declaration as to expediency of
\n     Union  control.-(1)  It  is  hereby
\n     declared that  it is  expedient  in
\n     the public\t interest that the Union
\n     should take  under its  control the
\n     regulation and  development of coal
\n     mines  to\tthe  extent  hereinafter
\n     provided in  sub-sections\t(3)  and
\n     (4) of  section 3\tand  sub-section
\n     (2) of section 30.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“Mine” was defined by Section 2(h) of Act as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(h).    “mine”\t  means\t     any
\n     excavation where  any operation for
\n     the purpose  of  searching\t for  or
\n     obtaining minerals\t has been  or is
\n     being carried on, and includes-\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  all borings and bore holes;\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) all shafts, whether in the
\n     course of being sunk or\t   not;\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)     all levels  and\tinclined
\n     planes  in\t  the  course  of  being
\n     driven;\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) all open cast workings;\n<\/p>\n
     (v)  all\tconveyors    or\t  aerial
\n     ropeways provided for bringing into
\n     or removal\t from a mine of minerals
\n     or\t other\t articles  or\tfor  the
\n     removal of refuse therefrom;<\/p>\n
     (vi) all lands,  buildings,  works,
\n     adits,  levels,  planes,  machinery
\n     and    equipments,\t    instruments,
\n     stores,\t vehicles,     railways,
\n     tramways\tand   sidings\tin,   or
\n     adjacent to,  a mine  and used  for
\n     the purposes of the mine;\n<\/p>\n
     (vii)     all workshops  (including
\n     buildings, machinery,  instruments,
\n     stores,\tequipments    of    such
\n     workshops stand)  in,  or\tadjacent
\n     to, a  mine and  used substantially
\n     for the  purposes of  the mine or a
\n     number  of\t mines\tunder  the  same
\n     management;\n<\/p>\n
     (viii)    all coal belonging to the
\n     owner of the mine, whether in stock
\n     or in  transit, and  all coal under
\n     production in a mine;\n<\/p>\n
     (ix) all power  stations in  a mine
\n     or operated primarily for supplying
\n     electricity  for\tthe  purpose  of
\n     working the mine or number of mines
\n     under the same management;\n<\/p>\n
     (x)  all\tlands,\t buildings   and
\n     equipments, belonging to the owners
\n     of the mine, and in, adjacent to or
\n     situated on  the  surface\tof,  the
\n     mine  where  the  washing\tof  coal
\n     obtained\tfrom\tthe   mine    or
\n     manufacture, therefrom,  of coke is
\n     carried on\n<\/p>\n
     (xi) all lands  and buildings other
\n     than  those  referred  to\tin  sub-<\/p>\n
     clause (x)\t wherever  situated,  if
\n     solely used for the location of the
\n     management,   sale\t   or\t liaison
\n     offices, or  for the  residence  of
\n     officers and staff, of the mine;\n<\/p>\n
     (xii)     all other  fixed\t assets,
\n     movable and immovable, belonging to
\n     the  owner\t  of  a\t mine,\twherever
\n     situate   and    current\t assets,
\n     belonging to  a mine whether within
\n     its premises or outside.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation.-The\t      expression
\n     “current assets” does not include,-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  dues representing  the sale of
\n     coal and  coal products effected at
\n     any time  before the  appointed day
\n     and outstanding  immediately before
\n     the said day;\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  dues\tfrom   the  Coal  Board,
\n     established under\tsection 4 of the
\n     Coal  Mines  (Conservation,  Safety
\n     and Development)  Act, with respect
\n     to any  period before the appointed
\n     day;<\/p>\n
     (C)  dues\tfrom   sundry\tdebtors,
\n     loans and advances to other parties
\n     and    investments,    not\t   being
\n     investments in the coal mines;\n<\/p>\n
     (d)  security deposits  made by the
\n     owners  with  the\tCoal  Controller
\n     appointed by the Central Government
\n     or\t with\tthe  Railways\tfor  the
