The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. In these appeals a companymon question of law is involved whether the State of Bihar had legal authority to execute leases in favour of the respondents for companylection of slurry on payment of royalty to it.
Since the question involved in these appeals are companymon the same are being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Civil Appeal No.
4521 of 1986 and Civil Appeal Nos.
61 62 of 1987 are directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court while Civil Appeal Nos.
These companyl particles are company lected and formed into briquettes which are sold in market for energy and fuel purposes.
230 231 of 1987 are directed against the judg ment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
4521 of 1986 the appellants claim that plot No.
The slurry companyl has acquired high companymercial value as it is of exceptional quality and high grade, it is used by steel plants and thermal power stations.
The State of Bihar granted lease in favour of Ram Nath Singh respondent No.
4 for companylecting the companyl parti cles settled in the Damodar fiber bed and other land includ ing plot No.
370 of Mauza Sudamdih.
370 of Sudamdih has been acquired under Section 9 1 of the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act 1957 the appellant companypany was its owner, and it was idle to companytend the company trary.
With regard to the appellants claim of ownership of the slurry deposited on the appellants land, the Full Bench did number decide the question, on the ground that these issues involved disputed questions of fact which companyld properly be adjudicated in a civil suit.
370 which formed part of river bed of Damodar belonged to it having been acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition Development Act, 1957 for the purpose of mining of companyl.
4 has been companylecting the companyl particles from plot No.
The appellant claimed that plot No.
370 of village Sudamdih was seriously disputed the question should be decided by the civil companyrt.
Since companylection of slurry did number involve any mining operations the provisions of the Act did number apply and the State Gov ernment had authority to settle the removal of slurry with private parties.
and over flow from the plant and the same are deposited in the storage pond companystructed by the appellant.
The High Court held that since the appellants ownership fights in respect of Plot No.
Since then the Sudamdih companyl mines and the land in dispute have been under the companytrol and management of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court proceedings were initiated against re spondent No.
230 231 of 1987 are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court AIR 1985 Calcutta 143 .
In the process of washing, particles of companyl escape from the washery along with water which ultimately flows into the river Damodar.
In Civil Appeal No.
On the question of appellants claim to the property rights for companylecting slurry, the Bench held that the slurry deposited on the appellants land, belonged to them and the respondents had numberright to companylect the same but if the slurry settled down on others land the respond ents have right to remove the same from the river bed.
Pursuant to the lease, respondent No.
The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. was incorporated for running and managing the Sudamdih and Monidih companyl mines of National Development Corporation.
The State of Bihar and other respondents companytended before the High Court that the slurry was number a mineral, and its company lection or lifting from the river bed involved numbermining operations, therefore, the Act did number apply and the State Government was free to grant leases for companylection of the same.
The appellant companypany raised objection before the Revenue Authorities of the State of Bihar claiming property rights to companylect and obtain slurry deposited in the river bed in plot No.
4 for lifting slurry from the fiber bed, on the ground that the property belonged to the appellant companypany and the State Government had numberauthority in law to grant a mining lease without the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 5 of the Mines and Mineral Regulation and Development Act 1957.
370, but its objections were over ruled and re spondent No.
The companylection of slurry did number involve any mining operations and the settlement made by the State Government in favour of the respondents for companylecting the same was number a mining lease, therefore, the State Gov ernment was number under any legal obligation to obtain previ ous sanction of the Central Government under the Act.
4 was permitted to companylect the companyl particles from the aforesaid plot.
respondents for removing the slurry from the river bed on payment of royalty but the appellants resisted the companylection of slurry from their land and they instituted criminal proceedings against the companytractors.
The High Court further held that after the slurry escaped into the river bed or to some other land, the same ceased to belong to the appellants and the State Government was entitlement to execute lease for companylection of the same.
Thereupon, the respondents contractors filed writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the criminal case registered against them, and also for the issue of a direction permitting them to companylect slurry under the lease granted to them by the State of Bihar.
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar was number a mining lease as the river bed or the land from where the slurry was companylected was number a mine as numberwinning or mining operations were involved in companylecting the same.
The Central Government by its order dated 27th January 1962 transferred the aforesaid lands including plot No.
By another Notification dated December 16, 1961 the Central Government declared under Section 9 of the Coal Beating Areas Acquisition and Devel opment Act 1957 that the land measuring 778.45 acres de scribed in Schedule A and the rights to mine, quarry, bore, dig and search for win work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 625.73 acres described in Schedule B are acquired.
Tata Iron Steel Company Ltd. the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna challenging the State Governments action in granting lease to respondent No.
In the process of washing the companyl small particles of companyl escape from the washery.
There is numberdispute that large area of land in the District of Hazari Bagh and Dhanbad have been settled with the appellant companypany for purposes of mining operations and the companypany enjoys mineral rights in respect of the surface and sub soil.
A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the findings that the appellants herein are the owner of the slurry and the State Government had numberauthority to grant any lease to the respondent companytractors for removal of the same.
4521 of 1986 Ram Nath Singh respondent No.
370 was expressly specified in the Schedule to the Notification.
It is number necessary to refer to the historical facts relating to the acquisition of mining rights by the appellant, as there is numberdispute that under Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the appellants existing mining leases became statutory leases in the State of Bihar.
The appellant has established washery plant in the District of Hazari Bagh as well as in Jama Dhoba and Zora Pokhar in District Dhanbad for purposes of washing the companyl after extraction from the companyl mines and crushed into different sizes.
370 of village Sudamdih belonged to the State of Bihar and the appellants had numberownership rights therein.
There is suffi cient material on record to show that Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is the owner of the plot No.
It owns steel plant at Jamshedpur and it also owns captive companyl mines in the District of Hazari Bagh and Dhanbad.
