CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

A                      CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.
                                   v.
                     STA TE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

                              SEPTEMBER I, 2005
B
           [C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.]

          Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914-Section 60-
    Direction to Government company engaged in coal mining for payment of
    surface rent in coal bearing mining areas by State Government-Plea that
C   recovery of rent not sustainable-Writ petition, dismisml of, on ground of
    alternative remedy of filing appeal-LPA on the ground that the issue in
    question decided by Division Bench in earlier decision-Dismissal ofLPA on
    ground of alternative remedy-Correctness of-Held : Order directing
    payment ofrent is subject to appeal under section 60-More so under sections
D   6 and 7 of the 1972 Act, State Government has pov:er to make demand of
    rent-Hence, order allowing alternative remedy offiling appeals justified-
    Furthermore, in the earlier decision on Division Bench point regarding
    availability of alternative remedy ·neither raised nor considered-Company
    granted liberty to file appeals under 1914 Act-Coking Coal Mines
    (Nationalisation). Act, 1972-Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
E   Development) Act, 195.7-Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973.

          Appellant-Goverr "lent Company is engaged in extracting, selling
    and distributing coal. For mining purposes it acquired land through
    Central Government and rights over colliery and mining area. State
F   Government demanded payment of surface rent in coal bearing mining
    areas under Bihar and Oissa Pubilc Demands, recovery Act, 1914 in
    possession of the appellant and Certificate Officer initiated proceedings
    against the appellant for recovery of rent. Company contended that the
    proceedings were against Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
    Development) Act, 1957. Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
G   Development) Act, 1957 and also the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act,
    1973; and that the 1914 Act was not applicable to the present case.
    Certificate Officer held the Company liable to pay rent. Appellant filed
    writ petition. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the petition on the
    ground of availability of alternative remedy under the 1914 Act. Appellant
H   filed LPA challenging the order on the ground that the point in issue was
                                       1128
     CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                    I 129

concluded by decision of Division Bench in Managing Director National          A
Coal Development Corp. case that State Government had no authority to
demand surface rent. Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge and
dismissed the L.P.A. Hence the present appeal.

     Disposing of the appeals, the Court                                       B
      HELD : 1.1. In view of the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1957 and also the Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Certificate proceedings could not have
been initiated under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act,
                                                                               c
1914. But the action was taken under the 1914 Act and the appellant-
Company was directed to make payment. The said order is subject to
appeal under Section 60 of the 1914 Act. A reading of the order passed
by the Certificate Officer makes it clear that before taking the action, an
opinion of the Advocate General of the State of Bihar was sought by the        D
respondent who referred to sections 6 and 7ofthe 1972 Act and observed
that the State Government had power to make demand of rent from the
appellant-Company. Therefore, the Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court did not commit an error of law in dismissing the
petitions and appeals by allowing the appellant to avail of an alternative     E
remedy of filing appeals, and thus, the orders do not suffer from any
infirmity. f1133-C, D, E, Ff

      1.2.The Division Bench of High Court rightly observed that the
powers of the Appellate Authority under the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise
                                                                               F
all contentions including the contention as to the jurisdiction of the State
Government and/or its officers in initiating Certificate Proceedings against
the Company; and that in the decision in National Coal Development
Corporation case the contention regarding alternative remedy was neither
raised nor considered nor a finding had been recorded thereon. Therefore,      G
the appellant-Company is granted liberty to approach the Appellate
Authority by filing appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Demands Recovery
Act, 1914. 11133-G, H; 1134-Af

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5451 of2005.               H
    1130                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2002 of the Jharkhand High
    Court in LP.A. No. 473 of 2001.

                                         WITH

           C.A. Nos. 5454 and 5452 of 2005.
B
           Ajit Kumar Sinha, for the Appellant.

        Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Standing Counsel, D.N. Goburdhun and Ashok
    Mathur for the Respondents.
c
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           C.K. THAKKER, J. : Special leave granted.