\n     fulfilment of  contracts or  with a
\n     State  Electricity\t Board\tfor  the
\n     payment of bills;\n<\/p>\n
     (e)  earnest money deposited by the
\n     owners  with   the\t  Railways   for
\n     obtaining contracts;”\n<\/p>\n
     Sub-section (n)  of Section  2 laid down that words and
\nexpressions used  but not  defined in  the Act will have the
\nmeanings assigned  to them  in the  Coal Mines (Conservation
\nand Safety) Act, 1952. Sub-section (o) of Section 2 provided
\nthat words  and expressions  used in the Nationalisation Act
\nwhich have  not been defined in the Coal Mines (Conservation
\nand Development)  Act. 1974,  but defined  in the Mines Act,
\n1952, will  have the  meanings assigned to them in the Mines
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     By virtue\tof Section  3, the right, title and interest
\nof owners  in relation\tto the\tcoal mines  specified in the
\nSchedule stood\ttransferred to\tand vested absolutely in the
\nCentral Government  free  from\tall  encumbrances  from\t the
\nappointed  day,\t  1st  May,   1973.  The   idea\t behind\t the
\nNationalisation Act appears to be that the Government wanted
\nto take\t over and  run\tthe  coal  mines  so  as  to  ensure
\nrational,  co-ordinated\t  and  scientific   development\t and
\nutilisation of\tcoal resources. The object of the Act was to
\nsubserve the common good and for matters connected therewith
\nor incidental  thereto. The Act should not be construct in a
\nway to\tfrustrate the  working of  the coal mines altogether
\nand thereby  stop or  bring down  production of\t coal by the
\nnationalisation of coal mines. The extended meaning given to
\n`mine’ was  to ensure  that   the activity of mining of coal
\ncould be  carried on  in an  uninterrupted fashion. Not only
\nthe lands,  buildings and equipments belonging to the owners
\nof the\tmine but other lands and buildings which were solely
\nused for the purposes of office or residence of the officers
\nand staff of the mine also vested in the Central Government.
\nThe words  of sub-clause (xi) are very clear and there is no
\nambiguity in them.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Sorabjee  appearing on\t behalf of  Madanlal Agrawal
\nhas contended  that what has been taken over under Section 3
\nby the\tCentral Government is the “right, title and interest
\nof the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the
\nSchedule”. Serial No. 204 in the Schedule mentions “Victory”
\nas the\tcoal mine and its owner has been described as United
\nMining Company\tLimited. The  compensation payable  has also
\nbeen mentioned\tas a sum of Rs.9,17,000\/- In other words, by
\nvirtue of  Section 3,  the United  Mining Company  was being
\ndivested of  its right,\t title and interest in the mine. The
\namount of compensation payable to the company was also fixed
\nby the\tstatute. Section  3 read with the Schedule leaves no
\nroom for  doubt\t  that only  the interest of the company and
\nnobody else  was being acquired under Section 3. The company
\nmay have  taken a  house on  lease, but\t the lessor  was not
\ndivested of  ownership of  the house in any way by virtue of
\nthe provisions of Section 3.\n<\/p>\n
     If this  argument is  upheld, it will make the extended
\nmeaning given  to `mine’  in sub-section  (h) of  Section  2
\nnugatory and  of no  effect. “Coal mine” has been defined by
\nSection 2(b)  to mean  a mine  in  which there exists one or
\nmore seams  of coal.  `Mine’ has  been\tdefined\t to  include
\namongst others all conveyors or aerial ropeways provided for
\nthe bringing  into or  removal from  a mine  of minerals  or
\nother articles\tor for\tthe removal of refuse therefrom, all
\nlands, buildings works, vehicles, railways tramways and
\nsidings in,  or adjacent  to a mine and used for the purpose
\nof the\tmine, all workshops (including buildings, machinery,
\ninstruments, stores,  equipment of  such workshops  and\t the
\nlands on  which such  workshop stands) in or, adjacent to, a
\nmine and  used substantially  for the  purposes of the mine,
\nall power  stations in\ta mine\tor  operated  primarily\t for
\nsupplying electricity  for the\tpurpose of working the mine.
