Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- The National Coal Development Corporation Ltd., appeals against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, D/- 15-11-1965) in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the Judgment under appeal the appellants are restrained from carrying on deploring operations underneath the land of the respondent Manmohan Mathur in village Chirimiri in district Surguja in Madhya Pradesh.

2. The facts are as follows: Chirimiri is a coal-bearing area. On February 1, 1957 the Government of Madhya Pradesh, acting in exercise of the functions of the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entrusted to it by the President under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution, issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act stating that the lands specified in Chirimiri village were needed for the prospecting of coal seams for development of collieries by the Central Government. On June 8, 1957 the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957) was enacted and was brought into force. On August 7, 1958 the Central Government purporting to act under Section 9 (1) of Act XX of 1957 issued a notification acquiring land measuring 145-75 acres described in the notification. In that notification it was stated that no objection was received after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. On April 16, 1964 the appellant gave notice to the respondent that he should vacate the said land within 30 days of the receipt of the notice and any superstructure and material that may be on that land be removed. It was also stated that the mining rights in village Chirimiri acquired by the Central Government has been vested in the appellant under an order of the Government dated September 30, 1958. The respondent was also informed that there were coal mines underneath his land and that the appellant would soon commence deploring operations. The petition under Article 226 was then filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court to retrain the appellant from enforcing the provisions of Act XX of 1957 against the respondent.

3. Many arguments were advanced against the action of the Central Government and the appellant. One of them succeeded on the basis of which the appellant was restrained by a mandamus from proceeding under Act XX of 1957. The objection which succeeded was that no notification under Section 7 of Act XX of 1957 had been issued by the Central Government and that the subsequent action was, therefore, invalid.

4. To understand the objection which was sustained by the High Court it is necessary to refer briefly to a part of the scheme of Act XX of 1957. It will be noticed that the initial notification was under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That notification was issued at a time when Act XX of 1957 was not enacted. Subsequently under Section 28 of Act XX of 1957 it was provided that every notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the commencement of Act XX of 1957 whether by the Central Government or by a State Government should be deemed to be a notification under Sec. 4 of Act XX of 1957. Similarly, it was provided that every notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the commencement of Act XX of 1957, whether by the Central Government or by a State Government, should be deemed to be issued under Section 9 of Act XX of 1957 and lastly it was provided that any objection preferred under Section 5 A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of any land covered by any notification under Section 4 should be deemed to be an objection preferred under Section 8 of Act XX of 1957. In other words, all notifications and objections etc., made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were by a fiction brought under Act XX of 1957. It may be pointed out here that no objection under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made by the present respondent.

5. There was, howev