Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957– ss.11(2),2(d)– ‘Person interested’ –Lands in question owned by respondent-State was acquired by the Central Govt. –In exercise of powers u/s.11(1), the Central Govt. directed that the lands and rights so vested shall instead of continuing to vest in the Central Govt., vest in the appellant-Govt. Company subject to the terms and conditions as mentioned– Demand notice issued by State for premium and compensation – Challenged by appellant– Demand confirmed by High Court– On appeal, held: As per s.11(2), where the rights under any mining lease acquired under this Act vest in a Govt. company, the Govt. company shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become lessee of the State Govt. as if a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by the State Govt. to the Govt. company–It shall be liable to pay compensation/rental, etc., to the State Govt. being ‘person interested’– Person interested’ is defined u/s.2(d) – State Govt. being the original owner can be said to be deemed lessor and ‘person interested’ in getting the compensation – Therefore, the High Court is right in observing that being ‘person interested’, the State Govt. is entitled to the compensation/rental, etc.– Demand(s) upheld – Impugned judgment not interfered with.
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – ss.11, 18(a) – Plea of the appellant that the Govt. company in whose favour the order is passed u/s.11,except the amount of royalty u/s.18(a) it is not liable to pay any amount – Held : The argument has no substance –Compensation/rental payable with respect to the lands by the lessee/deemed lessee is altogether different than the royalty – Royalty is for extraction of minerals in the lands in question – Over and above the amount of royalty, the coal company/Government company shall be liable to pay the compensation and surface land rent, etc. –Amount of royalty cannot be mixed with the compensation/loss caused to the State Government due to loss of land and surface land rent as the State Government is entitled for the adequate compensation – High Court justified in confirming the respective demand(s).
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.