\nAll these  things may not belong to the owner to come within
\nthe  ambit   of\t the   Nationalisation\tAct.   The  extended
\ndefinition of  mine has\t been given  in order to ensure that
\nafter taking  over of the mine, the Central Government is in
\na position  to operate\tthe mine  and extract  coal  and  do
\neverything that\t is needful  for the  purpose of working the
\nmine. In  fact, the  phrase “belonging\tto the\towner of the
\nmine” is  to be\t found only  in sub-clauses  (viii), (x) and\n<\/p>\n
(xii) That  clearly goes  to   show that  the other  assets,
\nmovable or  immovable, which  were being  actually used\t and
\nutilised for operation of the mining activity were all being
\ntaken over  by the  Central Government even though these did
\nnot belong  to the  owners. There is no sense in giving this
\nextended meaning  to `mine’  if the intention of the Act was
\nnot to\tacquire the  right  of\townership  in  these  assets
\nfalling within the definition of `Mine’.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  also of  significance that\tSection 3  speaks of
\nvesting of  “right, title  and interest\t of  the  owners  in
\nrelation to  the coal  mines specified in the Schedule”. All
\nownership rights  not only  of, but in relation to, the coll
\nmines were  being taken\t over by the Central Government free
\nfrom all  encumbrances from  the appointed  day. The Section
\nalso does  not speak of the right, title and interest of the
\nowners specified in the Schedule. On the contrary, it speaks
\nof “coal  mines specified in the Schedule”. On the contrary,
\nif speaks  of\t“coal mines  specified in  the Schedule”. In
\nother words,  the coal\tmines specified\t in the Schedule are
\nbeing brought  under the ownership of the Central Government
\nwhich will  take in everything included in the definition of
\nmine. The ambit of the coal mine has to be understood in the
\nsense as  given in  the Act.  The fact\tthat the name of the
\ncompany has  been given\t as the\t owner\tand  the  amount  of
\ncompensation has  also been  fixed in  the Schedule does not
\nmean that the vesting was confined only to the assets of the
\ncompany in  the mine.  The Schedule  contains a\t list of the
\nmines which  have vested in the Central Government. In order
\nto  ascertain\texactly\t what  has  vested  in\tthe  Central
\nGovernment, the\t definition of\t`mine’ given in Section 2(h)
\nwill have  to be  taken into  account. What the Schedule has
\ndone is\t to give  the names  and location  of the mines, the
\nnames and addresses of the owners of the mines and also the
\namounts of  compensation to  be paid.  It is  not in dispute
\nthat United Mining Company was named as the owner of Victory
\ncoal mine.  From this,\thowever, it does not follow that all
\nassets, lands,\t buildings  and equipments which fall within
\nthe ambit of the definition of mine as given in Section 2(h)
\nand also  sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 26, it will be
\nclear that  vesting under  Section 3 was not confined to the
\ninterest of the owner named in column 4 of the Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
     The  contention   that  Section   3  was\tof   limited
\napplication and\t only took  away the  rights of\t the  owners
\nspecified in  the Schedule is not borne out of the scheme of
\nthe Act and also the wording of Section 3.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 3\tof the\tAct which  deals with acquisition of
\nthe rights  of owners  of coal mines in relation to the coal
\nmines, requires\t to be\tinterpreted  in\t the  light  of\t the
\nobjects for which the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973
\nwas enacted.  As set  out in  the Preamble,  the purpose  is
\nreorganising and  reconstructing such  coal mines  so as  to
\nensure a  rational, coordinated\t and scientific\t development
\nand utilisation\t of coal  resources. Therefore,\t all  assets
\nrequired for functioning of coal mines are to be acquired.\n<\/p>\n
     The two  key words\t for  the  purpose  of\tinterpreting
\nSection 3  are `mine’  and  `owners’.  If  we  look  at\t the
\ndefinition of a `mine’ under Section 2(h), the definition is
\ndesigned to cover:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  all properties  “belonging to the mine” whatever be the
\nnature of  these properties,  as also  specified  properties
\n“belonging to  the owner  of the  mine”. Thus,\tfor example,
\nSection 2(h)(xii)  is an  omnibus clause  which\t covers\t all
\nfixed assets,  moveable and  immoveable,  belonging  to\t the
\nowner  of   a  mine  wherever  situate\tand  current  assets
\nbelonging to  a mine  whether in  its premises\tor  outside.
\nSection 2(h)(viii) covers all coal belonging to the owner of
\nthe mine.  Section 2(h)(x)  covers all\tlands, buildings and
\nequipment belonging  to\t the  owners  of  a  mine,  and\t in,
\nadjacent to  or situated  on the  surface of the mine. where
\nwashing of coal or manufacture of coke is carried on.