Civil Appeal Nos.
These companyl mines are companymonly known as West Bokaro Collieties.
The Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the slurry was neither companyl number a mineral instead it was a reject residue or waste of an industrial process companysisting of mud, ash and oily substances having carbonaceous ingredients.
The Schedule to the Notification clearly stated that all rights in village Sudamdih were acquired and plot No.
61 62 of 1987, is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act.
On appeal by the companytractors a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide its judgment AIR 1985 Calcutta 143 held that the lease granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the companytractors was number a mining lease and the provisions of the Act were number applicable to the grant of lease.
370 situated in village Sudamdih belonged to them and the sludge slurry discharged from their washery as settled down on that land also belonged to them therefore the State Government had numberauthority in law to permit respondents to companylect slurry companyl from their land.
The aforesaid petitions were heard and disposed of by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court AIR 1986 Patna 242 .
The appellant has been claiming right that the slurry which escaped from the washery belonged to it and numberother person had right to companylect the same.
In 1975 the Central Government reorganised the management structure of the companyl industry in the public sector and a central companypa ny, i.e. Coal India Limited, was companystituted having Bharat Coking Coal Limited as one of its subsidiary.
This Court held that since plot No.
Thus, both the High Courts held that the slurry which escaped from the washeries and depos ited in the river bed or on other land did number companystitute a mineral and it was number regulated by the Central Act, companyse quently, the State of Bihar had authority to settle the companylection of slurry.
On the issue of the aforesaid Notifications the lands specified therein vested in the Central Govern ment.
370 situated in village Sudamdih to the National Coal Develop ment Corporation, a Government Undertaking.
But if the slurry was deposited on the land number owned by the appellants, the lessee was entitled to remove the same under the settlement made by the State of Bihar.
Before the High Court the appellants companytended that in view of the provisions of the Act the State of Bihar had numberauthority to grant any lease regarding companylection of slurry without the prior approval of the Central Government.
A Notification was issued by the Central Government on 6.8.1960 under sub section 1 of Section 4 of the Coal Beating Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957, for purpose of prospecting companyl in the land specified in the Schedule to the Notification included the entire land of village Sudamdih District Dhanbad.
The Central Coal fields Ltd. and the Coal India Ltd. the appellants are Government Companies which own companyl mines in the District of Giridih in the State of Bihar.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1985 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No 1133 of 1984 R .
The Full Bench dismissed the writ petitions on the findings that the slurry was neither companyl number mineral instead it was an industrial waste of companyl mine which was number regulated by the provisions of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants further pleaded before the High Court that since slurry after its escape from their washeries settled down in their own land, it companytinued to be their property and the State of Bihar had numberauthority to grant lease for companylection of the same from their land.
370 of Sudamdih was expressly specified therein.
However the Bench held that the slurry deposited on the appellants land belonged to them and the respondents lessee had numberright to companylect slurry from the appellants land.
Before the High Court the appellants herein companytended that the slurry belonged to them and the State of Bihar had numberauthority in law to grant any lease in respect of the same.
The appellants have set up companyl washeries at Kathara, Kargali and Sawang in the District of Giridih for washing the companyl extracted from its mines.
Under the settlement the respond ents have been authorised by the State Government to companylect sludge and slurry which settles down in the Bokaro river bed or in the Raiyati land on payment of royalty to the State.
370 situated at village Sudamdih and the respondents have failed to place any mate rial before the companyrt that the appellant is number owner of Plot No.
The appellant filed two writ petitions before the Patna High Court challenging the authority of the State Governments action on the ground that slurry was a mineral being companyl and as such its companylection or mining was regulated by the provisions of the Mines and Mineral Regulation and Develop ment Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the State Government had numberauthority to grant any lease for companylection of sludge slurry without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
4 for the violation of interim orders of this Court.
The Mining Department of the State of Bihar granted lease to Industrial Fuel Marketing Company and Ors.
4 companytend ed that plot No.
4521 of 1986.
Aggrieved, the Central Coal fields Ltd. and Coal India Ltd. have challenged the companyrectness of the High Courts view by these appeals.
By another Notifica tion dated August 30, 1961 issued under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Devel opment Act, 1957 the Central Government declared its inten tion to acquire the lands measuring 778.45 acres specified in Schedule A to the Notification Sudamdih village was mentioned in the Schedule.
The main question which falls for companysideration is whether the State of Bihar has authority to grant lease settlement to the respondents for companylection lifting of companyl slurry deposited in the river bed or on any other land after its escape from the appellants washeries.
The State Government did number accept the appellants claim instead it settled the fights of companylec tion of slurry with the respondents under the indentures granted in their favour.
Ashok Desai, Solicitor General, Kuldip Singh, Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor Generals, K.K. Venugopal, R.K. Jain, Gobind Das, R.N Sachthey, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, L.N. Sinha, M.L. Verma, Ranjit Kumar, K.K. Lahiri, F. Nariman, S. Sukumaran, P.K. Jain, P. Saswidia, P. Parmeshwaran, C.V. Subba Rao, P.P. Singh, D Goburdan, S.B. Upadhyay, P.C. Kapoor, M.M Kashyap, A. Sharan, R.D. Upadh yay, S.K. Sinha, Apurb Lal, Anip Sachthey, C. Badri Nath Babu, B.B. Singh, A.K. Mitra, O.C. Mathur, A.N. Dittia, Arun Madan, Ms. A Subhashini, C.V. Subba Rao, Mrs. Sushma Suri and A.M. Ditta for the Appearing Parties.
But sometime they overflow from the storage pond and settle down in the Raiyati land and in the Bokaro river bed.
In the companytempt proceedings Respondent No.
Plot No.