D          The present appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed
    by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi on January 25, 2002 in Letters Patent
    Appeal Nos. 462, 472 and 473 of2001. By the said order, the Division Bench
    of the High Court dismissed intra court appeals filed by the appellant herein
    confirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

E          To appreciate the controversies raised in the present group of appeals,
    few facts in the first matter (Central Coal Fields Limitedv. State ofJharkharzd
    & Others) may be noted.

            The appellant Central Coal Field Limited ('Company' for short) is a
F   Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies
    Act, 1956 having its registered office at Darbhanga, Ranchi. It is one of the
    subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited. The Company owns various coal
    mines in Districts Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamou and Ranchi. The Company
    is carrying on business in extracting, selling and distributing coal. It is the
    case of the Company that for the purpose of mining activities, it acquired land
G   through Central Government for mining purposes under the Coal Bearing
    Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. It is also asserted by the
    Company that it acquired rights over colliery and mining area by virtue of
    Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. According to the Company, Section
    3 of the said Act provides that on the appointed day, the right, title and interest
H   of the owners in relation to coal mines specified in the Schedule "shall stand
         CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [THAKKER.J.J           1131

    transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from       A
    all encumbrances". Jn view of the aforesaid provision as also Section I 0 of
    Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the land as
    well as the rights over the land stood vested in the Central Government and
    the State Government thereafter had no right, title or interest in the land or
    rights over such land and no proceedings for recovery of rent could be             B
    effected nor any charge could be levied by the State Government from the
    appellant. In spite of clear legal position, Certificate Proceedings against the



-   appellant for realization of surface rent for mining areas in possession of the
    Company were initiated by the Certificate Officer (Mines), Dhanbad. The
    Company, therefore, objected to those proceedings by filing objections on
    June 12, 1991, inter aha contending that the proceedings were against
    Sections 9 and 9A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)
                                                                                       c
    Act, 1957. It was also contended that the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands
    Recovery Act, 1914 would not apply to the case and proceedings were,
    therefore, required to be dropped. Ignoring valid objections of the Company,
    an interim order was passed by the Certificate Officer directing the appellant-    D
    Company to pay an amount of Rs.78,16,712. According to the appellant-
    Company, even the Central Government was of the view that the State
    Government had no such power which is clear from the letter dated February
     12, 1999, addressed by the Director of Mines and Coal, Government of India

-   to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. The appellant-Company
    stated that the interim order dated February 2, 1999 was passed without
    considering the objections filed by it and without giving an opportunity of
                                                                                       E

    being heard. A petition was, therefore, filed being CWJC No. 651 of 1999
    (R). The learned Single Judge allowed the petition by an order dated
    September 20, 1999, set aside the order of the Certificate Officer and directed
    him to dispose of the objections filed by the Company by passing an                F
    appropriate order in accordance with law. The Certificate Officer, however,
    rejected the objections and held the Company liable to pay rent and
    accordingly an order was passed on June 08, 2000.

            Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a Writ
    Petition being CWJC No. 2535 of 2000. The learned Single Judge, after              G
    hearing the parties, dismissed the petition observing that it was not disputed
    that order had already been passed by the Certificate Officer against which
    the appellant-Company could file an appeal as provided under the Bihar &
    Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The Court also observed that the
    Appellate Authority would consider the question as to delay in filing the          H
    1132                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   appeal, which had occurred as the appellant-Company had approached the
    High Court.

            The Company filed Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by        ,
    the learned Single Judge. It was argued on behalf of the Company that the
B   learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the appeal on the ground
    of availability of alternative remedy particularly when the point was concluded
    by a decision of Division Bench in Managing Director, National Coal
    Development Corporation Limited v. State of Bihar & Others, AIR (1984)
    Patna 280. Dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of learned Single
    Judge, the Division Bench observed that Section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa
C   Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 went to suggest that the right of appeal
    was "unfettered" and the jurisdiction of the appellate forum "plenary and
    unbound". Whether the appellant was or was not liable to pay surface rent
    or lease money could be decided by the Appellate Authority. The Authority
    could also consider the basic question as to maintainability of Certificate
D   Proceedings, but it could not be said that the learned Single Judge had
    committed an error of law in dismissing the petition on the ground of
    availability of alternative remedy. Regarding the decision of the Division
    Bench in National Coal Development Corporation, the Court observed that
    the contention as to availability of alternative remedy was not raised in that

E
    case. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. The
    appellant has challenged the said order.

