Holding

Properties not used for coking‑coal‑mine activities do not fall within the definition of a "mine" under Section 3G(vi) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, so vesting does not arise, and the appeal under Article 136 is not maintainable.

Summary

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (appellant) claimed that certain lands, buildings and other assets owned by Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) vested in the Central Government under Section 3G(vi) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and issued notices for possession. The respondents contended that the properties were not used for coking‑coal‑mine activities and therefore did not fall within the definition of a "mine". The Calcutta High Court, both at the single‑judge and appellate levels, held that the properties could not be taken over. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the assets qualified as a "mine" under the Act, whether vesting applied, and whether the Court could entertain the appeal under Article 136. It held that without a nexus to coal‑mine operations the assets were outside the statutory definition, so vesting did not arise, and that the matter was factual, not a legal error, rendering Article 136 intervention unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the lands, buildings and other assets owned by the respondents constitute a "mine" within the meaning of Section 3G(vi) of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972.
Whether the vesting of title in such assets in the Central Government under the Act is applicable.
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution when the dispute is primarily factual.

Legislation cited

Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972s. 2(h), s. 2(n), s. 2(o), s. 3G(vi)
Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971

Subjects

NationalisationVestingCoking Coal MinesUser doctrineArticle 136Factual vs legal issueProperty acquisitionPublic Premises Eviction

Judgment

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. A
v.
KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 13, 2002

[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] B

Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972; Section 3lj)(vi): Right,
title and interest ofowners ofcoke oven plants/properties vesting in the Central
Government -Transferred to-Notice to Coal mines owners-Challenge to- C
Single Judge held, since properties not in use for any mining activities,
possession thereof cannot be taken over by the Central Governmentlappellant-
Upheld by Division Bench-On appeal, Held: There exist no co-relation in
coal mine activities vis-a-vis use of properties-Thus, vesting of properties
with the Central Government/appellant would not arise and it can not take
over possession ofsuch properties-Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized D
Occupants) Act, 1971.

Constitution of India-Article 136-!nvoking of-Held, the Article has
been engrafted for the purpose of avoiding mischief of injustice on the wrong
assumption of law to avoid adverse effect on society and infraction of law-
Where matter involves more of factual issues than a legal one intervention E
under Article l 36 not warranted

Doctrines:

Doctrine of User-Meaning and Scope of
F
Words and Phrases:

'Vest'-Meaning of

Right, title and interest of the owners of Coke Oven Plants vested
in the Central Government have been transferred to the appellant and it G
issued notice to respondent to make over the possession of certain
properties. Respondent clarified that the properties did not belong to them.
Besides, it was not being used for any activities of coking coal mines, and
therefore, vesting of same with the appellant would not arise. Respondent
moved the High Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus for quashing of H
165
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the notice. In the meanwhile, Estate Officer initiated proceedings under
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act against the
respondent/occupants of buildings. Estate Officer rejected the prayer of
stay of proceeding and accordingly writ petition was amended. Single
Judge of the High Court held that since the Secretaries of tht;! respondent
Company were the owners of the properties and there was no coking coal
B mine activities undertaken on it, therefore, such properties cannot be taken
possession of. In appeal, Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the
Order. Hence appeal before this Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
,•·
c HELD: 1.1. The word 'vest' in common English acceptation mean
and imply conferment of ownership of properties upon a person and in
the similar vein it gives immediate and fixed right of present and future
enjoyment. Significantly, however, the expression 'vest' is a word of
variable import since it has no fixed connotation and the same has to be
D understood in different contexts under different set of circumstances.
(168-A-B]

The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement
Trust, AIR (1957) SC 344 and Dr. M Ismail Faruqui, etc. v. Union of India
and Ors. AIR (1995) SC 604 at 645, relied on.
E
1.2. It is trite that there must be some co-relation with the activity
of a coal mine-the user must be there for the purposes of the coal mine,
but it must relate to the affairs of the coal mine concerned and not de hors
the same. The nexus concept introduc~d by the High Court can not be
taken exception to since there is no factual justification in support of the
F issuance of the notice on ~he wake of the reply to the show-cause notice
by Respondent No.l. In any event the user being the requirement of the
statute and since the contextual facts did not have the factual support to
prove the same, question of vesting within the meaning of the Coking Coal
Mines (Nationalisation) Act of 1972 would not arise. 1175-C-E)

G Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Madan Lal Agrawal, (1997) l SCC 177,
referred to.

Valley Refractories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. K.S. Grewal and Ors., (1990)
CWN 615, approved.

