V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.

(1) THE short question that falls for decision is as to whether a coke oven which is the subject-matter of this case is a coke oven plant as defined in S. 3(b) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is also another question as to whether the plaintiff-respondent 1 has retained with himself the ownership of the coke oven by reserving its ownership in him in sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant-respondent 2.

(2) WE are not going into the details of the facts because at the end of the arguments we have found a broad consensus between the parties to dispose of the matter by a short order.

(3) THE crucial facts, necessary for appreciation of the order we make, are : the plaintiff was once the owner of a coal mine and also of a coal coke oven. He transferred the coal mine to another company and granted a lease of the coke oven to the same vendee. All this took place in 1967. Years later, under the Act above referred to, coal mines were nationalised and there was a separate provision therein for nationalisation of coke oven plants. While the colliery was nationalised by the central government by inclusion in the schedule to the Act, nothing was done under S. 5 of the Act to nationalise the coke oven plant. The plaintiff, upon nationalisa- tion of the coal mine by the Parliament, demanded rent from the central government in whom the colliery had vested on the footing that the coke oven had not vested in the central government and it was, therefore, bound to pay rent for its use. The central government as defendant resisted the claim on the score (a) that the coke oven plant had also been transferred by the plaintiff along with the colliery and, therefore, he had no surviving title to it; and (b) in any case by virtue of the nationalisation of the mine, the coke oven also had passed and vested in the central government.

(4) THE trial court and the High court upheld the claim of the plaintiff and negatived both the contentions of the central government which has come up in appeal before us by special leave. We find considerable force in the contention of the plaintiff which has found favour with the courts below. It must be stated that the statute leaves much to be desired in the matter of precision and clarity with special reference to coke oven plants. Indeed, it is obvious that the coke oven involved in this case has been retained with the plaintiff as the documents disclose. The endeavour of Shri Sinha, appearing for the Union of India, to make out that the coke oven also had been transferred has been rightly negatived by the courts below. In fact, the thrust of Shri Sinhas argument was that even if the coke oven was owned by the plaintiff at the time of the nationalisation, since coke oven was not "coke oven plant", but an integral part of the mine, it must be deemed to have been passed to the central government under S. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is a little mystifying to hear counsel submit that there is a subtle distinction between coke oven and coke oven plant. We could hardly appreciate the submission but the justification for putting forward such a rarefied distinction as a serious argument is derived from the definition of mine in S. 3 (J) (x) of the Act. S. 3(b) defines coke oven plant to mean :

3(B) "Coke oven plant" means the plant and equipment with which the manufacture of hard coke has been, or is being, carried on, and includes-

(I) all lands, buildings, works, machinery and equipment, vehicles, railways, tramways and sidings, belonging to, or in the coke oven plant,

(II) all workshops belonging to the coke oven plant, including buildings, machinery, instruments, stores, equipment of such workshops and the lands on which such workshops stand,

(III) ail coke in stock or under production, and other stores, stocks and instruments, belonging to the coke oven plant.

(I