An owner of a building on the surface of a mine has an absolute right to support from the subjacent mineral strata, and any interference with this right by the mine owner can lead to penal consequences and liability for damages.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This First Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 1-2-1977 passed by Shri Gopinath Chandra, Subordinate Judge, Ist Court, Dhanbad in Money Suit No. 164 of 1974, whereby and where under the said learned court allowed the suit of the plaintiffs respondents in part.

2. The plaintiffs respondents filed the aforementioned suit for realisation of sum of Rs. 15,000 from the defendants jointly and severally for damages caused to his house allegedly owing to carrying out of underground mining operation in an unscientific manner by the defendants.

3. The plaintiffs alleged that one Alladin of Kankami was the owner of plot No. 1187 of Mauza Kankani. The said Aladdin transferred about two katthas of land out of the aforementioned plot to the plaintiffs for valuable consideration by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 10-104957. While taking measurement, it was found that the total area of the land covered by the aforementioned deed dated 10-10-1957 was 2598 square feet and as such the plaintiff had to pay a further sum of Rs. 90 to his vendor.

4. In the year 1968-69, he constructed a pucca building with bricks and cement consisting of 10 rooms, varandah etc. over the land described in Schedule A of the plaint.

5. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were the owners of the underground coal mining right of Mauza Kankani wherein they have been carrying on coal mining operations under the name and style of Kankani Colliery. The said colliery vested in the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (the appellant), by reason of the provisions of Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation Act, 1972 with effect from 1-5-1972.

6. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 appellant thereafter had been working in the aforementioned colliery. The plaintiff contended that as an underground owner of mine, they were bound to maintain the subjacent and adjacent soil intact and thus affording sufficient and reasonable support to the building of the plaintiff standing on the surface while carrying on their underground mining operations. Allegedly cracks appeared in the said building on and from 22-11-1972 causing damage to it, and as such the plaintiff and its tenant had no other option but to aband on the said building.

7. The defendant Nos. 1 and 4 filed separate written statements. In its written statement the defendant No. 1 appellant inter alia, alleged that said purported deed of settlement in the favor of Aladdin is illegal and thus the vendor of the plaintiff had not derived any right, title and interest over the land in question.

8. It was further submitted that the construction of the house was un authorised and illegal as the land in question was declared unsafe for habitation as far back as in 1935-43.

9. According to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff was fully conscious of the effect of the unauthorised construction.

10. The defendant No. 1--appellant further denied that it had been carrying out mining operation illegally and unscientifically or did not observe the statutory rules and regulations made therefore.

11. The defendant No. 1--appellant stated that all such precautions in working the said mine were taken. The quantum of damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff was also disputed.

12. The defendant No. 4 in its written statement, inter alia, alleged that the aforementioned Kankani Colliery formerly belonged to Bhowra Kankani Colliery Ltd., and by an order of the Calcutta High Court, the assets of the said collier have been amalgamated with Oriental Coal Company Ltd.

13. It was admitted that the said defendant carried out mining operation in Kankani Colliery but according to it, the same was done upon observance of statutory requirements.

14. The defendant No. 4 further denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any support from the underground strata.

15. Upon the aforementioned pleadings the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues;

(1) Has the plaintiff got any cau