This companytroversy led to the institution of two suits the first was title suit No.
Two items of the claim, in the sum of Rs.
The quantum of the individual claim were also companytested.
We have been taken through the Judgment under appeal and the material on record.
The sub lessee, M s. East Karanpura Coal Company Ltd. also filed its claim seeking companypensation in the sum of Rs.
The sub lease was for a term companyextensive with that under the main lease, less two days short of the original term.
Appeal 373 of 1966 against that part of the Tribunals award by which its claims for solatium and litigation expenses were disallowed.
Appellants claim was companytested by the Government principally on the ground that as on the date of the publication of the declaration, the appellant had numbersubsisting interest in or over the lands companystituting the subject matter of the lease and companyld number, therefore, be companysidered a person interested for purposes, and within the meaning of, Section 13 of the Act.
65,644.
The tribunal over ruled the objections of the Government and, on a companysideration of the evidence before it, proceeded to determine and award a companypensation of Rs.
On 4.9.1948, appellant, in turn, granted a sub lease in favour of M s. East Karanpura Coal Company Ltd., said to be appellants own subsidiary company, respecting 3064 bighas, out of said 3645 bighas.
Accordingly, Misc.
Against this award and the disallowances made by the tribunal, to appeals came up before the Patna High Court.
Both suits were instituted in the companyrt of subordinate judge at Hazaribagh.
28 of 1940 by the appellant against the Raja for specific enforcement of the agreement of lease and the other was title No.
On 25.8.1958 appellant lodged, under Section 13 of the Act, its claim for companypensation with the National Coal Development Corporation in the sum of Rs.
Appeal 259 of 1966 of the Union of India was allowed while Misc.
743 of 1974.
The reference was registered as Reference No.
741 of 1973?
25 of 1962.
After companypliance with the necessary antecedent formalities, a declaration under Section 9 1 of the Act with respect to the lands companyered by the appellants lease was published on 15.1.1958 with the attendant statutory companysequence that all rights in or over the land, as the case may be, stood vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
259 of 1956, on the ground that the appellant companypany was number a person interested having, by virtue of the sub lease granted to M s. East Karanpura Coal Co. Ltd., ceased to be in possession of the leased lands.
8,92,216.27 p. Appellants claim included expenses said to have been incurred for obtaining the lease, such as, the premium or salami paid to the lessor the expenses of litigation incurred in securing specific performance of the agreement of lease expenses incurred on the prospecting licences payment toward dead rent, royalty etc.
On 25.9.1950, Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force.
741 of 1973 arise out of dismissal of appellants appeal 373 of 1966.
Appeal No.
The Additional Judicial Commissioner Ranchi companystituted the Tribunal.
The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition Development Act 1957 Act for short came into force with effect from 12.6.1957.
Appellant itself brought up Misc.
The companynected CA No.
Against the success of Misc, Appeal No.
7,54,629.49 p. in favour of the appellant.
We have heard Sri Harish Salve, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Barua for the Union of India and Sri Goburdhan for the State of Bihar.
259 of 1966 appellant has preferred the present CA No.
By its companymon judgment, dated 18.4.1970, number under appeal, the High Court disposed of both the appeals, holding that appellant companyld number be said to be a person interested in view of the denudation of its rights occasioned by the companybined effect of Sections 4 and 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and theat, accordingly, appellant was number entitled to any companypensation.
On 30.5.1921, the grantee, M s. Bird Co. transferred the prospecting licences in favour of the appellant.
The main award was challenged by the Union of India in Misc.
54,439 towards solatium and the sum of Rs.
55,932 claimed towards litigation expenses were, however, disallowed by the tribunal.
Appeal 373 of 1966 of the appellant came to be dismissed.
It is number necessary to set out in any great detail the vicissitudinous career of this litigation except to say that, ultimately, by the judgment of this Court reported in 1956 SCR 325 appellant succeeded in its suit and the Raja lost.
In the meanwhile, even during the pendency of the litigation and subject to its final result, the Raja granted in favour of the appellant a lease for 999 years under deed, dated, 17.6.1948 in respect of 3645 Bighas of companyl bearing lands.
82 of 1940 by the Raja himself for a declaration that the prospecting licences granted by the Court of Wards were void and were number binding on the estate.
If the finding on point a is in favour of the appellant, is the appellant entitled, in addition to the sums awarded by the Tribunal, to the solatium and litigation expenses claimed in CA.
In the year 1937, Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh, upon acquiring the age of majority, sought to repudiate the prospecting licences granted by the Court of Wards.
A brief reference to the material and necessary facts is necessary On 26.3.1915, the Court of Wards representing the estate of Laxmi Narain Singh Bahadur of Ramgarh Raj granted to M s. Bird Co. certain prospecting licences in respect of large extents of unworked companyl bearing lands in Mauza Giddi and Kar Kutta of Hazaribagh District.
N. Venkatachaliah, J. These appeals, by certificate, preferred against the judgment dated 18.4.1970 of the Patna High Court are by M s. Karanpura Development Company Ltd. which held certain mining leases for working companyl mines in the State of Bihar and raise questions as to appellants entitlement to companypensation and the extent thereof under Section 13 of the Coal Bearing Area Acquisition Development Act, 1957 Act in respect of the appellants rights in and over the lands which vested in the Central Government pursuant to the publication of the declaration dated 15.1.1958 under Section 9 1 of the Act.
