SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Central Coalfields Limited
Vs
State of Jharkhand
Appeal (Civil) 5451 of 2005, (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 and P.K.Balasubramanyan)
01/09/2005
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, 1984 AIR(Pat) 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
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.
J