CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

A                       CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.
                                 v.
                  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

                             DECEMBER 13, 1994

B             [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

         MP. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973: Scope of

        Held operation ofAdhiniyam in relation to mining is void-Adhiniyam
    regulates building planned development and developments incidental and
c   ancillary thereto-The operation of Adhiniyam does not trench upon the
    provisions of Central Act viz. Coal Act, Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
    and Development) Act and Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
    Development) Act, 1957.

         Constitution of India 1950-Legislative competence-Doctrine of
D · occupiedfield-Applicability, of
         The second respondent- Chairman of the Special Area Develop-
    ment Authority (SADA), Singrauli passed orders under section 26 of
    the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973
    directing the appellant to pull down the construction of the office
E   buildings staff quarters etc. made by the appellant contrary to the
    provisions of the Adhiniyam. The appellant filed a writ petition in t~e
    Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the said directions which
    considered the question as to whether the provisions of the Adhiniyam
    overlapped the field occupied by the provisions of the Coal Act, the
F   Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act and Mines and
    Minerals (Regulations and Dvelopment) Act, 1957 and dismissed the
    petition holding that these Acts have not occupied the field covered by
    the Adhiniyam and therefore, the Act was intra vires the power of the
                                                                               ..
    legislature.

G        Appellant preferred an appeal in this Court contending that when
    the mining operations are to be carried out under the aforesaid
    provisions, it would include the building operations under the Mineral
    Concession Rules, 1960 made under the Act. Therefore, the operation
    of the Adhiniyam stands excluded. On behalf of the second respondent-
    SADA it was contended that Adhiniyam regulates the development
H   area under the Adhiniyam including the construction of buildings
                                      554
                    CENTRAL COALFIELDS v. STATE                    555

within the notified development plan in the zones; the appellant had A
constructed the building without obtaining prior permission from the
SADA and that, therefore, the construction was in contravention of
section 26 of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, the action was correctly taken
and the Central Acts have no application as regards the building
operations are concerned.
                                                                         B
    Dismissing the appeal, this Court

    HELD: 1. There is no overlapping of the operation of the Adhi-
niyam vis-a-vis the Central Acts. [559 G]

     2. Under the Coal Act and the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and C
Development) Act, the mining area stands vested in the appellant and it
is entitled to carry on mining operations under the Act and the Rules.
The operation of Adhiniyam in relation to mining operation is void.
Construction of office building, staff quarters, providing facilities for
successful and effective mining operations, the welfare measure and
providing right to residence and civic amenities to the staff and D
workmen are incidental or ancillary to the main purpose i.e. mining
operation under the Act and the Rules. The Adhiniyam regulates
building planned development ,and the developments incidental and
ancillary thereto. Under these circumstances the High Court has
rightly held that the operation of Adhiniyam to the above extent does E
not trench upon the field of operation under provisions of the Central
Acts. Both could harmoniously co-exist and operate in the respective
areas without colliding with each other. [559 D to F]

    3. Excluding mining development, when the zonal plan was pre-
pared and it was published for building operations, it would be a notice F
to the appellant and if such a zonal plan comes in conflict with the
smooth and effective building operations in the mining area and would
impede its operations which are regulated as ancillary or incidental and
concomitant necessity under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and
other Central Acts, then it would always be open to the appellant either
to bring it to the notice of the Director who is competent to make the G
plans and have it corrected or in case such an objection was taken but
was not acceded to, it would be open to the appellant to have it
challenged in an appropriate proceeding and have it declared that it
runs contrary to and impinge upon the mining operations under the
relevant provisions of the Act or Rules. Since on the facts of this case
that question was not raised or controverted, Court need not express H
     556                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   any op1mon in this behalf. If it were such a case that building
    operations of the appellant are within the mining area and the plan of
    the Adhiniyam is sought to be implemented in that-area, it may be open
    to the appellant to raise such objections and the authorities would
    consider and dispose it of according to rules or approach the
    government to remove the difficulties and the State Govt. would do its
B   best. Or it may be open to the appellant to have it challenged in an
    appropriate forum. (559 H, 560 A to DJ

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4124 of
     1986.

C       From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.85 of the Madhya Pradesh
    High Court in Misc. P.No. 1260 ofl 982.

        Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, R.N. Sachthey, C.D. Singh,
    Anip Sachthey and H. Munshi for the Appellant.

D       Dr. N.M.. Ghatate, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S.V. Deshpande, P.P. Singh,
    S.K. Agnihotri and S.K. Mehta for the Respondents.

           The following order of the Court was delivered:

        Amendment of the cause title is allowed, Intervention application is
E   dismissed.

         This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
    Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated May 3, 1985, made in
    Misc. Pet. No. 1260/82. The appellant challenged in the above writ petition
    the directions dated 4.5.81, order dated 30.9.81 and a further order dated
F   9.6.82 passed by the second respondent-Chairman of Special Areas
    Development Authority (for short, 'SADA'), Singrauli, in the District of
    Sidhi of M.P. directing the appellant under section 26 of the M.P. Nagar
    Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, (for short, 'Adhiniyam") to pull
    down the constructions of the office buildings staff-quarters etc. made by
    the appellant contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. In the High
G   Court, the controversy centered round the question as to whether the
    provisions of the Adhiniyam overlaps the field occupied by the provisions
    of the Coal Act, the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)
    Act and Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (for
    short, 'the Act"). The Division Bench held that these Acts have not
    occupied the field covered by the Adhiniyam and that, therefore, the Act is
H
                     CENTRAL COALFIELDS v. STATE                       557

intra vires the powers of the legislature. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ A
petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

     It is contended by Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Addi. Solicitor General,
that when the mining operations are to be carried out under the aforesaid
provisions, it would include the building operations under the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, (for short, 'the Rules') made under the Act. B
Therefore, the operation of the Adhiniyam stands excluded. Dr. Ghatate,
learned senior counsel for the second respondent, resisted the contention
contending that Adhiniyam regulates the development area under the
Adhiniyam including the construction of buildings within the notified
development plan in the zones; the appellant had constructed the buildings
in Morwa and Jayanthi Villages without obtaining prior permission from C
the SADA and that therefore, the construction was in contravention of s. 26
of the Adhiniyam. He, therefore, contends that the action was correctly
taken and. the Central Acts have no application as regards the building
operations are concerned. The question, therefore, is as to what is the exact
scope of the operation o~the Adhiniyam.
                                                                             D
     Section 2(c) of the Adhiniyam defines "building'', s.2(d) defines
"buildings operations"; s.2(f) defines "development", s.2(g) defines
"development plan", s.2(i) defines "existing land use map" and s.20)
defines "land". A conspectus of these definitions would indicate that the
Adhiniyam intends to apply to carrying out of the development of the
building, engineering, mining or other operation in on, over or under any E
land or the making of any material change in any building or land or in the
use of either and includes sub-division of any land within the zoning plan
and the land use map made under the provisions of the Act.

     Section 38 in chapter VII empowers the state Government by a
notification to establish Town and Country Development Authority which F
authority has been given power to develop the land. In Chapter III, it is
empowered to make survey by the Director, preparation of regional plans,
finalization thereof under ss.6 to 9. Section 10, thereafter, envisages that:

             "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the G
             time being in force, on or after the date of publication of the
             draft regional plan, no person, authority, department of
             government or any other person shall change the use of the
             land for any purpose other than agriculture, or carry out any
             development in respect of any land contrary to the provisions
             of the draft plan, without the prior approval of the Director or H
                                                            •
    558                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A                  an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised
                   by the Director in this behalf."

         Chapter IV deals' with preparation of the planning area and
    development plans. Sections 13 to 15 envisage making or preparation of
    developmental plans and existing land use maps. By publication under
B   s.15( l ), s.16 comes into operation which provides that:

                  "(1) On the publication of the existing land use map under
                  s.15-

                  (a) no person shall institute or change the use of any land or
c                 carry out any development of land for any purpose other than
                  that· indicated in the existing land use map without the
                  permission in writing of the Director.

