It was also companytended that the Bihar Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 would number apply to the case and proceedings were, therefore, required to be dropped.
According to the appellant Company, even the Central Government was of the view that the State Government had numbersuch power which is clear from the letter dated February 12, 1999, addressed by the Director of Mines and Coal, Government of India to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2535 of 2000.
The Company, therefore, objected to those proceedings by filing objections on June 12, 1991, inter alia companytending that the proceedings were against Sections 9 and 9A of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957.
The Company filed Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appellant Central Coal Field Limited Company for short is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Darbhanga, Ranchi.
651 of 1999 R .
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed.
The Company is carrying on business in extracting, selling and distributing companyl.
Ignoring valid objections of the Company, an interim order was passed by the Certificate Officer directing the appellant Company to pay an amount of Rs.78,16,712/ .
The learned Single Judge allowed the petition by an order dated September 20, 1999, set aside the order of the Certificate Officer and directed him to dispose of the objections filed by the Company by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law.
It is also asserted by the Company that it acquired rights over companyliery and mining area by virtue of Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1973.
By the said order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed intra companyrt appeals filed by the appellant herein companyfirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appellant has challenged the said order.
The Certificate Officer, however, rejected the objections and held the Company liable to pay rent and accordingly an order was passed on June 08, 2000.
According to the Company, Section 3 of the said Act provides that on the appointed day, the right, title and interest of the owners in relation to companyl mines specified in the Schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
In view of the aforesaid provision as also Section 10 of Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957, the land as well as the rights over the land stood vested in the Central Government and the State Government thereafter had numberright, title or interest in the land or rights over such land and numberproceedings for recovery of rent companyld be effected number any charge companyld be levied by the State Government from the appellant.
The appellant Company stated that the interim order dated February 2, 1999 was passed without companysidering the objections filed by it and without giving an opportunity of being heard.
In spite of clear legal position, Certificate Proceedings against the appellant for realization of surface rent for mining areas in possession of the Company were initiated by the Certificate Officer Mines , Dhanbad.
5454.and 5452./2005 Arising out of SLP c Nos.
It is one of the subsidiary companypanies of Coal India Limited.
6374 of 2002 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
A petition was, therefore, filed being CWJC No.
Arising out of S.L.P c No.
Whether the appellant was or was number liable to pay surface rent or lease money companyld be decided by the Appellate Authority.
6422 6465 of 2002 K. Thakker, J. Special leave granted.
It is the case of the Company that for the purpose of mining activities, it acquired land through Central Government for mining purposes under the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957.
To appreciate the companytroversies raised in the present group of appeals, few facts in the first matter Central Coal Fields Limited v. State of Jharkhand Others may be numbered.
The Authority companyld also companysider the basic question as to maintainability of Certificate Proceedings, but it companyld number be said that the learned Single Judge had companymitted an error of law in dismissing the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition being CWJC No.
The Company owns various companyl mines in Districts Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamou and Ranchi.
462, 472 and 473 of 2001.
The present appeals arise out of companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi on January 25, 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.
