vil Appeal No 3118 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 1181982 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No 112 of 1981
487 SN Kackar and HK Puri for the Appellant
Shanti Bhushan Mr SS Jauhar CL Sahu and ML Verma for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHALID J
The coal mines were nationalised by the  for short the Act 
Under this Act the mines vested in the Govern ment with effect from 1st May 1972
The Act contains a schedule showing the various mines which come under the nationalisation scheme
The mines involved in this appeal are shown as serial Nos 112 to 116 in the First Schedule to the Act
The Schedule in addition shows the location of the minesname and address of the owners of the mines and the amount of compensation
The owners  name in the fourth column of the mines involved in the appeal is shown as East India Coal Company Limited the appellant before us and the total compensation as Rs 9323500
Respondent nos
1 and 2 were carrying on the business as raising contractors and selling agents of coking coal of working coal mines
According to them Messrs Jardine Hand erson Limited who were the managing agents of the appel lant company appointed them as contractors to raise and sell coal and manufacture hard coke in respect of the un worked mines as per an agreement
It was alleged that they were entitled under the agreement to instal plant machinery and other equipment for efficient discharge of their func tions as raising contractors
Pursuant to this agreement they installed valuable machinery utensils and coke ovens at a heavy cost
After nationalisation they felt that there would be difficulty for getting apportionment from the appellant company of their due share in the compensation
Therefore they filed a claim under Section 26 of the Act before the 4th respondent the Commissioner of Payment Coking Coal Mines a statutory authority constituted under the Act
They also moved the High Court by way of writ petition and contended that they were also owners of the mines under the Act and were entitled to their share in the compensation and prayed for a direction that they be paid compensation at the market value for machinery plant equipment building stores etc
and in addition challenged the validity of the Act
The challenge against the validity of the Act became infructuous since the Act had been placed in the 9th Schedule
A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the plea of the writ petitioners who are respond ents 1 and 2 here held that these two were owners under the Act and 488 directed the 4th respondent to proceed with the claim ac cording to law
It is against this Judgment that this appeal is filed by special leave
The appellants before us in their challenge against the judgment of the High Court dispute the finding that respond ents 1 and 2 were also owners under the Act and deny that they owned any part of the plant and machinery or equipment which had been taken over under the Nationalisation Act The matter is now pending before the 4th respondent a statutory authority under the Act
He has to decide about the claims and if necessary to refer the matter to a compe tent civil court if any dispute arises as to the right of any person to receive the whole or any part of the amount
We cannot go into the apportionment part of the claim
All that we have to do in this appeal is to resolve the dispute between the appellant and respondent Nos 1 and 2 as to who is the owner of the mines under the Act
In other words whether the appellants are the owners of the mines to the exclusion of respondents 1 and 2 or not
Then we will have to indicate the manner in which the debts due by the owners have to be paid and which debt has priority over other debts
This we will have to do after examining the scheme of the Act with reference to some of the sections
The first question to be answered is as to who is the owner of the mine in question
The appellants contend that they have exclusive fight over the compensation amount while respondents 1 and 2 claim that they have a share in it
We will refer to the sections brought to our notice to resolve this dispute
Sections 4 5 3n 10 and 12 can be usefully looked into for this purpose
Section 41 declares that the right title interest of the owners in relation to the mines shall stand transferred to the Central Government on the appointed day free from all encumbrances
It reads thus 41 On the appointed day the fight title and interest of the owners in relation to the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances
 Similarly Section 5 refers to the acquisition of fights of owners of coke oven plants specified in the Second Sched ule by the Central 489 Government by virtue of operation of this Section
Section 5 reads as follows 5
On the appointed day the rights title and interest of the owners of each of the coke oven plants specified in the Second Schedule being the coke oven plants which are situated in or about the coking coal mines specified in the First Schedule shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances
 A combined reading of these two sections therefore makes it abundantly clear that the right title interest of the owners in relation to the mines and the coke oven plants prescribed in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule vest in the Central Government free from all encumbrances on the appointed day
That takes us to the question as to who is the owner contemplated by these two sections
The term owner  has been defined in Section 3n
It reads as follows  3n Owner  i When used in relation to a mine has the meaning assigned to it in the  ii When used in relation to a coke oven plant means any person who is the imme diate proprietor of lessee or occupier of the coke oven plant or any part thereof or is a contractor for the working of the coke oven plant of any part thereof