H 2. The appeal involves more of a factual issue than a legal issue and
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD >. K.C. THAPAR & BROS. PVT.LTD [BANERJEE. J] J 67

as such intervention under Article 136 is not \Varranted. Intervention A
under Article 136 can be had when the judgment is tainted with serious
legal infirmities or is founded on a legal construction which cannot but
be attributed to be otherwise wrong. The jurisdiction under Article 136
stands out to be extremely wide but that does not warrant intervention
having concurrent set of facts and an appeal therefrom on the factual issue. B
The Article has been engrafted for the purposes of avoiding mischief of
injustice on the wrong assumption of law. The justice delivery system of
the country prompts this Court to interfere under Article 136 of the
Constitution when the need of the society stands established and the
judgment, if left outstanding, would not only create prejudice but would
have an otherwise adverse effect on the society, it is this solemn objective C
of administration of justice with which the Constitution-makers thought
it prudent to confer such a power on to the Apex Court of the country. It
is the final arbiter but only when the dispute needs to be settled by the
Apex Court so as to avoid injustice and infraction of law. There is no such
infraction found in the instant appeal. (175-F-H; 176-A-B]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7244 of
2002.,

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.2000 of the Kolkata High
Court in F.M.A. No. 514 of 1988.
E
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Anip Sachthey and
Abbay Kumar, for the Appellant.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Jayant Bhushan, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
BANERJEE, J. Leave granted.

It is for the purposes of protecting, conserving and promoting scientific
development of the resources of coking coal being a need to meet the growing
requirements of iron and steel industry and for that matter connected therewith G
or incidental thereto, the right, title and interest of the owners of such coke
oven plants have vested in the Central government w.e.f. !st May, 1972 and
by an order dated 17th August, 1972, the Central Government have directed
that the right, title and interest thereto shall stand transferred to Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd., Dhanbad.
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The word 'vest' in common English acceptation mean and imply
conferment of ownership of properties upon a person and in the similar vein
it gives immediate and fixed right of present and future enjoyment.
Significantly, however, the expression 'vest' is a word of variable impo11
since it has no fixed connotation and the same has to be understood in
different contexts under different set of circumstances. The decision of this
B Court in The Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. The· Delhi Improvement
Trust, AIR (1957) SC 344 lends concurrence to the same. It is in this context
a later Jecision of this Court Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui, etc. v. Union of India
and Ors., AIR (i 995) SC 604 at 645 ought also to be noticed, wherein this
Court stated :
c
"The vesting of the said disputed area in the Centi;al Government
by virtue of Section 3 of the Act is limited, as a statutory receiver,
with the duty for its management and administration according to
Section 7 requiring maintenance of status quo herein under sub-section
(2) of Section 7 of the Act. The duty of the Central Government as
D the statutory receiver is to hand over the disputed area in accordance
with Section 6 of the Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the
suits for implementation of the final decision therein. This is the
purpose for which the disputed area has been so acquired.

The power of the courts in making further interim orders in the
E suits is limited to, and circumscribed by, the area outside the ambit
of Section 7 of the Act.

The vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area,
acquired hy the Act in the Central Government by virtue of Section
3 of the Act is absolute with the power of management and
F
administration thereof in accordance with sub-section (I) of Section
7 of the Act, till its further vesting in any authority or other body or
trustees of any trust in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. The
further vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area, in
accordance with Section 6 of the Act has to be made at the time and
G in the manner indicated, in view of the purpose of its acquisition.

The meaning of the word "vest" in Section 3 and Section 6 of the
Act has to be so understood in the different contexts.

Section 8 of the Act is meant for payment of compensation to
H owners of the property vesting absolutely in the Central Government,
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD v. K.C. THAPAR & BROS. PVT.LTD. [BANERJEE, J.] J69

'• the title to which is not in dispute being in excess of the disputed area A
which alone is the subject matter of the revived suits. It does not
apply to the disputed area, title to which has to be adjudicated in the
suits and in respect of which the Central Government is merely the
statutory receiver as indicated, with the duty to restore it to the owner
in terms of the adjudication made in the suits."
B
Adverting to the contextual facts be it noted that vide notices dated
19.8.1972 and 30.8.1972, the Appellant herein directed the Respondents to
make over possession of the properties mentioned in the enclosure to the
Sub-Area Manager of the Colliery by end August 1972 under intimation to
the Head Office.
c
Significantly, by letter dated 8th September, 1972 from the Oriental
Coal Company Ltd. being a party-respondent herein, it has been specifically
made clear that as regards the lands and buildings referred to in the enclosure
to the notice, question of vesting of the same would not arise since the said
properties belong to Mis Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. P. Ltd. and the same D
were being used for purposes other than coking coal mines.

