KHAS KARANPURA COLLIERY LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Khas Karanpura Colliery Limited, has obtained a rule from this Court against the respondent, the Union of India--the Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel,--to show cause why the notification No. S. O. 2991 dated 9th October, 1963, published in the Gazette of India dated October 19, 1903, a copy of which is annexure C to the writ application, be not quashed by grant of an appropriate writ and why the respondent be not restrained from taking any action on the strength of the said notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act XX of 1957), hereinafter called the Act. Cause has been shown by the respondent by filing counter-affidavits sworn by some officers of the National Coal Development Corporation, a Government of India undertaking, for whose benefit the notification has been issued, and by the learned Government Advocate, who opposed the rule at the time of its hearing.

(2.) The petitioner claims to have obtained a mining lease of a block of land measuring approximately 1401 bighas in mauza Sael in the district of Hazaribagh on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Indenture of Lease dated the 8th July, 1949, effective from a back date, i.e., the 27th of September, 1946. The petitioner further claims to have opened the mine after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities and commenced mining operation in the demised block of land from December, 1947. The colliery is known as the Khas Karanpura Colliery. The petitioner's further case is that It has spent about fourteen lacs of rupees in developing the mine, which includes the cost of buildings, machinery, plants, railway siding, tools, implements, driving inclines, boilers and premium paid for obtaining the leasehold right. The railway siding was opened in April 1952, and despatches from the said siding commenced from June, 1952. The block of land contains several coal seams commonly known as Argada Seam, Upper Siwana Seam, Karse Seam, and Sirka Beam. The petitioner, since June, 1952, has raised about 623650 tons of coal, upto February, 1964, and despatched 571688 tons as detailed in the statement, a copy of which is annexure A to the writ application. The petitioner claims to be working and carrying on mining operation in the entire block of land as one unit by means of inclines and quarries, which have been driven and dug by it (petitioner) for the purpose of raising coal. It has further obtained supply of electricity and the electric equipments have been placed in the said coal land with necessary accessories. A plan of the demised block known as Khas Karanpura Colliery showing the underground work as well as the surface features on which various constructions done by the petitioner are existing, has been annexed with the writ application and marked annexure B. The entire land is being worked as one unit known as Khas Karanpura Colliery In accordance with the various Statutes, Rules and Regulations governing the working of the coal mines. According to the petitioner, the mine has been worked continuously since 1947 and it is not a dormant or unworked mine or land justifying acquisition of it or any portion of it by the Central Government in exercise of the power vested in It under Section 4(1) of the Act. After the issue of the notification in October, 1963, the respondent is said to have taken action in pursuance of it upon the petitioner's land in March, 1964, and hence the present application was filed on 23rd of March, 1964.

(3.) On 25-3-64 when the application was admitted by this Bench, the operation of the impugned notification was stayed. On 2-6-64 an application supported by an affidavit sworn by the Legal Inspector employed under the National Coal Development Corporation was filed on behalf of the respondent alleging that the respondent, after the order of stay passed by this Court, had stopped prospecting In the land but the petitioner has started driving the inclines, etc., in the area concerned. Hence a prayer was made to direct the petitioner to maintain the status quo. In this application, it was stated in the 6th paragraph that the respondent was going to file a counter-affidavit to state that "they have not acquired the working areas of the Colliery concerned for the purpose of prospecting and they are legally within their rights to notify unworked areas under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957". The counter-affidavit dated 26-6-64 was tiled by the petitioner by way of reply to the said application. During the course of the argument our attention was drawn to, and stress was laid on behalf of the respondent by the learned Government Advocate upon, certain statements made in this counter-affidavit. It will be better to refer to them at this stage. In the 4th paragraph, it is stated that out of 1401 bighas of coal land, about 1200 bighas of coal land have been notified to he acquired by the impugned notification. The block of land contains several coal seams more than 10 in number named in the said paragraph of the counter-affidavit, and it is stated that the petitioner has got permission from the Mines Department and Coal Board to work only 4 seams, the ones named in the writ application. While controverting the allegation of the respondent that the petitioner was not maintaining the status quo after having obtained the stay order, it was stated by it that there is an incline as well as two pits which have been driven to a depth of 6 feet and 30 feet respectively long before the impugned notification was issued, and the said incline and the pits have been shown as proposed incline and trial pits in the plan (annexure B) filed along with the writ application, and that "it will take about three months to touch coal through this incline and in the next two years the petitioners will not be able to work in more than 10 to 12 bighas of coal land out of the 1200 bighas notified under the Act." in reply to the respondent's assertion in its application dated 2-6-64 that the notification in question is perfectly valid and legal, it was further stated in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit dated 26-6-64 that the