 For the purpose of the definition of the word owner  in relation to a mine therefore we have to examine the defi nition in the 
It reads as follows 211 Owner  when used in relation to a mine means any person who is the immediate proprietor of lessee or occupier of the mine or of any part thereof and in the case of a mine the business whereof is being carried on by a liquidator or receiver such liquidator or receiver and in the 490 case of a mine owned by a company the busi ness whereof is being carried on by a managing agent such managing agent but does not include a person who merely received a royali ty rent or fine from the mine or is merely the proprietor of the mine subject to any lease grant or licence for the working there of or is merely the owner of the said mine and not interested in the minerals of the mine but any contractor for the working of a mine or any part thereof shall be subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an owner but not so as to exempt the owner from any liability
 It is clear from the definition that it takes within its ambit occupier of the mine or any part thereof 
It cannot be disputed that respondents 1 and 2 here admittedly a raising contractor were in occupation of at least a part of the mine for their operation and thus an occupier within the definition
They do not come within the exclusion clause in the definition section
We have no hesitation therefore to hold that respondents 1 and 2 is a owner within the defini tion of section 3n of the Act
For this conclusion of ours we are supported by a decision of this Court rendered by a bench of three Judges to which one of us was a party in the case of Industrial Supplies Private Limited vs Union of India  Construing the indentical sec tion AP Sen J speaking for the bench held thus 22
It was asserted that the petitioners were really not the managing contractors but wrongly described as such in the agreement   
The petitioners were conferred all the fights to work the mine for winning getting and raising coal
The so called remuneration payable to them was virtu ally the price of coal supplied leaving to the owners a margin of profit  
The petitioners having bound them selves by the terms of the agreement cannot be permitted to escape from the provisions of sub section 1 of Section 4 as they come within the purview of the definition of owner  in section 3n of the Nationalisation Act
It is then argued in the alter native that the term owner  as defined in Section 3n of the Nationalisation Act read with Section 21 of the  does not in any event include a raising contractor
It is not suggested that a raising contractor does not come within the description of a contractor in Section 21 but it is argued that the 491 word includes  is not there
There was no need for Parliament to insert the word in cludes  because of the words as if he were 
Although the term owner  in common parlance in its usual sense connotes ownership of a mine the term has to be understood in the legal sense as defined
Parliament with due delibera tion in Section 3n adopted by incorporation the enlarged definition of owner in Section 21 of the  to make the Nationalisation Act all embracing and fully effective
The definition is wide enough to include three categories of persons i in relation to a mine the person who is the immediate proprietor or a lessee or occupier of mine or any part thereof ii in the case of a mine the business whereof is carried on by a liquidator or a receiver such liquidator or receiver and iii in the case of a mine owned by a company the business whereof is carried on by a managing agent such managing agent
Each is a separate and distinct catego ry of persons and the concept of ownership does not come in
Then come the crucial last words but any contractor for the working of a mine or any part thereof shall be subject to this Act in like manner as if he were an owner but not so as to exempt the owner from any liability
 The insertion of this clause is to make both the owner as well as the contractor equally liable for the due observ ance of the Act
It is needless to stress that the  contains various provi sions for the safety of the mines and the persons employed therein
In the case of a mine the working whereof is being carried on by a raising contractor he is primarily responsible to comply with the provisions of the Act
Though a contractor for the working of a mine or any part thereof is not an owner he shall be subject to the provisions of the Act in the like manner as if he were an owner but not so as to exempt the owner from any liability The learned counsel for the appellants in his attempt to deny to respondents 1 and 2 any right in the compensation sought support from the names shown in the first and second schedules which according to him clearly indicated who the owner of the coal mines was and made his submission as follows The first schedule gives the location of the mine and the name of the owner
Section 4 refers to the owners specified in the First Schedule to be a person whose right title and 492 interest shall vest in the Central Government on the ap pointed day
Section 43 which is an amended section gives the Central Government powers to correct any error omission or misdescription in relation to the particulars of a coking coal mine included in the First Schedule or the name and address of the owner of any such coking coal mine
Section 5 also refers to the owner of each of the coke oven plants specified in the second Schedule
He wants to emphasise the fact that these sections by referring to owners mentioned in the schedule by name seek to exclude those who are not mentioned therein
Then he relies upon Section 10 of the Act for the same purpose Section 10 reads as follows 10