\n(2)  In addition,  the definition  of `mine’ also covers all
\nthose assets  which are required for a proper functioning of
\nthe mine irrespective of  whether these assets `belong’ to a
\nmine or\t not. Thus, for example, Section 2(h)(vi) covers all
\nlands,\tbuildings,  machinery  and  equipment,\tinstruments,
\nstores, vehicles, railways, tramways etc. adjacent to a mine
\nand used  for the purposes of the mine. Therefore, all these
\nassets if they are lying adjacent to a mine and are required
\nfor the\t proper functioning  of the  mine would\t be acquired
\nirrespective of whether they belong to the “owner of a mine”
\nor not.\t Similarly under Section 2(h)(ix) all power-stations
\nin a  mine or  operated primarily  for supplying electricity
\nfor the\t purpose of  working the  mine or  a number of mines
\nunder the  same management  will be acquired irrespective of
\nwhether the  power-stations belonged to the mine or owner of
\nthe mine,  or not.  Sub-clause (xi) of Section 2(h) provides
\nthat all  other [other\tthan those  in sub-clause (x)] lands
\nand buildings  wherever situated,  if solely  used  for\t the
\nlocation of  the management,  sale or liaison offices or for
\nthe residence  of officers  and staff  of the  mine are also
\nacquired. Unlike  sub-clause (x),  sub-clause (xi)  does not
\ncontain the  words “belonging  to the  owners of  the mine”.
\nTherefore, the\tdefinition clause  of `mine’ covers at least
\ntwo different kinds of property; (i) properties which belong
\nto the\tmine and  (ii) properties which are used by the mine
\nfor a  proper functioning of the mine. The first category of
\nproperties would be properties which are of the ownership of
\nthe mining company. These could also be properties which are
\nleased by  the mining company or in possession of the mining
\ncompany and used by it.\n<\/p>\n
     That is  why under Section 2(n) and 2(o) read together,
\nthe term  `owner’ would carry wider meaning assigned to that
\nterm  under  the  Mines\t Act  of  1952\twhich  would  cover,
\ndepending on  the context,  even the  rights of\t a lessee or
\noccupier of  the mine  or any  part thereof. Thus the entire
\ninterest in  the properties  which  are\t covered  under\t the
\ndefinition of a mine is to be acquired so that the mines can
\nbe reorganised and run efficiently.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  context, therefore,  Section 3  refers to\t the
\nacquisition of\tthe rights  of owners  in respect of all the
\nproperties which are covered by the definition of a `mine’.\n<\/p>\n
     Regarding\tthose\tproperties  which  are\tnot  of\t the
\nownership of  the coal mine, it is clear from the definition
\nof `mine’  that only  properties which\tare required  for  a
\nproper functioning  of the mine and which are covered by the
\ndefinition  would   be\tacquired.  Any\tand  every  property
\nbelonging to  another person  which happens   to  be on\t the
\nsurface of  the mine  or adjacent  to it  is not taken away.
\nOnly those  properties of  another person  which fall within
\nthe definition\tof a  mine and\twhich are  necessary  for  a
\nproper functioning  of the  mine are  to be  taken away. The
\ndefinition itself  takes care  of this aspect by stipulating
\nwherever necessary  that such  properties must\tused for the
\npurpose of  the mine,  whether the  purpose is\tspecified or
\ngeneral.\n<\/p>\n
     The judgment of the Bombay High Court in  Telco Limited
\nv. Bharat mining Corporation Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1980 Bom. 168,
\nhas taken  a very  narrow view\tof Section  3(1) of the Coal
\nMine (Nationalisation)\tAct in\tholding that  it is only the
\nright, title and interest of those owners whose names appear
\nin the\tSchedule against  the respective  coal mines that is
\nintended to  be acquired  and  transferred  to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment. It ignores both the definition of `mine’ as also
\nthe definition\tof `owner’.  The other\ttwo judgments Valley
\nRefractories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Garewal, AIR<\/a> 1978 Cal.