It is on this factual backdrop, the Respondent No. I moved the Calcutta
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of
mandamus for the quashing of the notices mentioned above in so far as they
related to the properties of Respondent No. I. E
Subsequent to the initiation of the Writ Petition, the Estate Officer of
Jharia initiated proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 against the Oriental Coal Company Ltd. and individual
occupants of buildings. A written objection by way of show cause before the F
Estate Officer praying for staying of further proceedings considering the
pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, was filed but the Estate Officer,
however, rejected the said prayer for stay and fixed the date of hearing some
time thereafter. It is on the wake of this factual backdrop, the Writ Petition
was amended by the Respondent No.I with a further prayer for quashing of
the aforesaid proceedings under the Act of 1971. G
The learned Single Judge of the High Court recorded that since the
Secretaries of the Company were the owners of the properties in question and
not the coal company and since the former did not possess any coking coal
mine, the properties belonging to them cannot be taken possession of. The
H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A learned Single Judge in fine observed :
..
" ....... But the said term should be read, viewed and considered in
the perspective of the provisions of the said 1972 Act, which as
mentioned above, deal with coking coal mines or coke oven plants
and is further subject to the extent of properties or components as
B mentioned in Section 3G) and its sub-clause. For a proper acquisition
of the properties in question, I am thus of the view, that the ownership
of the coking coal mine or coke oven plant, would have to be
established, before taking over possession and such fact has not been
duly satisfied or established in this case as yet and that too in view
C of the specific exceptions as taken."

Incidentally, it has been the specific observation of the learned Single
Judge that the notices have been issued without any application of mind and
the entire action was initiated in a manner totally mechanical.

D Aggrieved by the order as above, the matter was placed before a Bench
of the Calcutta High Court in appeal and the appellate Court as well negated
the contention of the appellant herein and hence the appeal before this Court ...
upon the grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The short question which falls for consideration presently before this
E Court is as to whether the buildings and structures said to be belonging to the
appellant can be termed to be a mine within the meaning of Section 3G) (vi)
of the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The said statutory
provision reads as below :

"3.G)(vi) - all lands, buildings, works, adits, levels, plants, machinery
F and equipments, vehicles, railways, tramways and sidings
belonging to or in, or about a mine."

It is on this score, the High Court in appeal stated as below :

"Therefore, one has to construe Section 3G)(vi) of the Coking
G Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 as providing for "all lands,
buildings, works, adits, levels and sidings belonging to or in a mine
or in connection with a mine or relating to a mine. Some kind of
nexus has to be there before any building or any land can be said to
be a part of the mine."
H
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD •·. K.C. THAPAR & BROS. PVT.LTD [BANERJEE, J] J 7]

It is this concept of nexus which is said to be a wrong appreciation of A
the statutory provisions by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned ASG, appearing in
support of the appeal and strong reliance has been placed in support thereof
to a decision of this Court in Madan Lal (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Madan
Lal Agrawal, [ l 997] 1 SCC 177.

lncidentally, whereas presently we are concerned with the Nationalisation B
Act of 1972, Madan Lal (supra) was dealing with the Act of 1973 though,
however, the provisions are in pari materia to each other. It is on this backdrop,
this Court observed :

"26. The two key words for the purpose of interpreting Section 3 are C
'mine' and 'owners'. If we look at the definition of a 'mine' under
Section 2(h), the definition is designed to cover :

(I) all properties "belonging to the mine" whatever be the nature
of these properties, as also specified properties "belonging to the
owner of the mine". Thus, for example, Section 2(h)(xii) is an omnibus D
clause which covers all fixed assets, moveable and immovable,
belonging to the owner of a mine wherever situate and current assets
belonging to a mine whether in its premises or outside. Section
2(h)(viii) covers all coal belonging to the owner of the mine. Section
2(h)(x) covers all lands, buildings and equipment belonging to the
owners of a mine, and in, adjacent to or situated on the surface of the E
mine, where washing of coal or manufacture or coke is carried on.

(2) In addition, the definition of 'mine' also covers all those
assets which are required for a proper functioning of the mine
irrespective of whether these assets 'belong' to a mine or not. Thus,
for example, Section 2(h)(vi) covers all lands, buildings, machinery
F
and equipment, instruments, stores, vehicles, railways, tramways etc.
adjacent to a mine and used for the purposes of the mine. Therefore,
all these assets if they are lying adjacent to a mine and are required
for the proper functioning of the mine would be acquired irrespective
of whether they belong to the "owner of a mine" or not. Similarly G
under Section 2(h)(ix) all power stations in a mine operated primarily
for supplying electricity for the purposes of working the mine or a
number of mines under the same management will be acquired
irrespective of whether the power stations belonged to the mine or
owner of the mine, or not. Sub-clause (xi) of Section 2(h) provides H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A that all other [other than those in sub-clause (x)] lands and buildings
wherever situated, if solely used for the location of the management,
sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff of the
mine are also acquired. Unlike sub-clause (x), sub-clause (xi) does
not contain the words "belonging to the owners of the mine".
Therefore, the definition clause of 'mine' covers at least two different
B kinds of property : (i) properties which belong to the mine and (ii)
properties which are used by the mine for a proper functioning of the
mine. The first category of properties would be properties which are
of the ownership of the mining company. The second category of
properties need not necessarily be of the ownership of the mining
c company. These could also be properties which are leased by the
mining company or in possession of the mining company and used by
it.

27. That is why under Sections 2(n) and 2(o) read together, the
term 'owner' would carry a wider meaning assigned to that term
D under the Mines Act of 1952 which would cover, depending on the
context, even the rights of a lessee or occupier of the mine or any part
thereof. Thus the entire interest in the properties which are covered
under the definition of a mine is to be acquired so that the mines can
be reorganised and run efficiently." (Emphasis supplied)

E In the same vein, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Valley
Refractories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. KS. Grewal and Ors., (1990) CWN 615
(wherein one of us was a party : U.C. Banerjee, J), the Calcutta High Court
stated :

F "6. It is a golden rule of construction that the legislature uses the
words and expressions knowingly and upon proper appreciation of its
connotation. In that view of the matter the expressions "used for the
purpose of the mine" cannot but only mean user simplicitor. Substantial
user cannot be imported in clause (vi) as is apparent in clause (vii).
To contend otherwise or to hold otherwise would be in our view a
G violent injustice to the legislative intent and contrary to well settled
principles of interpretation and construction of statutory provisions.

7. The other aspect of the matter is in regard to the ownership of
the weighbridge. Mr. Mitter contended that the owners of the Mehra
Collieries had no right, title or interest in respect of the weighbridge
H
BflARAT COKING COAL LTD. >« K.C. TflAPAR & BROS. PVT LTD. [BANERJEE, J.] 173

and the same did not vest in the Central Government under the A
Nationalisation Act since the same did not belong to any coal mine
nor being O\vned by the owners of the coal mine. Our attention was
drawn to the Schedule to the Act of 1973, in particular serial no.250,
which provides that !.he Mehra Collieries at all material times was
being owned by one Raghu Nath Agarwal but the weighbridge on the
other hand was being owned by Valley Refractory, a private limited B
company having no connection with the colliery in question."

Incidentally, Valley Refractories (supra) also dealt with the provisions
of the Act of 1973 and not that of 1972.

Significantly, however, both the decisions above named being relied
c
upon by the appellant introduce the doctrine of user. In paragraph 29 of the
judgment in Madan Lal (supra) the situation stands clarified as " .......... The
definition itself takes care of this aspect by stipulating wherever necessary
that such properties must be used for the purpose of the mine, whether the
purpose is specific or general" and in paragraph 19 of the Valley Refractories D
(supra) the High Court came to a definite conclusion as regards the user of
the weighbridge for the colliery and as such the weighbridge stated to be
within ambit of the Act of 1973 and the right, title and interest thereof thus
stand vested on to the Central government by virtue of the provisions of
Section 3 of the Act of 1973.
E
It is this concept of user which stands accepted by the High Court
though expressed in slightly different way as "some kind of nexus has to be
there".

The entire gamut of submissions of the parties seem to be restricted on
the issue which cannot but be ascribed to be factual rather than a legal issue.
F
We shall deal with the effect of the same slightly later in this judgment,
especially having regard to the language of Article 136 of the Constitution,
but presently assuming the state. of events as it is, let us analyse the factual
events with some detail : Notices were sent recording therein the vesting of
property. The first available opportunity is a reply to the notice in which the G
Respondents herein stated as below :