Payment of amount to owners of coking coal mines The owner of every coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines specified in the second column of the first schedule shall be given by the Central Government in cash and in the manner specified in section 21 for vesting in it under section 4 the right title and interest of the owner in relation to such coking coal mine or group of coking mines an amount equal to the amount specified against it in the corresponding entry in the fifth column of the said Sched ule
 Here also the section shows that the amount of compensation is to be paid to the owner of the coking coal mine specified in the second column of the First Schedule
Reliance was also placed on Section 12 for the same purpose
Section 121 and Section 122 also refer to the owner mentioned in the first schedule
It is better to quote Section 121 and 122 121 In consideration of the retrospective operation of the provisions of section 4 and section 5 there shall be given by the Central Government in cash to the owner of every coking coal mine specified in the First Schedule of the owner of every coke oven plant specified in the Second Schedule an amount equal to the amount which would have been but for the provisions of the said section 4 or section 5 as the case may be payable to such owner under the  for the period commencing on the 1st day of May 1972 and ending on the date of assent
493 2 In addition to the amount speci fied in sub section 1 there shall be given by the Central Government in cash to the owner of every coking coal mine specified in the First Schedule and the owner of every coke oven plant specified in the Second Schedule simple interest at the rate of four per cent per annum on the amount specified against such owner in the corresponding entry in the fifth column of the First Schedule or the Second Schedule as the case may be for the period commencing on the date of assent and ending on the date of payment of such amount to the Commissioner
 Emboldened with these submissions specious though and the sections he ventured to meet the difficulty pased by Section 20 of the Act which does not use the same phraseolo gy as in Sections 4 5 10 and 12
Chapter VI deals with Commissioner of Payments
By Section 201 in this chapter the Central Government is given power to appoint the Commis sioner of Payments
It is necessary to read this Section to see how it is worded
201 For the purpose of disbursing the amounts payable to the owner of each coking coal mine or coke over plant the Central Government shall appoint such person as it may think fit to be the Commissioner of Payments
 The phraseology used in this section catches one s eyes immediately
Here the words used are the amounts payable to the owner of each coking coal mine or coke oven plant
The word owner  is not qualified with the expression specified in the second column of the First Schedule
Section 21 in the same chapter is also useful for this discussion
It reads 211
The Central Government shall within thirty days from the specified date pay in cash to the Commissioner or payment to the owner or a coking coal mine or coke oven plant a sum equal to the sum specified against the coking coal mine or coke oven plant as the case may be in the First Sched ule or the Second Schedule together with the amount and interest if any referred to in section 12
2 In addition to the sum referred to in sub section 1 the Central Government shall pay in cash to the Commissioner such amount as may become due to the owner of a coking coal mine or coke oven plant in rela tion 494 to the period during which the management of the coking coal mine or coke oven plant re mained vested in the Central Government In Section 211 and 212 the owner of a coking coal mine or coke oven plant is not qualified with the expression as specified in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule
Section 213 directs the Commissioner appointed under the Act to open and operate an account in a scheduled bank in respect of each coking coal mine or coke oven plant
Section 214 stipulates that the Commissioner shall deposit the amount of compensation to the credit of the account of the coking coal mine or coke oven plant to which the payment relates and section 215 states that interest accruing on the amount standing to the credit of the account shall ensure to the benefit of the owner of coking coal mine or coke oven plant as the case may be
It is necessary to note that in these sub sections the owner is not specified by name as the owner specified in the second column of the First Schedule
Absence of this specification in the above sections thus creates difficulty for the appellants
Mr Kacker tried to get out of this difficulty by contending that the expression owner specified in the First Schedule  must be read into these sections also though they are absent there
This attempt to deny any fights to the respondents 1 and 2 on such a plea cannot in our view succeed
The sections occurring in Chapter VI have deliberately avoided the ex pression the owners in the First Schedule so as to achieve the object of the definition owner  in the  which definition has been bodily borrowed by this Act
We conclude this discussion holding agreeing with the decision of this Court referred to above that respondents 1 and 2 as occupiers are also owners
If the owner whose name is men tioned in column 4 is alone entitled to the compensation then there was no need for the remaining sections in Chapter VI for apportionment of the amount after considering the various clauses
What remains now is to lay down the guide lines to the Commissioner regarding the priorities in which the debts due by the mine owners have to be paid
Section 12 A deals with the workers  dues
