JUDGMENT : S.K. Mohanty, J. - The petitioner No. 2 Is a subsidiary company of Coal India Limited, a Government of India undertaking. It has got its coal field at Talcher which is locally called Deulabera Colliery comprising of Remun and Champapasi inclines, Talcher Municipality has levied holding tak on the area under its occupation, octroi tax on goods brought by the petitioner company for use and consumption in the colliery and licence fees for using machinery for industrial purpose and producing coal within the municipal limit. Such levy of tax and fee is challenged by the petitioner company on the following grounds : (i) The area in question belongs to the Central Government having been acquired u/s 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, in the year 1981 and there- fore the petitioner company is exempt from payment of any tax in respect of this property, in view of Art. 285(1) of the Constitution. (ii) The underground of the colliery where the mining operations are carried on does not come within the 'municipal limit' as this expression extends only to the surface area. (iii) The municipality is not rendering any service to the colliery so as to entitle them to levy any holding tax. There being no quid pro quo, demand of fee by municipality takes the colour of tax not authorised by Orissa Municipal Act. 2. The municipality in their counter assert that the impost of tax and fee has the sanction of law. They deny that since the petitioner company undertakes underground operations, no tax or fee can be levied by the municipality and claim to be rendering several services to the Colliery in quest ion. 3. Art. 285(1) of the Constitution exempts the property of the Union from all taxes imposed by a State, save and in so far as the Parliament may by law otherwise provide. So the foremost question in the present case whether the properties of Coal India Limited at Talcher are properties of the Union. Admittedly the Coal India Limited has been registered under the Companies Act. Although the entire share capital has been subscribed by the Government of India, yet the company has an independent legal existence and is not a department of Central Government. Law recognises it as a distinct juristic person. Admittedly the Coal India Limited has been registered under the Companies Act. Although the entire share capital has been subscribed by the Government of India, yet the company has an independent legal existence and is not a department of Central Government. Law recognises it as a distinct juristic person. The properties of the company vest in and are owned by the company, the Government of India only owns the share capital. These observations of ours finds support from the following decisions of the apex Court. In the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-I B-ward, Hyderabad, and Another it has been stated : The Corporation, though statutory, has a personality of its own and this personality is distinct from that of the State or other shareholders. xx xx xx It is also clear that the trading activity carried on by a Corporation is not a trading activity carried on by the State department-ally nor is it a trading activity carried on by State through its agents appointed in that behalf. In the Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India (UOI) it has been stated : A company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. Property of the Company is not the property of the shareholders. A shareholder has merely an interest in the Company arising under its Articles of Association measured by a sum of money for the purpose of liability, and by a share in the profit. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements by the apex Court the argument that the properties of the petitioner Company will be exempt from taxes imposed by the State is devoid of any force. 4. Now coming to the second ground, it may first be observed that holding tax and octroi tax are payable under Clauses (a) and(kk)of Sub-section (1) of Section 1.51 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'). Licence fees are charged u/s 290 of the Act. u/s 131, the municipal council has the power to impose within the limits of the municipality, a tax on holdings situate within the municipality and octroi tax on goods brought within the "limits of the municipality" for consumption, use or sale therein. Licence fees are charged u/s 290 of the Act. u/s 131, the municipal council has the power to impose within the limits of the municipality, a tax on holdings situate within the municipality and octroi tax on goods brought within the "limits of the municipality" for consumption, use or sale therein. u/s 290, user of any' 'place within the municipality for any of the purposes mentioned in the section requires a licence from the Executive Officer of the Now the question arises whether the underground mining areas can be said to come within the 'limits of a municipality' or a 'place within the municipality.' u/s 4, the State Government constitutes a local area as municipality under the Act. The words "local area" in the context must mean land either open to the sky or covered by water or building, etc. within a specific boundary. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that "land means only the surface of the earth and not the underground. : meaning of the word 'land' came up for interpretation in the apex Court in the case of The Anant Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others in connection with levy of property tax in Ahamedabad under the Bombav Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, It was argued before their, lordships that the word 'land' denotes the surface of the land and not the underground strata. This argument was not acceded to and it was held that the word 'land' includes not only the face of the earth but everything under or over it and has in its legal signification an indefinite extent upward and downward giving rise to the maxim, Cujes est Solum ejus est usque ad Coclum. Their Lordships referred to Broom's Legal Maxims wherein it is observed ; xxx not only has land in its legal signification an indefinite extent upwards, but in law it extends also downwards, so that whatever is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth by the common law belongs to the owner of the surface (not merely the surface, but all the land down to the entry of the earth and up to the heavens) and hence the word land which in nornen generalissirnum, includes, not only the face of the earth, but everything under it or over it. Of course their Lordships were interpreting the word 'land3 as occurring in Entry 49 of the State List. It may be mentioned here that the Orissa Municipal Act derives its authority from Entries 49 and 52 of the State List for imposing taxes on lands and buildings and on entry of goods into local area for consumption, use or sale therein. As observed earlier, local area includes land. In view of the above authoritative decision by the apex Court, there can be absolutely no force in the argument from the side of the petitioner that no holding tax or octroi tax can be levied on the petitioner company by the municipality, because of underground operations. 5. It is uhcontrovertible that unless there is quid pro quo, a municipal council would not be entitled to levy fees and such puid pro quo must be substantial. In the instant case, the municipality in its counter has asserted that several services such as road communication, -street lighting, public health, sanitation, conservancy, drainage, water supply, education, medical, market, slaughter house and meat stalls and other miscellaneous services have been provided by the municipality. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no substantial quid pro quo from the side of the municipality. 6. At the bar the decision reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Duvvuru Balarami Reddy, was cited. In our view this decision is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. 7. In ultimate anlysis, we find that none of the grounds urged by the petitioners has any force. The writ application is, therefore, devoid of any merit. The petitioner company has withheld heavy amount of tax due to the municipality for past several years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with costs, which assessed at Rs. 5000/-. B.L. Hansaria, C.J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed