Civil Appeal No 4512 of 1984 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated 211 the 27th October 1980 of the Bombay High Court in SCA NO
1021 of 1973
MS Gujral RN Poddar and Dalveer Bhandari for the appellant
UR Lalit NM Ghatate and SV Deshpande for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
This appeal by special leave directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur dated October 27 1980 raises a questions to whether a staff car of the Technical Advisor to the North Chirimiri Collieries owned by respondent No 1 the United Collieries Limited which was nationalized under sub sl of s3 of the Coal Mines Nationalization Act 1973 wef
May 1 1973 was or was not covered by the definition of the term mine  in s2hxii and therefore stood transferred to and became vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances
It is common ground that the Ambassador car No MHX 3771 was purchased by Messrs Karamchand Thapar  Bros Coal Sales Ltd Delhi in the year 1966 and was transferred to respondent No 1 United Collieries Limited the owners in relation to the North Chirmiri Collieries and it was therefore the owner of the said vehicle
On and from the appointed day ie May 1 1973 the right title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the Schedule stood transferred to and became vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub s1 of s3 of the Act
It is also not in dispute that the vehicle had been placed at the disposal of one DD Diddi the Technical Advisor to the North Chirimiri Collieries to be used as his staff car
Immediately after the nationalization of the coal mines the Deputy Custodian General Coal Mines Authority Limited Nagpur addressed a letter dated May 9 1973 to the aforesaid D D Diddi requiring him to hand over the staff car to the Custodian
In his reply dated May 25 1973 he asserted that although the said car belonged to respondent No 1 and had been allotted to him for use as a staff car it was not used exclusively for the North Chirimiri Collieries but used by him for looking after the multifarious activities of the Thapar Group of Industries which 212 was a composite concern with businesses other than coal mining
It is not necessary for us to refer to the long correspondence that A ensued between the parties
Eventually the Managing Director Western Division Coal Mines Authority Ltd Nagpur addressed letters dated August 9 1973 both to respondent No 1 and the erstwhile Technical Advisor stating that on coming into force of the Act the right title and interest of the North Chirimiri Collieries vested in the Central Government under sub s1 of s3 of the Act and therefore the car which was an asset belonging to the mine vested in the Central Government It further stated that if they failed to hand over possession of the car they would he liable to prosecution under the Act
Thereupon respondent No 1 United Collieries Limited the owners of the coal mine and the aforesaid DD Diddi the erstwhile Technical Advisor of the North Chirimiri Collieries
filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution before the Nagpur Bench of the High Court
The High Court held that the question as to whether the staff car should be treated as belonging to the owner of a mine as part of the mine itself raised disputed questions of fact relating to its user which would have to be determined on the basis of evidence
In taking that view the High Court purported to rely upon the decision of this Court in New Satgram Engineering Works  Anr
vs Union of India  Orsl and left the parties to have their rights adjudicated in a civil suit
It accordingly discharged the rule directing respondent No I to establish its claim by filing a civil suit with a direction that in the event of such a suit being filed the Civil Court will consider the making of an appropriate order for the grant of interim relief on condition of furnishing of adequate P security keeping in view that the Coal Mines Authority had been deprived of the staff car for all these years
We are afraid the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained
It failed to appreciate that in dealing with the question whether or not staff car was covered by the definition of mine  in s2hxii the nature of its user was immaterial
Undoubtedly the staff car belonged to respondent No 1 the United Collieries Ltd the owners in relation to the mine and it being the staff car of the Technical Advisor of the North Chirimiri Collieries was an asset belonging to the mine
The High Court should therefore have 1  213 answered the question in favour of the appellants and dismissed the writ petition on merits
Instead it misdirected itself into thinking A that the matter was covered by the decision of this Court in New Satgram Engineering works  case supra where it was observed that where there is a dispute as to whether a particular property vests in the Central Government or not under sub sl of s3 of the Act the dispute undoubtedly is a civil dispute and must therefore be resolved by a suit
These observations of the Court in New Satgram Engineering Works  case were made in the context of s2hxi
In the Act mine  in s2h is defined except what is immaterial in the following terms 2
Definitions In this Act unless the context otherwise requires h mine  means any excavation where any operation for the purpose of searching for the obtaining minerals has been or is being carried on
and includes vi all lands buildings works adits levels planes machinery and equipments instruments stores vehicles railways tramways and siding in or adjacent to a mine and used for the purposes of the mine xi all lands and buildings other than those referred to in sub clause x wherever situated if solely used for the location of the management sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff of the mine xii all other fixed assets movable and immovable belonging to the owner of a mine wherever situated and current assets belonging to a mine whether within its premises or outside
 It will be seen that there is difference in the language used in s2hxi and xii
Sub cl
xi uses the words if solely used  in relation to lands and buildings for the location of the management sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff or the mine while sub clxii uses the words belonging to the owner of a mine wherever situated 
The difference in language between the two expression if solely used  and belonging to the owner of a mine  is obvious
In New Satgram Engineering Works  case this 214 Court observed that it was therefore possible to contend that lands A and buildings appurtenant to a coal mine if not exclusively used for the purposes of the colliery business would not come within the definition of mine  in s2h ie it would depend upon the nature of user and that the crucial date is the date of vesting