It reads 12 A Workers dues to be paid out of the amount 1 Out of the amount payable a under section 10 and section 12 to the owner of 495 every coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines b under section 11 and section 12 to the owner to every coke oven plant there shall be paid to every person employed by such owner a sum equal to the amount of arrears due on the appointed day to such employee i in relation to a provident fund pen sion fund gratuity fund or any other fund established for the welfare of such employee and ii as wages
2 Every employee to whom the whole or any part of the arrears referred to in sub section 1 is due shall file the proof of his claim to the Commissioner within such time after the commencement of the Coking and Noncoking Coal mines Nationalisation Amendment Act 1973 as the Commissioner may fix
3 The provisions of Section 23 shall as for as may be apply to the filing admission or rejection of the proofs referred to in sub section 2
4 The Commissioner shall after the admis sion or rejection of the claims made under sub section 2 determine the total amount of the arrears referred to in sub section 1 and shall after such determination deduct in the first instance out of the amount paid to him under section 21 a sum equal to the total amount of such arrears
5 All sums deducted by the Commissioner under subsection 4 shall in accordance with such rules as may be made under this Act be credited by the Commissioner to the relevant fund or be paid to the persons to whom such sums are due and on such credit or payment the liability of the owner of the coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines or coke even plant as the case may be in respect of the amounts of arrears 496 due as aforesaid shall stand discharged
6 The deduction made by the Commis sioner under sub section 4 shall have prior ity over all other debts whether secured or unsecured
7 Save as otherwise provided in the foregoing subsections every secured debt due from the owner of a coking coal mine or group of coking coal mines or coke oven plant as the case may be shall have priority over all other debts and shall be paid in accordance with the rights and interests of the secured creditors
 This section makes the owner who has employed the workers liable for their wages and other dues
This section contains the procedure for making the claim its proof and determina tion
The important fact to be noted regarding these dues is as provided in sub section 6 that the payment under this section shall have priority over all other debts wheth er secured or unsecured
This is made further clear by Section 232 also
Secured creditors come next in priority
They will have priority regarding their dues subject to the amounts payable to the workers
Now coming to the other claims we will briefly examine the relevant sections
The amount of compensation payable under the Act is kept at the disposal of the Commissioner of Payment by the Central Government
Section 23 provides that every person who has a claim against the owner may prefer the same before the Commissioner within the stipulated period
We have already noted that section 232 provides for priority of payments for debts in the nature of wages and salary amounts due towards contribution payable under the Provident Fund Act amounts due under the Workmen s Compensation Act amounts due to the employees from pension gratuity
This section in addition speaks of sums due to the State Government as royalty rent or dead rent
Section 233 provides that the amount payable under sub section 2 mentioned above shall rank equally among themselves and be paid in full and if the assets are not sufficient the balance amount payable shall abate
This section should be read subject to Section 12A6 and 7
The sums due to the State Government shall be subject to amounts payable to employees and secured creditors because Section 232 speaks of payment of debts mentioned therein in priority to all other unsecured debts
Section 234 to 9 lays down the procedure for entertaining and hearing of the claims against the 497 Owner
There is provision for giving a heating to the claim ants as well as to the owner before the Commissioner
The decision of the Commissioner is subject to appeal the Appellate Court being the Principal Civil Court of original Civil Jurisdiction within whose local limits the relevant mine is situated
Section 24 provides that where the total amount of claim admitted by the Commissioner does not exceed the amount of money payable to the owner under the Act then the amount of admitted claim shall be paid in full and the balance remaining shall be paid to the owner
It also pro vides that when the amount payable to the owner falls short to meet the full and total demand of the admitted claim then every such claim is to abate in equal proportion and shall be paid accordingly
Section 25 makes provision for payment of amounts advanced by the Central Government for the man agement of the mine
It is stipulated therein that such amounts can be recovered either out of the income derived by the mine in the period during which the same remained under the management by the Central Government till the ownership vested in it or if the amount advanced is not so recovered then the Central Government is enabled to make a claim before the Commissioner and this claim will have priority over the claim of all other unsecured creditors of the mine
In considering this claim the Commissioner will have to see to which owner advances were made and after ascertain ing this fact make such owner liable for the advances
Section 26 deals with cases where doubt or dispute arises as to the right of the person who is entitled to receive the compensation
