Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th September, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in WA 355/1999 whereby the Division Bench set aside the Order dated 7th September, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 3516/1997. Aggrieved against this Order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are :

That the appellant is a successor-in-interest of the erstwhile Assam Railways and Trading Company Ltd. (for short ARTC) engaged in coal mining operation which was acquired by Central Government under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The land involved in the proceeding was covered by the Dag Nos. 3042, 3043 and 3044 of Margherita town, Mouza - Makum. It may be relevant to mention here that ARTC was the erstwhile Company incorporated at London and it was operating this coal mines but after the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 coming into force the Central Government by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 5 Central Government directed that right, title and interest of all mines referred to in Schedule under Section 3 shall vest in Coal Mines Authority limited a Govt. Company incorporated in Companies Act. The North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Limited is its subsidiary therefore the appellants become its patta holder of the land in question. The dispute in the present case arose, when the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia made the land ‘Sarkari’ (Govt.) by order dated 22nd May, 1996 and Government settled the area of 1 Bigha, 3 khattas, 10 Lachas land out of the aforesaid land in favour of the private individual Dr. Mubarak Ali, Respondent No. 1 on behalf of Munaf Memorial Hospital-cum-Research Centre by letter dated 2nd June, 1997. Therefore, this was challenged by the appellant before the High Court that the declaration of the land of the appellant as a “Sarkari” was ultra vires and illegal. It was alleged that no notice was given to the appellant before declaring the land as “Sarkari”. The learned Single Judge after going through the matter came to the conclusion that the Appellant-Company is lessee being the successor of the ARTC & the lease could not be terminated without following proper procedure. Learned Single Judge referred to the definition of Mine under Section 2(h) of the Act and held that all the land and property used for the operation of the mine vests in the Central Government as a result of the nationalization. It was further observed that the Appellant had already deposited the land Revenue on local rates, etc. in both of Makum and Tirap Mouza amounting to Rs. 2,01,267.74 and cleared all the arrears of land revenue. Therefore, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant had deposited the land revenue and the Government had recognized it as a lessee, the act of declaring the aforesaid land as ‘Sarkari’ by the Govt. was not legal. Learned single Judge also held that the respondent - state failed to point out any provision which empowered the State Govt. to delete the name of the appellant as recorded Pattadar for non-payment of the land revenue. It was observed that the appellant had paid the land revenue therefore it could not be declared faut, Ferrar, the learned Single Judge by Order dated 7th September, 1999 set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia and also the allotment in favour of respondent No. 1. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by State before the Division Bench and the Division Bench reversed the Order of the learned Single Judge holding that the land in question, was not covered under the definition of the expression ‘Mine’ under Section 2(h) of the Act and no land revenue was paid for a period of five years therefore Govt. rightly declared this land as ‘Sarkari’ (Govt.). It was also held by the Division Bench that the appellant was no