Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1274 (JHR)

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that it is not liable to pay land rent in view of the letter no. 43024/6/99PRIW dated 20.3.2002 annexed as Annexure-3 issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India and further for commanding upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to refrain from realization/collection of the land rent in respect of the lands held by the petitioner company for mining purposes having been acquired either on account of the vesting under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972 or under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner has further prayed for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps/measures for realization of the aforesaid amount by resorting to the Certificate Proceedings, annexed as Annexure-2 series. 3. From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit, it appears that one of the grounds taken in the writ petition is that during the time of acquisition of the land in favour of the company, the Government had realized one time land rent and the lands have become rent free. 4. On the other hand, respondents have stated that the petitioner company have been paying the land rent till the year 1997, whereafter, it has been stopped, perhaps on the basis of the instruction issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India as contained in letter no. 12299 (Annexure-1) raising legal issues as to whether upon vesting of the property under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972, the land in question has been vested in the Central Government and they cannot be treated as tenants of the State Government for the purpose of payment of the land rent. 5. It appears that certificate proceedings have been initiated due to non-payment of the land rent by the petitioner company in which notices were issued upon the petitioner company (Annexure-2 series) and warrant of attachment were also' issued (Annexure-4). 6. 5. It appears that certificate proceedings have been initiated due to non-payment of the land rent by the petitioner company in which notices were issued upon the petitioner company (Annexure-2 series) and warrant of attachment were also' issued (Annexure-4). 6. From the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the petitioner company has stopped paying the land rent by taking the plea that it has made payment of the land rent as a one time measure at the time of acquisition and on the other hand, State respondents have denied the same, saying that the petitioner company has been paying the rent till the year 1997, whereafter they had stopped paying the land rent purportedly acting upon the instruction of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, as contained in Annexure-1. 7. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (2005)7 Supreme Court Cases 492 in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. VS. State of Jharkhal1d and Others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under the proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, powers of the Appellate Authority 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. Paragraphs-10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted here-in-below:- "10.............. As observed by the Division Bench, the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise all contentions including as to the jurisdiction of the State Government and/or its officers in initiating certificate proceedings against the Company. Regarding the earlier decision in National Coal Development Corpn. 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 granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing appeals under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. 11. In view of the said fact also it would be appropriate if the appellant Company is granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority by filing appeals under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. 11. 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 and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 are filed within a period of two months from today, the Appellate Authority 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 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." 8. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal and moreover, from the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the respondent State, it appears that the certificate proceedings are still pending in view of the interim order dated 18.6.2003 passed by this court. It further appears that the question of facts whether the petitioner had paid one time land rent or have been paying the land rent till the year 1997, are also involved in this case and it is open to the petitioner company to demonstrate before the certificate officer in the pending proceedings while deciding its objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. Moreover, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise all contention as to jurisdiction of the State Government and/or its officers in initiating certificate proceeding against the company. 9. Moreover, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1914 are very wide and the appellant may raise all contention as to jurisdiction of the State Government and/or its officers in initiating certificate proceeding against the company. 9. This writ petition is therefore disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all such objections on the facts as well as law which are available to it before the Authority under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 in the different certificate proceedings pending before the Certificate Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner may file its objection, if not already filed, within a period of two months before the Certificate Officer. Consequently, the L.A. No. 1277 of 2006 also stands disposed of.