The section provides that the Commissioner shall refer the claim to the Court of competent jurisdiction which in relation to a coking coal mine or coke oven plant means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the coking coal mine or the coke oven plant is situated in the event of there being a doubt or dispute as to the fight of a person to receive whole or any part of the amount referred to in sections 10 11 and 12
After reading the scheme of the Act it is now necessary to lay down further guide lines to the Commissioner as to how the amount of compensation has to be apportioned
We have seen above that raising contractors will also come within the ambit of the expression owner  in the Act
Therefore they are also entitled to pro rata distribution of the compensation deposited
Before the High Court re spondents 1 and 2 pleaded that out of the amount which is payable all the claims admitted by the Commissioner under Section 23 cannot be deducted from the share of the compen sation amount
In other words the con 498 tention was that debts due by the company should not be taken into account when the amount due to the raising con tractors is ascertained
That is the share of the raising contractors in the amount of compensation should not be burdened with the debts of the original owner
It is submit ted that there are huge claims against the company
If those debts were to be deducted from the gross amount specified in column 5 of the First Schedule it would work serious hard ship to the raising contractors and would be doing violence to the scheme of the section and at the same time doing injustice to those who are not liable for the said debts
The definition of the word owner  clearly indicates that there may be more than one owner within the meaning of the section 2n in relation to a mine
Each of them would be entitled to a portion of the amount shown in column 5 of the First Schedule
Claims admitted can be deducted only from the amount payable to that owner against whom the admitted claim relates
To read sections 23 and 24 to mean that all the owners must bear burden of the admitted claim irrespec tive of the fact as to who is liable under these claims would be to do injustice to the section and doing violence to the language of the section
The proper manner in which these sections have to be understood is that the admitted claims can be deducted from the amount payable only when such claim relates to the owner concerned
In other words it is only the owner who has incurred the said debt that would be liable to pay the same
Care should be taken to see that the amounts of debts of one owner is not deducted from the compensation amount payable to the other owner who does not owe that money
The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that his clients should not be visited by adverse consequences by burdening their share of compen sation with the company s debts is well founded
The section cannot be read to create such an undesirable situation
Care should be taken in ascertaining the debts of each owner not to identify the debts the burden of which will fall on which owner
Then comes section 25 A which enables the Commissioner to make payment to the owners
It reads 25 A Notice to owners of coking coal mines of coke oven plants and managing contractors etc
1 After meeting the liabilities of persons whose claims have been admitted under this Act the Commissioner shall notify in such manner as he may think fit the 499 amount of money available with him and specify in such notification a date within which the owners of the coking coal mines or coke oven plants the managing contractors and the owners of any machinery equipment or other property which was vested in the Central Government company under this Act and which does not belong to the owners of the coking coal mines or coke oven plants may apply to him for payment
2 Where any application is made under sub section 1 the Commissioner shall after satisfying himself as to the right of the applicant to receive the whole or any part of the amount pay the amount to the person concerned and in the event of there being a doubt or dispute as to the right of the person to receive the whole or any part of the amount the Commissioner shall deal with the application in the manner specified in sub section 1 of Section 26
 This section deals with the distribution of the balance amount after meeting the liabilities
This has to be dis tributed according to the fight of each owner determined by the Commissioner and in case of dispute refer the dispute to a competent court
In this case there are five mines
The appellants claim to be the exclusive owner of all the five mines
We have held that respondents 1 and 2 are also owners
But they do not claim right in all the mines
Under Section 263 newly inserted by the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws Amendment Act 1986 No 57 of 1986 it is for the Commissioner to apportion the amount as indicated therein
The amended clause 3 reads as under 3 Where the amount specified in the fifth column of the First Schedule is relata ble to a group of coking coal mines the Commissioner shall have power to apportion such amount among the owner of such group and in making such apportionment the Commissioner shall have regard to the highest annual pro duction in the coking coal mine during the three years immediately preceding the appoint ed day
 The Commissioner will have to determine the share of the compensa 500 tion of the mine claimed by respondents 1 and 2 in accord ance with this section
We have indicated above the guidelines to be adopted in apportioning the compensation
We find that the High Court was correct in its conclusions
The appeal has therefore to fail and accordingly is dismissed with costs of Respondents 1  2
MLA Appeal dis missed


Summary:
Respondent Nos 1 and 2 were carrying on business as raising contractors and selling agents of Coking Coal of working coal mines