"As regards the lands and buildings referred to in the enclosure
to the purported notice, we have to point out that the said properties
belong to Messrs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. and the
H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A same are being used for purposes other than Coking Coal Mines. In
the circumstances no question can arise either on the ground of alleged
vesting or at all. We dispute that on the alleged application of Section
3U) of the said Act, the ownership of the said property or for that
matter any vehicles in our possession has vested in the Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd. and we dispute the said allegation."
B
The writ petition moved against the issuance of such a notice reiterating
the aforesaid that the properties were being used for purposes other than the
coking coal mines and belong to Mis Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd.
In the counter-affidavit, however, filed before the High Court surprisingly
C there is no denial or a positive case made out as regards the doctrine of user.
It is on this score Mr. Rohtagi in his usual fairness submitted that neither the
notice nor the counter-affidavit relate to anything but the statutory language
without any factual support and if we may say so, no exception can be taken
to that. The counter as also the notices stand delightfully vague as regards the
factual support. The letter of objection to the notice spoken of earlier
D categorically recorded as follows :

"That your Petitioner submits that the properties in question
comprise R.S. Plot No.2808, 2887, 2833, 2834 and 5826 of Village
Bagenia (Barkar), P.S. Kulti which correspond to C.S. Plot Nos, 2096,
2112, 2110, 2121 and 2144 of the same will formerly belong to
E Maharaj Kumar Somendra Chandra Nandi of Cossimbazar Estate and
your Petitioner by a Registered Indenture of Lease dated 24th March,
1955, took lease of the aforesaid properties for a period of 999 years.

That R.S. Plot Nos.2184 and 2.85 of mouza Begonia (Baraka:"),
P.S. Kulti corresponding to C.S. Plot Nos.1567 and 1568 formerly
F
belonged to Shri Nrishingha and others of Barakar and your Petitioner
by Indenture of ·Lease dated 9th July, 1948 took lease of the said.
plots for a period of 999 years that the said leasehold properties never
comprised any coal mine or part thereof.

G That after having acquired the aforesaid plots by virtue of herein
before indentures of leases your Petitioner constructed buildings,
bunga!ows, servants quarters, access roads to the said building as
well as compound walls for the purpose of carrying on different
business which had nothing to do with coking coal mines.

H That your Petitioner at the relevant time when the aforesaid
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. K.C. THAPAR& BROS. PVT. LTD. [BANERJEE, J.] J 75

building, quarters, etc. were constructed were in addition to various A
other business also acting as Managing Agents and/or Secretaries
Treasurers of several collieries whose business were quite distinct
and separate from that of coking coal mines."

Reliance was placed as a matter of fact not on the pleadings of the
parties in support of the appeal but on the suhmissions as recorded in the B
judgment of the learned Single Judge which, however, stand merged with the
judgment of the Appellate Court. In our view, the effort though strenuous
and apparently very attractive at first, but on a closer scrutiny the same loses
its efficacy since submissions in a court of law that by itself cannot form the
basis of the issuance of the notices, spoken of earlier. C
It is trite that there must be some co-relation with the activity of a coal
mine the user must be there for the purposes of the coal mine, be it a
weighbridge, be it a Director's bungalow or be it ;ven a Union's office, but
it must relate to the affairs of the coal mine concerned and not de hors the
same. The nexus concept introduced by the High Court cannot in our view D
be taken exception to since there is no factual justification in support of the
issuance of the notice on the wake of the reply to the show-cause notice by
the Respondent Nol herein. In any event the user being the requirement of
the statute and since the contextual facts did not have the factual support to
prove the same, question of vesting within the meaning of the Act of 1972
would not arise. E

Adverting to the other aspect of the matter, to wit, that the appeal
involves more of a factual issue than a legal issue and as such intervention
under Article 136 is not warranted - be it noted that intervention under
Article 136 can be had when the judgment is tainted with serious legal p
, infirmities or is founded on a legal construction which cannot but be attributed
to be otherwise wrong. The jurisdiction under Article 136 stands out to be
extremely wide but that does not, however, warrant intervention having
concurrent set of facts and an appeal therefrom on the factual issue. The
Article has been engrafted by the founding-fathers of the Constitution for the
purposes of avoiding mischief of injustice on the wrong assumption of law. G
The justice delivery system of the country prompts this Court to interfere
under Article 136 of the Constitution when the need of the society stands
established and the judgment, if left outstanding, would not only create
prejudice but would have an othe1wise adverse effect on to the society it is
this solemn objective of administration of justice with which the Constitution- H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S:C.R.

A makers thought it prudent to confer such a power on to the Apex Court of
the country. It is the final arbiter but only when the dispute needs to be
settled by the Apex Court so as to avoid injustice and infraction of law.

In the contextual facts we do not find such an infraction. By reason
whereof the appeal, in any event, cannot be sustained.
B
There is no merit even otherwise. As such this appeal fails and is
dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeal allowed.

'