           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                                                                       -
              The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the
F   demand made by the State Government for payment of surface rent in a coal
    bearing mining area and initiation of proceedings for taking coercive steps
    for recovery of such rent were not sustainable in the light of the provisions
    of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 as also the
    Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. It was also contended that in view
    of the decision of the Division Bench in National Coal Development
G   Corporation holding that the State Government had no authority to demand
    surface rent, the High Court ought not to have dismissed the petitions/letters
    patent appeals on the ground of alternative remedy. In any case, when the
    question of jurisdiction had been raised, the High Court ought to have decided
     it, as it would go to the root of the proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted
H   that the impugned orders are required to be set aside by remanding the matters
          CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [THAKKER, l.I         1133

     to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.                           A

           The learned counsel appearing for the State Government, on the other
     hand, supported the orders passed by the High Court. He submitted that the
     points which have been argued before this Court were urged before the High
     Court and the High Court held that in the light of statutory provisions, the      B
     appellant was bound to avail of the alternative remedy. Regarding earlier
     decision of the Division Bench, the High Court rightly observed that the point
     as to availability of an alternative remedy was never raised. No fault,
     therefore, can be found against the impugned orders and the appeals deserve
•    to be dismissed.
                                                                                       c
            Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the
     appeals deserve to be disposed of by making certain observations. It is no
..
     doubt true that according to the appellant- Company the Certificate Proceedings
     could not have been initiated under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands
     Recovery Act, 1914, in view of the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas               D
     (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Regulation
     and Development) Ac~ 1957 and also the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation)
 •   Act, 1972. But it also cannot be overlooked that the action has been taken
     under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and the
     appellant-Company was directed to make payment. The said order is subject
     to appeal under Section 60 of the said Act. A reading of the order dated          E
     November 17, 1999 passed by the Certificate Officer makes it clear that
     before taking the action, an opinion of the Advocate General of the State of
     Bihar was sought by the respondent. Referring to the provisions of Coking
     Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Advocate General opined that
     such amount could be claimed by the State Government from the appellant-          F
     Company. Reference was made to Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act and it was
     observed that the State Government had power to make demand of rent from
     the appellant-Company. In view of the above position, it cannot be said that
     the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench had committed an error
     of law in dismissing the petitions and appeals by allowing the appellant to
     avail of an alternative remedy of filing appeals .. Those orders, therefore, do   G
     not suffer from any infirmity. As observed by theUivision Bench, the powers
     of the Appellate Authority under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands
     Recovery Act, 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise all contentions
     including the contention as to the jurisdiction of the State Government and/
     or its officers in initiating Certificate Proceedings against the Company.        H
    1134                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Regarding the earlier decision in National Coal Development Corporation,
    the High Court was right in observing that the contention regarding alternative
    remedy was neither raised nor considered nor a finding had been recorded
    thereon. In view of the said fact also it would be appropriate if the appellant-
    Company is grdnted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing
B   appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act 1914.

          Since the appellant-Company had filed petitions, intra court appeals and
    the appeals in this Court, it would be in the interest of justice and we direct,
    that if appeals under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914
    are filed within a period of two months from today, the Appellate Authority
C   will entertain them without raising any objection as to limitation. The
    Appellate Authority will hear the parties and decide the appeals in accordance
    with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from
    filing of the appeals without being influenced in any manner by the
    observations made by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench or by us
D   in the present appeals. We may clarify that we are disposing of the appeals
    upholding the preliminary objection of the State Government regarding
    availability of alternative remedy of appeals and we may not be understood
    to have expressed any opinion one way or the other on merits and all
    contentions of all parties are kept open.

E        For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are disposed of. In the facts and
    circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                                                     Appeals disposed of.