Pursuant 10 an agreement with the appel lant company appointing them us contractors to raise and sell coal and manufacture hard coke in respect of the un worked mines they installed valuable machinery utensils and cake ovens at a heavy cost
On the nationalisation of the coal mines by the all the mines vested in the Government
Respondent Nos 1 and 2 flied a claim under s26 of the Act before the 4th respondent the Commis sioner of Payment the statutory authority constituted under the Act and also moved the High Court by way of a writ petition contending that they were also owners of some of the mines in dispute and were entitled to their shares in the compensation and prayed for a direction that they he paid compensation at the market value for machinery plant equipment building stores etc
A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that respond ent Nos 1 and 2 were owners under the Act and directed respondent No 4 to proceed with the claim according to law
Dismissing the appeal by the appellant this Court HELD 1
A combined reading of ss4 and 5 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the right title interest of the owners in relation to the mines and the coke oven plants prescribed in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule vests in the Central Government free from all encumbrances on the appointed day
491H 492A 21
The term owner  has been defined in section 3a
It is clear 485 from the definition that it takes within its ambit occupier of the mine or any part thereof
The definition of the word owner  clearly indicates that there may be more than one owner  within the meaning of s3n in relation to a mine
Each of them would be entitled to a portion of the amount shown in column 5 of the First Schedule
Raising contractors will also come within the ambit of the expression owner  in the Act
Therefore they are also entitled to pro rata distribution of the compensation deposited
497G H In the instant case it cannot be disputed that respond ent Nos 1 and 2 admittedly a raising contractors were in occupation of at least part of the mines for their operation and thus an occupier within the definition
They do not come within the exclusion clause in the definition section
Therefore respondent Nos 1 and 2 are owners  within the definition of section 3n of the Act
490C D Industrial Supplies Private Limited vs Union of India   relied upon
Sections 201 and 211 to 5 of the Act occur ring in Chapter VI of the Act have deliberately avoided the expression the owners in the First Schedule  so as to achieve the object of the definition owner  in the Minos Act 1952 which definition has been bodily borrowed by this Act
If the owner whose name is mentioned in column 4 is alone entitled to the compensation then there was no need for the remaining sections in Chapter IV for apportionment of the amount
494E F 31
Section 12 A makes the owner who has employed the workers liable for their wages and other dues and contains the procedure for making the claim its proof and determina tion
The important fact to be noted regarding these dues is as provided in sub section6 that the payment under this section shall have priority over all other debts wheth er secured or unsecured
This is made further clear by Section 232 also
496C D 3ii Secured creditors come next in priority and will have priority regarding their dues subject to the amounts payable to the workers
496D 3iii The amount of compensation payable under the Act is kept at the disposal of the Commissioner of Payment by the Central Government
Section 23 provides that every person who has a claim against the owner may prefer the same before the Commissioner within the stipulated period
496E F 486 3v Section 234 to 9 lays down the procedure for entertaining and hearing of the claims against the owner
There is provision for giving a hearing to the claimants as well as to the owner before the Commissioner
The decision of the Commissioner is subject to appeal the Appellate Court being the Principal Civil Court of original Civil Jurisdiction within whose local limits the relevant mine is situated
496H 497A B 4
Section 25 makes provision for payment of amounts advanced by the Central Government for the management of the mine
It is stipulated therein that such amounts can be recovered either out of the income derived by the mine in the period during which the same remained under the manage ment by the Central Government till the ownership vested in it or if the amount advanced is not so recovered then the Central Government is enabled to make a claim before the Commissioner and this claim will have priority over the claim of all other unsecured creditors of the mine
497C D 5
Section 26 deals with cases where doubt or dispute arises as to the fight of the person who is entitled to receive the compensation and provides that the Commissioner shall refer the claim to the court of competent jurisdic tion
497E F 6
The proper manner in which sections 23  24 have to be understood is that the admitted claims can be deducted from the amount payable only when such claim related to the owner concerned
In other words it is only the owner who has incurred the said debt that would be liable to pay the same
Care should be taken to see that the amounts of debts of one owner is not deducted from the compensation amount payable to the other owner who does not owe that money
498D E 71 Section 25A deals with the distribution of the balance amount after meeting the liabilities
This has to be distributed according to the right of each owner determined by the Commissioner and in case of dispute refer the dispute to a competent court
499D E 72
The Commissioner will have to determine the share of the compensation of the mine claimed by respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with section 262
499H 500A