Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal from Original Decree No. 22 of 1983 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 12, 1990
MINING LEASE - SURFACE RENT - JURISDICTION - ASSESSMENT - NATIONALISATION - COKING COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1972 - MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960 - BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT - Held, the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for assessment of rent in terms of Secs. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act inasmuch as a mining lease does not come within the purview of the aforementioned provisions. The right of the earstwhile landlord of Jharia Raj estate to grant a mining lease was untramelled. The provisions of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 override the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, M/s. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd., filed a suit claiming, inter alia, a declaration that the proceeding for fixation of fair rent being Belagan-Kabil Legan case No. 2(7) of 1964-65 which finally culminated in the order passed by the Additional Collector on 11-3-69 purporting to fix the rent at Rs. 360/- per acre per annum in respect of 63.71 acres appertaining to Khatian No. 19 of mouja Gourkhunti is wholly illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The defendants contended that the original lease granted in the year 1900 by the then Landlord of Jharia Raj in favour of the Eastern Coal Company was not only a mining lease but it is also a lease for using surface lands for the purposes of residence, trade, commerce and factory etc.
Finding of the Court:
The learned trial court held that the occupation of the surface land by the plaintiff as shown in serial Nos. 1 to 8 as well as that of serial Nos. 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 21 are structures and constructions for which no fresh rent should be fixed and in this column also comes serial No. 14 which is power house and coke plant and these are structures and constructions which are directly connected with mining operation and as such all these surface lands given above noted at serial Nos. as shown in para 11 of the judgment of the Addl. Collector are the areas for which no fresh rent should be fixed and so far remaining serial Nos. i.e. 10, 11, 15, 17 and 18 are concerned, fresh rent should be fixed only for these constructions and surface land therein. So far rate of rent is concerned, I further find that it being fixed at Rs. 6/- per katha by the defendant is excessive in nature and I find and hold that for the ends of justice it will be justified if the rate of rent is fixed at Rs. 4/- per katha for the category of surface land for which fresh rent should be fixed and accordingly I find and hold that dues as claimed by the defendants. In the certificate case amended in the light of aforesaid findings and accordingly I find and hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs in part as mentioned above.
Issues: 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2. Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation and principles of estoppel, acquiscence and waiver? 4. Is the suit barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act and Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act? 5. Is the suit barred under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act? 5(a). Is the notice u / s. 80 C.P.C. legal and valid? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree as claimed? 7. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from realising the rent of the certificate case?
Ratio Decidendi: The Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for assessment of rent in terms of Secs. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act inasmuch as a mining lease does not come within the purview of the aforementioned provisions. The right of the earstwhile landlord of Jharia Raj estate to grant a mining lease was untramelled. The provisions of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 override the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Final Decision: First Appeal No. 22 / 83 (R) is allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is decreed whereas First Appeal No. 70 / 83 (R) preferred by the State of Bihar and others is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of these cases there will be no older as to costs.
1. - These two first appeals arising out of a common judgment dated 29-9-1982 passed by Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad, Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 43 of 1969, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. One M/s. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, filed the aforementioned Title Suit No. 43 of 1969 under the following circumstances: - The said Company took a mining lease from the then landlord of Jharia Raj estate, Raja Durga Prasad Singh by virtue of a deed of Mokrari Mourashi Patta dated 18-12-1900, as a result whereof a lease of underground mining right of several villages including the village Gourkhunti was granted in favour of M/s. Betar Machnon and others, who accepted the said grant on behalf of the M/ s. Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. Cl. (5) of the said patta relates to the grant of lease of surface lands, the English translation whereof has been quoted in paragraph 2 of the plaint in the following terms :-
"That should you, for the purpose of carrying on mining works in the leasehold land stand in the need of surface lands for constructing quarry mines, pit mines or inclines or any other mines and buildings, stocking place for coal, factory house, collyshed, rail line, tramline and tubline and for excavating well tank etc., you shall be competent to take the same. But in respect of the said land you shall be liable to pay me rent annually at Rs. 2 (two) per bigha in case of garabadi (non-cultivable) patti land and Rs. 5 per bigha in case of abadi sali and dohari land and Selami at three times the aforesaid rate of rent "
(Underlining is mine for emphasis)
3 According to the plaintiff, pursuant to the aforementioned patta, M/ s. Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. entered into possession of the said leasehold and began to run a colliery commonly known as Bhowra Colliery. The plaintiff asserted that as in terms of the aforementioned patta, the lessees thereof became entitled to use the surface lands of Mauza Gourkhunti as well as the other Mauzas for using the same for coal mining operations, they occupied various surface lands in Mauza Gourkhunti for carrying on colliery works and had been using the same by constructing labour quarters, offices, bungalows, pits, engine houses, inclines, quarries, roads, tram lines and for other allied works which are necessary for running a colliery and carrying on coal mining business. Besides the aforementioned works, the Eastern Coal Company Ltd. constructed a power house for production of electrical energy to be supplied to its collieries and also constructed a Coke plant for manufacture of coke therein.
4. The plaintiff alleged that the dominant purpose of using of the surface lands of the aforementioned Mauza Gourkhunti as, also the other villages was only in connection with mining operations and the surface land had all along been used for the said purpose only and for no other purpose.
5. In the finally published record of rights, the aforementioned leasehold right was entered in the name of M/ s. Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. in Khatian No.19. The original plaintiff along with the plaint annexed a plan showing as to how and in what manner the surface land of the aforementioned Mauza was being used.
6. By reason of a registered deed dated 28-9-1957, the original plaintiff acquired the right title and interest in respect of aforementioned Bhowra Colliery from M/s. Eastern Coal Co. Ltd.
7. According to the original plaintiff, it had all along been paying surface rents in terms of the aforementioned deed of mining lease to the District Mining Officer of the State of Bihar. The plaintiff has alleged that even after vesting of the zamindary in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, they having become statutory lessee under the State of Bihar, in terms of the provisions of S.10 thereof, continued to pay the surface rent to the District Mining Officer.
8. The plaintiff contends that in terms of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
