1990 (8) TMI 394 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal authority of the State of Bihar to execute leases for collection of slurry.
2. Classification of slurry as a mineral and its regulation under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
3. Ownership rights over the land where slurry is deposited.
4. Legislative competence of the State Legislature in regulating mines and minerals.

Summary:

1. Legal Authority of the State of Bihar:
The main question was whether the State of Bihar had the authority to grant leases/settlements to the respondents for collecting/lifting coal slurry deposited in the river bed or other lands after escaping from the appellants' washeries. The Supreme Court held that the State Government had no authority in law to make any settlement or grant any lease for the collection of slurry deposits either from the river bed or other land. The impugned settlements made by the State Government were deemed illegal, and the respondent-lessees were restrained from lifting or collecting the same from the disputed land.

2. Classification of Slurry as a Mineral:
The Court examined whether slurry, consisting of small coal particles, is considered a mineral under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It was determined that slurry is coal in liquid form, and thus, a mineral. The Court disagreed with the High Courts' findings that slurry was industrial waste and not a mineral. The collection of slurry was found to involve mining operations, making the leases in question mining leases under Section 5(2)(a) of the Act.

3. Ownership Rights Over the Land:
In Civil Appeal No. 4521 of 1986, the appellant claimed ownership of plot No. 370 in village Sudamdih. The Supreme Court found sufficient material to establish that Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is the owner of the plot, and the State Government had no authority to permit respondents to collect slurry from this land. The Court held that the appellant is the owner of plot No. 370 and restrained the respondents from collecting slurry deposits from this plot.

4. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature:
The Court addressed the legislative competence of the State Legislature in regulating mines and minerals, emphasizing that the regulation of mines and mineral development is exclusively assigned to the Central Government under the Constitution. The Court cited the Parliamentary declaration under Section 2 and the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, which denude the State Legislature of its power to make laws on this subject. Consequently, the State Government lacked executive power to regulate the disposal of slurry, a waste effluent discharge from coal mines.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Courts of Patna and Calcutta, and declared the settlements made by the State Government for the collection of slurry deposits illegal. The respondents were restrained from collecting slurry from the disputed lands, and the money deposited pursuant to interim orders was directed to be paid to the successful party.