\n574, and  Coal Mines  Authority Ltd.  &\t Ors.  v  Associated
\nCement Companies  Ltd., AIR  1986 M.P.\t241, have  basically
\nexamined the  definition of  `mine’ in\torder to see whether
\nthe asset  in question\twhich was under consideration before
\nthem, falls  within the\t definition of `mine’ under the said
\nAct. That  is the  correct approach.  especially because  of
\nthe extended  definition of a mine and the distinction which
\nthe definition\titself makes between properties belonging to
\nthe mine  or owner of the mine and properties which are used
\nfor the\t purposes of  the mine.\t The two decisions also take
\ninto account  the wider\t definition of\tan `owner’.  Such an
\ninterpretation would also be in consonance with Section
\n26(3) which  takes care\t of the right of persons who are not
\ndescribed as  owners of\t the coal  mines in  the Schedule to
\nclaim compensation.  If their interests were not to be taken
\nover under  the Nationalisation\t Act, there would be no need
\nto provide for any commpensation for them.\n<\/p>\n
     In the light of the definition of an `owner’ which also
\nincludes a  lessee or  an occupier  apart from the immediate
\nproprietor, and\t the definition\t of `mine’, one can conclude
\nthat even assets of which the mine or the mining company may
\nnot be\tthe proprietor,\t but which are leased by the mine or
\nwhich are in the possession of a mine over a period of time,
\nare also  acquired. A temporary acquisition, or a short-term
\nlease, or  even some  special additional amenities which the
\nmine may provide but which are not required for the purposes
\nof the\tmine may  not be  covered. It  will depend  upon the
\nfacts of each case. In the Madhya Pradesh case, for example,
\nthe equipment  in  question  was  only\ttemporarily  in\t the
\npossession of  the mine to meet certain exigencies. This was
\nheld to\t be not\t covered by  the definition  of mine. In the
\nCalcutta case, however, the weigh bridge which was leased by
\nthe  company  was  a  necessary\t equipment  for\t the  proper
\nfunctioning of\tthe mine and was installed in the mine for a
\nperiod of time. It was held as falling within the definition
\nof a  `mine’. Thus  it is quite possible that property which
\nis temporerily in or adjacent to a mine, and which does not
\nbelong to the mine, or certain machinery and equipment which
\ndoes not belong to the mining company but may be temporarily
\nleased to  meet some  special temporary\t requirements, would
\nnot be\tcovered by  the definition  of\ta  `mine’.  But\t the
\npresent case is not such a case.\n<\/p>\n
     The scheme of payment of compensation also goes to show
\nthat apart  from the  owners named  in the  Schedule,  other
\npersons may  have to  be compensated.  Section 8 of the Coal
\nMines (nationalisation)\t Act lays  down that  the “owner  of
\nevery coal  mine or  group of  coal mines  specified in\t the
\nsecond column  of the Schedule shall be given by the Central
\nGovernment, in\tcash and  in the manner specified in Chapter
\nVI for\tthe vesting  in it,  under Section  3, of the right,
\ntitle and  interest of\tthe owner  in relation\tto such coal
\nmine or\t group of  coal mines, an amount equal to the amount
\nspecified against it in the corresponding entry in the fifth
\ncolumn of  the Schedule.” The commissioner of payments to be
\nappointed under\t Section 17  for the purpose of disbursement
\nof the amounts specified in the Schedule has to consider and
\ninvestigate the\t claim of every person against the owner and
\ndecide the  validity of\t the  claim.  The  Commissioner\t may
\ntransfer the claim for settlement to an authorised person.\n<\/p>\n
     A claimant who is dissatisfied with the decision of the
\nCommissioner may  prefer an appeal. Provisions of Section 26
\nof Coal\t Mines (Nationalisation)  Act are  important for the
\npurpose of this case:\n<\/p>\n
     “26. Disbursement of amounts to the
\n     owners of coal mines. (1) If out of
\n     the monies\t paid to him in relation
\n     to coal mine or group of coal mines
\n     specified in  the second coloumn of
\n     the Schedule,  there is  a\t balance
\n     left after\t meeting the liabilities
\n     of all  the secured  and  unsecured
\n     creditors, the  Commissioner  shall
\n     disburse such  balance to the owner
\n     of such  coal mine or group of coal
\n     mines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  Before making\t any payment  to
\n     the owner of any coal mine or group
\n     of\t coal  mines  under  sub-section
\n     (1), the Commissioner shall satisfy
\n     himself as\t to the\t right\tof  such
\n     person to\treceive the whole or any
\n     part of  such amount,  and\t in  the
\n     event of  there being   a\tdoubt or
\n     dispute as\t to  the  right\t of  the
\n     person to\treceive the whole or any
\n     part of  the amount, referred to in
\n     sections 8\t and 9, the Commissioner
\n     shall refer the matter to the Court
\n     and  make\t the   disbursement   in
\n     accordance with the decision of the
\n     Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  For the  removal of doubts, it
\n     is hereby declared that the entries
