LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/state-of-u-p-anr-vs-northern-coal-fields-20241003/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

State of U.P. & Anr. vs Northern Coal Fields

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
3 October 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Vikram Nath, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
Citation
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1918 : 2024 INSC 948
Acts & Sections
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and… Mines and Minerals (Development and…
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1918 : 2024 INSC 948
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State Government to realise lease rent from the respondent-Government Company under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
Headnote

Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – ss.10 and 11 – Vesting of land or rights in Central Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently, the said land vested in the respondent-government company – State Government issuing letters to the respondent to deposit lease rent – Aggreived thereagainst, the respondent filed writ petition – High Court allowed the same holding that the entire area had been acquired under the Act, under which the State had no legislative competence, directing the State not to realise further lease rent from the respondent – Correctness: Held: When there is no pre-existing lease at the time of acquisition by the Central Government and the rights are subsequently vested in a Government Company, then such Government Company does not become a deemed lessee of the State – Rights in the Government Company were vested specifically by virtue of sub-section (1) of s. 11 and at that time, there did not exist any mining lease as provided under sub-section (2) – Rights u/s.11(1) are vested in the Government Company in the exact nature as they existed in the Central Government at the time – Thus, when the Central Government’s right was free from all encumbrances and completely absolute, the Government Company also acquired an absolute right over the land – No question of a qualified right in the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government arises in such a situation – This is by virtue of the fact that when Central Government acquired such rights and also when it was further vested in the Government Company, there was no pre-existing mining lease in favour of any person and, thus, s.10(2) and s.11(2) become inapplicable in the given case – Thus, the land vested in the Government Company free from all encumbrances, subject to the conditions imposed by the Central Government – State Government not entitled to claim itself as a deemed lessor of the Government Company and the demand for “lease rent” completely unwarranted – State Government’s demand for “lease rent” not supported by any statutory provision, such a demand cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 12-14, 18] Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 – ss.10 and 11 – Interpretation – Distinction between the nature of right accrued between s.10 (1) and (2) as also between s.11 (1) and (2) – Discussed. [Paras 11, 12]

Keywords: Lease rent · Legislative competence · No pre-existing lease · Deemed lessee of the State · Mining lease · Acquisition by Central Government · Vested rights in Government Company

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment 1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 16.01.2013 in Writ (C) No. 50320/2010 wherein the Respondent’s Writ Petition was allowed, orders dated 23.03.2010, 11.06.2010 and 31.07.2010 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Renukoot, District Sonebhadra, UP1 were set aside, the State was directed not to realise further lease rent from the Respondent and to refund/adjust the amount paid by the Respondent for the year 2010-2011. 2. The facts of the matter, succinctly put, are that the Respondent is a Government Company
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

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.

All SC judgments →