It then went on to say that the distinction though apparent may not be real in the facts and circumstances of a particular case
The workshop or a building constructed initially for the purposes of a coal mine cannot by itself being diverted to other purposes cease to belong to a mine
What is of essence is whether the workshop or building originally formed a part and parcel of a coal mine
The Court laid down that the subsequent user may not be very material
The High Court was clearly in error in directing the parties to have the matter settled by a civil suit
Parliament by an enlarged definition of mine  in s2h of the Act has indicated the nature of the properties that vest and the question whether a particular asset is taken within the sweep of s2h depends on whether it answer the description given therein
The staff car in question was undoubtedly a fixed asset of the North Chirimiri Collieries and it belonging to respondent No 1 the United Collieries Ltd the owners in relation to the said mine being the staff car of the Technical Advisor was fixed asset  belonging to the mine
lt is righly not suggested that the staff car was not a fixed asset Fixed assets  in general comprise those asset which are held for the purpose of conducting a business in contradistinction to those assets which the proprietor holds for the purpose of converting into cash and they include real estate building machinery etc
 Words  Phrases Permanent Edition Vol 17 p 161 Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edn p573 Stroud s Judicial Dictionary 4th edn Vol1 p201
The staff car therefore fell within the definition of mine  as contained in s2hxii and vested in the Central Government under sub section
1 of s3 Coal Mines Nationalization Act 1973
Merely because the Technical Advisor was putting the staff car to his personal use or for multifarious activities of the Thapar Group of industries would not alter the true legal position since the subsequent user for a different purpose was not really germane
For these reasons the appeal must therefore succeed and is allowed with costs
The judgment and order passed by the High Court dated October 27 1980 relegating the parties to a civil suit is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
An Ambassador car No MHX 3771 was purchased by Ms Karamchand Thapar  Bros Coal Sales Ltd Delhi in the year 1966 and was transferred to respondent No I United Collieries Ltd the owners in relation to the North Chirimiri Collieries and it was therefore the owner of the said vehicle
On and from the appointed day ie May 1 1973 the right title and interest of the owners in relation to the coal mines specified in the schedule stood transferred to and became vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub section 1 of section 3 of the 
Immediately after the nationalisation of the coal mines the Deputy Custodian General Coal Mines Authority Limited Nagpur addressed a letter dated May 9 1973 to the Technical Advisor to the North Chirimiri Collieries using the said staff car to hand over if to the custodian
Since the car was not handed over on the plea that it was not used by the Technical Advisor exclusively for the North Chirimiri Collieries but used by him for looking after the multifarious activities of the Thapar Group of industries which was a composite concern With the businesses other than coal mining and therefore although the car belonged to respondent No 1 the owners of the North Chirimiri Collieries it was not a staff car belonging to the mine 
The Managing Director Western Division Coal Mines 
Authority by an order dated August 9 1983 directed the respondents to hand over possession of the car failing which they would be liable to prosecution under the Act
Thereupon respondent No 1 and the Technical Advisor assailed his order by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court
The High Court purporting to rely on the decision of this Court in New Satgram Engineering Works  Anr
vs Union of India  held that the question as to whether the staff car should be treated as belonging to the owner of a mine as part of the 210 mine itself raised disputed questions of fact relating to its user which would A have to be determined on the basis of evidence
lt accordingly discharged the rule and left the parties to have their rights adjudicated in a civil suit
Feeding aggrieved
Union of India preferred the appeal by special leave as the question involved affected a large number of cases
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD Parliament by an enlarged definition of mine  in section 2h of the Act has indicated the nature of the properties that vest and the question whether a particular asset is taken within the sweep of section 2h depends on whether it answers the description given therein
The staff car in question was undoubtedly a fixed asset of the North Chirimiri Collieries Ltd the owners in relation to the said mine being the staff car of the Technical Advisor was a fixed asset  belonging to the mine Fixed assets  in general comprise house assets Which are held for the purpose of conducting a business in contradistinction to those assets which proprietor they include real estate building machinery etc
The staff car therefore fell within the definition of mine  as contained in section 2hxii and vested in the Central Government under subsection 1 of section 3 of the 
Merely because the Technical Advisor was putting the staff car to his personal use or for multifarious activities of the Thapar Group of Industries would not alter the true legal position since the subsequent user for a different purpose was not really germane
214D G There is a difference in the language used in section 2hxi and xii Sub clause xi uses the words if solely used  in relation to lands and buildings for the location of the management sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff of the mine while sub clause xii uses the words belonging to the owner of mine wherever situated 
The difference in language between the two expressions if solely used  and belonging to the owner of a mine  is obvious
The observations of this Court in New Satgram Engineering Works case that where there is a dispute as to whether a particular property vest in the Central Government or not under sub si or section 3 of the Act the dispute undoubtedly is a civil dispute and must therefore be resolved by a suit where made in the context of section 2hxi of the Act
In that case it was observed that was therefore possible to contend that lands and buildings appurtenant to a coal mine if not exclusively used for the purpose of the colliery business would not come within the definition of mine  in section 2h ie it would depend upon the nature of user and that the crucial date is the date of vesting
The present case is clearly covered by section 2hxii and not by section 2hxi
213G H 214A B  213A B New Satgram Works  Anr
vs Union of India  distinguished