\n     in\t the   fourth  column\tof   the
\n     Schedule shall  not be deemed to be
\n     conclusive as  to the  right, title
\n     and  interest   of\t any  person  in
\n     relation to any coal mine specified
\n     in the corresponding entries in the
\n     second column  of the  Schedule and
\n     evidence  shall  be  admissible  to
\n     establish\tthe   right,  title  and
\n     interest of  any person in relation
\n     to such coal mine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  In relation to a coal mine the
\n     operations\t   of\t  which\t    were
\n     immediately before\t the taking over
\n     the management  of such  coal  mine
\n     under the\tCoal Mines  (Taking Over
\n     of Management) Act, 1973, under the
\n     control of\t a managing  contractor,
\n     the amount\t specified in  the fifth
\n     column of the Schedule against such
\n     coal  mine\t  shall\t be  apportioned
\n     between the  owner of the coal mine
\n     and  such\tmanaging  contractor  in
\n     such proportions  as may  be agreed
\n     upon by  or between  the owner  and
\n     such managing  contractor,\t and  in
\n     the event\tof there  being no  such
\n     agreement, in  such proportions  as
\n     may be determined by the court on a
\n     reference\tmade   to  it\tby   the
\n     Commissioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  Where any machinery, equipment
\n     or other  property in  a Coal  Mine
\n     has   vested    in\t  the\t Central
\n     Government or  a Government company
\n     under this Act, but such machinery,
\n     equipment or  other  property  does
\n     not belong\t to the\t owner\tof  such
\n     coal mine,\t the amount specified in
\n     the fifth\tcolumn of  the\tSchedule
\n     against such  coal mine shall, on a
\n     reference\tmade   to  it\tby   the
\n     Commissioner, be apportioned by the
\n     Court between  the\t owner\tof  such
\n     coal mine\tand the\t owner\tof  such
\n     machinery,\t  equipment   or   other
\n     property having  due regard  to the
\n     value of  such machinery, equipment
\n     or other  property on the appointed
\n     day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (6)  Where the  amount specified in
\n     the fifth column of the Schedule is
\n     relateable\t to   a\t group\tof  coal
\n     mines, to\tCommissioner shall  have
\n     power  to\t apportion  such  amount
\n     among the owners of such group, and
\n     in making\tsuch apportionment,  the
\n     Commissioner shall\t have regard  to
\n     the highest  annual  production  in
\n     the  coal\tmine  during  the  three
\n     years  immediately\t  preceding  the
\n     appointed day.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-section  (1)  speak  of  “monies  paid\t to  him  in
\nrelation to  a coal  mine”. The\t money payable\tto an  owner
\nshall be  utilised first  to pay  to secured  and  unsecured
\ncreditors. If  any balance  is left  thereafter, it shall be
\ndisbursed to  the  owners.  Sub-section\t (2)  provides\tthat
\nbefore making any payment to the owner, the Commissioner has
\nfurther to  satisfy himself as to the right of the person to
\nreceive “the  whole or\tany part  of such  amount’. In other
\nwords, merely because  the name of a colliery owner is shown
\nin the\t4th column  as the  owner will not enable him to get
\nthe entire  amount allocated  in column\t 5 Other parties may
\nclaim a\t portion of  that amount.  In such  a situation, the
\nCommissioner has  to refer  the dispute\t to  the  court\t for
\ndecision. For  the removal  of doubts,\tsub-section (3)\t has
\ndeclared that  the entries in the 4th column of the Schedule
\nshall not  be deemed to be conclusive as to the right, title
\nand interest of any person in relation to any coal mine. Any
\nother claimant\tmay adduce  evidence to establish his right,
\ntitle and  interest in\trelation to  such coal\tmine.  These
\nprovisions clearly  go to  show that   the  colliery company
\nnamed in  the 4th  column is not the only person who will be
\npaid  the  compensation\t money.\t If  plants,  machinery\t and
\nbuilding which\tcome within the definition of “mine” are not
\nowned by  the person  named in\tthe  4th  column,  then\t the
\nCommissioner will have to satisfy himself as to the right of
\nany other  person who  owns such  plants or  machineries  or
\nbuildings and  divide the  amount of compensation among such
\npersons and the persons named in the 4th column.\n<\/p>\n
     The controversy  has been\tput beyond any doubt by sub-
\nsection (5)  of Section\t 26 which  specifically provides for
\napportionment of  the compensation money when any machinery,
\nequipment or  other property  which does  not belong  to the
\nowner of  the mine has vested in the Central Government. The
\namount may  be apportioned  between the\t person named in the
\n4th column  and the  owner of  machinery, equipment or other
\nproperty by  a court.  All these  provisions clearly  go  to
\nshow:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Mere mention of the name of the owner of a coal mine in
\n4th column is not conclusive of its rights to get the entire
\namount of compensation specified in the 5th column.
