Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The extended definition of `mine' specifically included all lands, buildings and equipments belonging to the owner of the mine and adjacent to or situated on the surface of the mine where the washing of coal or manufacture of coke was carried on. It also included all lands and buildings other than those referred to above wherever situated and were solely used for location of management as well as of liaison office or the residence of officers and staff of the mine. In other words, buildings used for the residence of the officers and staff etc. had to be treated as `mine' in spite of the fact that such lands and buildings might not have belonged to the owner of the `mine' in ordinary sense. It will also appear from the definition of `mine' that the phrase "belonging to the owner of the mine" was only to be found in sub-clause (x) and sub-clause (xii) of Section 2(g). The legislative intent obviously was to bring lands, buildings and equipments which did not belong to the owners but were used in the running of the coal mine within the ambit of the word `mine'. The intention appears to be that the Central Government after taking over of the mine must be in a position to run the mine as it was being run previously with all the plants, equipments, machineries, lands and buildings. Even if some of the properties mentioned in the definition did not belong to the owner, those will be available to the Central Government for running the mine. As this provision might lead to a conflict with other laws, it was expressly provided by Section 12 that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. In the Schedule annexed to the Act, names and addresses of the mines, management of which was taken over as well as the names of the owners of the mines were given, "Victory. P.O. Dhansar" was mentioned at Serial No.68 and United Mining Company Limited has been shown as the owner of the mine. By virtue of Section 3 read with the extended definition of mine given in the Act. not only the colliery, but the buildings which are being utilised for location of the management and the office of the mine as also for residence of the officers and staff of the mine were brought under the management of the Central Government. If the office building belonged to a person other than the Colliery Company which owned the mine, then it was his duty to draw the attention of the Central Government to the fact that these buildings even though included in the definition of `mine', actually did not belong to United Mining Company Limited which was described generally as the owner might have been corrected. But even if such an error took place which required correction, the owner of the lands and buildings falling within sub-clasuse (xi) of clause (g) of Section 2 could not get back the management or control over these lands and buildings. It is of significance to note that Madanlal Agrawal who is a Director of United Mining Company Limited did not raise any objection to the description of United Mining Company Limited as the owner of the coal mine at any point of time and did not seek for any correction. It is not his case that he was unaware of the wide definition of `mine' given in this Act.

(xii) That clearly goes to show that the other assets, movable or immovable, which were being actually used and utilised for operation of the mining activity were all being taken over by the Central Government even though these did not belong to the owners. There is no sense in giving this extended meaning to `mine' if the intention of the Act was not to acquire the right of ownership in these assets falling within the definition of `Mine'.

It is also of significance that Section 3 speaks of vesting of "right, title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the Schedule". All ownership rights not only of, but in relation to, the coll mines were being taken over by the Central Government free from all encumbrances from the appointed day. The Section also does not speak of the right, title and interest of the owners specified in the Schedule. On the contrary, it speaks of "coal mines specified in the Schedule". On the contrary, if speaks of "coal mines specified in the Schedule". In other words, the coal mines specified in the Schedule are being brought under the ownership of the Central Government which will take in everything included in the definition of mine. The ambit of the coal mine has to be understood in the sense as given in the Act. The fact that the name of the company has been given as the owner and the amount of compensation has also been fixed in the Schedule does not mean that the vesting was confined only to the assets of the company in the mine. The Schedule contains a list of the mines which have vested in the Central Government. In order to ascertain exactly what has vested in the Central Government, the definition of `mine' given in Section 2(h) will have to be taken into account. What the Schedule has done is to give the names and location of the mines, the names and addresses of the owners of the mines and also the amounts of compensation to be paid. It is not in dispute that United Mining Company was named as the owner of Victory coal mine. From this, however, it does not follow that all assets, lands, buildings and equipments which fall within the ambit of the definition of mine as given in Section 2(h) and also sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 26, it will be clear that vesting under Section 3 was not confined to the interest of the owner named in column 4 of the Schedule.

The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Telco Limited v. Bharat mining Corporation Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1980 Bom. 168, has taken a very narrow view of Section 3(1) of the Coal Mine (Nationalisation) Act in holding that it is only the right, title and interest of those owners whose names appear in the Schedule against the respective coal mines that is intended to be acquired and transferred to the Central Government. It ignores both the definition of `mine' as also the definition of `owner'. The other two judgments Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. K.S. Garewal, AIR 1978 Cal. 574, and Coal Mines Authority Ltd. & Ors. v Associated Cement Companies Ltd., AIR 1986 M.P. 241, have basically examined the definition of `mine' in order to see whether the asset in question which was under consideration before them, falls within the definition of `mine' under the said Act. That is the correct approach. especially because of the extended definition of a mine and the distinction which the definition itself makes between properties belonging to the mine or owner of the mine and properties which are used for the purposes of the mine. The two decisions also take into account the wider definition of an `owner'. Such an interpretation would also be in consonance with Section 26(3) which takes care of the right of persons who are not described as owners of the coal mines in the Schedule to claim compensation. If their interests were not to be taken over under the Nationalisation Act, there would be no need to provide for any commpensation for them.

In the light of the definition of an `owner' which also includes a lessee or an occupier apart from the immediate proprietor, and the definition of `mine', one can conclude that even assets of which the mine or the mining company may not be the proprietor, but which are leased by the mine or which are in the possession of a mine over a period of time, are also acquired. A temporary acquisition, or a short-term lease, or even some special additional amenities which the mine may provide but which are not required for the purposes of the mine may not be covered. It will depend upon the facts of each case. In the Madhya Pradesh case, for example, the equipment in question was only temporarily in the possession of the mine to meet certain exigencies. This was held to be not covered by the definition of mine. In the Calcutta case, however, the weigh bridge which was leased by the company was a necessary equipment for the proper functioning of the mine and was installed in the mine for a period of time. It was held as falling within the definition of a `mine'. Thus it is quite possible that property which is temporerily in or adjacent to a mine, and which does not belong to the mine, or certain machinery and equipment which does not belong to the mining company but may be temporarily leased to meet some special temporary requirements, would not be covered by the definition of a `mine'. But the present case is not such a case.