BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. NANDLAL N SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short, to be stated as B.C.C.L.) against the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Addl. Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, dated 17/07/1978 in Title Suit No. 25/14 of 1974-78. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein and granted a declaration sought for by the respondent-plaintiff that car No. BHR 243 belonged to respondent/plaintiff exclusively. Consequently it restrained the appellant, its agents, servants and employees from interfering in any manner with the respondent's possession of the aforesaid car.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that before the nationalisation of collieries, he was the proprietor of a colliery known as North Kessurgarh colliery which was subsequently amalgamated with Khas Joiramdih colliery of which respondent/ plaintiff was a partner along with others. This amalgamation took place in or about the year 1966. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, he deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 as security deposit in the year 1965 with the dealer of Fiat Cars, namely, M/s. Rajni Motors (P) Ltd., Dhanbad, and booked a Fiat Salloon Car. While booking the order, he described himself as the sole proprietor of North Kessurgarh Colliery. Though the car had been booked in the year 1965, on account of shortage of such cars, the order materialised only in the year 1972. On 1-9-1972, he took delivery of the car on payment of sum of Rs. 22,000.00 and odd which amount he paid out of his personal fund. A sum of Rs. 22,000.00 was drawn by cheque from the personal account of the plaintiff and a bank draft obtained from the bank for making the payment and in addition a sum of Rs. 258.61 ps. was paid in cash. Since the car had been booked describing the plaintiff as proprietor of the North Kessurgarh colliery, the registration of the car had also been done in the same manner. Even though the aforesaid North Kessurgarh colliery did not exist after November, 1966 as it had been amalgamated with Khas Joiram Colliery, the plaintiff gave the same description while registering the car. The case of the plaintiff was that the car was used for the personal work of the plaintiff and/or his family members and was kept at the residence of the plaintiff. The car was maintained by the plaintiff at his own cost and even the driver employed was paid by him from his own personal fund. According to the plaintiff, the driver employed by him (defendant No. 2) had misbehaved but since he tendered apology the plaintiff continued him in service. However, on 9-4-1974 the driver took out the car as usual for getting some repair work done and thereafter did not return till about 3 p.m. If then transpired that he had driven the car to the office of defendant No. 1-B.C.C.L. An information was lodged with the police, but since no action was taken, a complaint petition was filed before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on 10-4-1974 against the aforesaid driver-defendant No. 2. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. Thereafter, a search warrant for seizure of the car was issued and on 16-4-1974 the car was seized by the police. When the son of the plaintiff applied for release of the car, the B.C.C.L. defendant No. 1 objected to the release of the car in favour of the plaintiffs son on the plea that the car belonged to defendant No. 1, namely, B.C.C.L. This application was made by the B.C.C.L. presumably on the strength of the provisions of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Nationalisation Act). According to the plaintiff, since the car had been purchased by him out of his own personal fund and was his personal property, it could not be said to be included in the definition of mine in the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. However, since the claim made by the B.C.C.L. raised a cloud about the title and ownership of the car, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for a declaration that the aforesaid car was his personal property and defendant No. 1-B.C.C.L. had no right to claim the same as also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1-B.C.C.L., its agents, servants and employees from interfering in any manner with the possession of the aforesaid fiat car. 2. Defendant No. 1-B.C.C.L. filed a written statement in the suit contesting the claim of the plaintiff. According to defendant No. 1-B.C.C.L. the North Kessurgarh Colliery did not cease to exist as a separate unit and, in fact, was an independent mine at the time of nationalisation. According to defendant No. 1, the deposit of Rs. 2,000.00 while booking the car, was made from out of the fund of the aforesaid colliery. It was really the colliery which had placed order for the car and the plaintiff had placed the order for the car as its proprietor. Thereafter, on 1-9-1972, the plaintiff took delivery of the car from the dealer, but payment of price was made out of the funds of the colliery and not out of the fund of the plaintiff. The car was, therefore, never the personal property of the plaintiff and its price was not paid out of his personal fund. That is why the car was registered in the name of North Kessurgarh Colliery. In this view of the matter, the car was included in the definition of the word 'mine' in the Nationalisation Act and consequently when the mine vested in the Central Government, the ownership of the car also vested in the Central Government and, thereafter, in the B.C.C.L. defendant No. 1. The story about the driver having driven the car to the office of the B.C.C.L. was not true and really the officials of B.C.C.L.-defendant No. 1 were on the look out for the car which was the property of defendant No. 1.

(3.) The legal position according to the defendant was that North Kessurgarh Colliery was taken over by the Central Government under Ordinance No. 1 of 1973 w.e.f. 31-1-73. The Ordinance was replaced by an Act being the Coal Mines (Taking over of the Management) Act, 1973 and subsequently the Nationalisation Act, 1973 came into effect from 1-5-1973. The right, title and interest of the erstwhile owner in the mine vested in the Central Government. According to the defendant-B.C.C.L. the word 'mine' included the car in-question and as such ownership of the car vested in the Central Government and consequently in the B.C.C.L.