\n(2)  There may\tbe  other  claimants  for  the\tamount.\t The
\ndispute many  be resolved  by a\t court on  reference by\t the
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Machinery, equipment  or other  property in a coal mine
\nwhich does  not belong\tto the\towners specified  in the 4th
\ncolumn may  vest in  the Central  Government or a Government
\nCompany.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  If such  vesting takes  place, then  the owner  of such
\nmachinery, equipment  or property  may be compensated out of
\namounts specified in the 5th column.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  The claim of such owners as against the owners named in
\nthe  4th   column  may\tbe  referred  to  a  court  and\t the
\ncompensation money  may be  apportioned by the court between
\nthe owner  of the  coal mine  and the  owner  of  machinery,
\nequipment or other property.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  context of\t Section 3  and also Section 26, the
\nowner has  to be  understood as\t owner\tof  a  mine  in\t the
\nextended sense given in Section 2(h). The limited definition
\nof the word `mine’ given in the Mines Act, 1952 has not been
\ndesignedly adopted  by the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act.
\nAll these  provisions go  to show  that it  was not only the
\ninterest of  the owners\t of the\t coal mine  specified in the
\nfourth column,\tbut also  the ownership of all other persons
\nin the\tproperties enumerated  in Section 2(h) vested in the
\nCentral Government  by virtue of the provisions of Section 3
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     That means that things which did not belong to the mine
\nowners mentioned in column 4 of the Schedule but fall within
\nsub-clauses  (i)   to  (xii)   of  Section   2(h)   of\t the
\nNationalisation Act will vest in the Central Government free
\nfrom all  encumbrances. If  the mine owner had located staff
\nquarters and  offices on  rented buildings,  these will also
\nvest in the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  aforesaid,.  we  hold  that  the\tsuit
\npremises fall  within the  ambit of the definition of `mine’
\nin Section  2(h) of  the Coal  Mines (Nationalisation)\tAct,
\n1973 and as such had vested in the Central Government on the
\nappointed day by virtue of the provision of Section 3 of the
\nAct, even  though these\t premises might not have been in the
\nownership of the United Mining Company.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is allowed.  The  impugned  judgment  under
\nappeal dated 20.11.1992 is set aside. There will be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     C.A. NOS.1727-1731 OF 1990 AND C.A.NO. 4673 OF 1994
\n     In view  of our  judgment in  C.A. NO.2463 OF 1993, the
\nabove appeals  are also\t allowed. The judgments under appeal
\nare set aside. NO order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 Author: Sen Bench: Subhas C. Sen, Sujata V. Manohar PETITIONER: BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: MADANLAL AGRAWAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/1996 BENCH: SUBHAS C. SEN, SUJATA V. MANOHAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: (With C.A. Nos.1727\/1990, 1728\/1990, 1729\/1990, 1730\/1990, 1731\/1990 and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-03T15:24:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T15:24:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":7525,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\",\"name\":\"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T15:24:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-03T15:24:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T15:24:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996"},"wordCount":7525,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996","name":"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T15:24:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharat-coking-coal-limited-vs-madanlal-agrawal-on-20-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Madanlal Agrawal on 20 November, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78298","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}