                  [Proviso and Clause (b) are not material for the purpose of
                  this case, hence omitted.]
D         Under s.24, the State Government have kept the power with them to
     control and use of the land for overall development as per the plans of the
     Adhiniyam. Section 24(2) gives power to the State Government to remove
     difficulties in the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Section 25
     postulates that "after coming into force of the development plan, the use
     and development of land shall conform to the provision of the development
E
     plan." In other words, after it has come into force the development of the
     land shall be only in conformity with the developmental plan. In other
     words, it is confined to building operations. Any constructions had been
    ·made prior to the coming into force of development plan, it does not come
     within the prohibition contained under s.26. But thereafter, s.26 expressly
F    prohibits constructions extept under planned development of land with
     prior permission. For permission, when needed, an application in that
     behalf shall be made by any person under s.29 and by the State Government
     of the Central Government of any local authority or special authority under
     s.27. The Director has been given power to grant permission either
     unconditionally or conditionally or refuse the same under section 30. A
G    right of appeal by the aggrieved person is given under section 31 to the
     appellate authority and a further revision to the State Government under
     section 32.

        Thus, a reading of these provisions would clearly indicate that the
    Adhiniyam intends to operate within the zonal plans or the developed area
H   plans and the land use map published under the Adhiniyam and
                     CENTRAL COALFIELDS v. STATE                       559

construction of the building or development of the land shall be made in A
conformity with the provisions of the Adhiniyam, after the publication of
the plans as required ultimately under s.25 of the Act. Any contravention
thereof would be a contravention under s.26 of the Adhiniyam and the
authority has the power to take appropriate action as required thereunder.

     The question, therefore, emerges whether the construction made by the B
appellant is in conformity with the land use map prepared by the SADA and
the zonal plan. In the reply given to the shown cause notice issued by the
SADA, the appellant had admitted that SADA published the plan but
initially it was contended that the plan was not extended to the two villages
in which constructions had been carried out for which notice was given. It
was also stated that the Collector had acquired the land of 130 acres and C
odd in villages Punjrah for construction of office buildings staff quarters,
workers' buildings etc, for which there was no notice issued by SADA. At
the time of hearing, the contention that the map was not applicable to the
two areas was given up. In the writ petition, no specific plea was taken that
these two villages are within the mining areas and that the zonal declaration
overlaps the mining area. It is seen that under the Coal Act and the Coal D
Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, the mining area stands
vested in the appellant and it is entitled to carry on mining operations under
the Act and the Rules. The operation of Adhiniyam in relation to mining
operation is void. Construction of office building, staff quarters, providing
facilities for successful and effective mining operations, the welfare E
measures and providing right to residence and civic amenities to the staff
and workmen are incidental or ancillary to the main purpose i.e. mining
operation under the Act and the Rules. The Adhiniyam regulates building
planned development and the developments incidental and ancillary thereto.
Under these circumstances, the High Court has rightly held that the
operation of Adhiniyam to the above extent does not trench upon the filed F
of operation under provisions of the Central Acts. Both could harmoniously
co-exist and operate in the respective areas without colliding with each
other. The provisions being construed in that backdrop and operational
efficacy, we are of the considered view that there is no overlapping of the
operation of the Adhiniyam vis-a-vis the Central Acts.
                                                                             G
     The question emerges that when mining operations are carried on
including actions relating to building operations incidental or integral to the
mining operations, whether the Adhiniyam gets attracted? As stated earlier,
excluding mining development, when the zonal plan was prepared and it
was published for building operations, it would be a notice to the appellant
and if such a zonal plan comes in conflict with the smooth and effective H
    560                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   building operations in the mining area and would impede its operations
    which are regulated as ancillary or incidental and concomitant necessity
    under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and other Central Acts referred to
    hereinbefore, then it would always be open to the appellant either to bring it
    to the notice of the Director who is competent to make the plans and have it
    corrected or in case such an objection was taken but was not acceded to, it
B   would be open to the appellant to have it challenged in an appropriate
    proceeding and have it declared that it runs contrary to and impinge upon
    the mining operations under the relevant provisions of the Act or Rules.
    Since on the facts of this case that question was not raised or controverted,
    we need not express any opinion in this behalf. If it were such a case that
    building operations of the appellant are within the mining area and the plan
c   of the Adhiniyam is sought to be implemented in that area, it may be open
    to the appellant to raise such objections and the authorities would consider
    and dispose it of according to rules or approach the government to remove
    the difficulties and the State Govt. would do its best. Or it may be open to
    the appellant to have it challenged in an appropriate forum.

D         The appeal is dismissed accordingly but without costs.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.      ..