Case: Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Shri Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwala and Another

3. The crucial facts, necessary for appreciation of the order we make, are : the plaintiff was once the owner of a coal mine and also of a coal coke oven. He transferred the coal mine to another company and granted a lease of the coke oven to the same vendee. All this took place in 1967. Years later, under the Act above referred to, coal mines were nationalised and there was a separate provision therein for nationalisation of coke oven plants. While the colliery was nationalised by the Central Government by inclusion in the schedule to the Act, nothing was done under Section 5 of the Act to nationalise the coke oven plant. The plaintiff, upon nationalisation of the coal mine by the Parliament, demanded rent from the Central Government in whom the colliery had vested on the footing that the coke oven had not vested in the Central Government and it was, therefore, bound to pay rent for its use. The Central Government as defendant resisted the claim on the score (a) that the coke oven plant had also been transferred by the plaintiff along with the colliery and, therefore, he had no surviving title to it; and (b) in any case by virtue of the nationalisation of the mine, the coke oven also had passed and vested in the Central Government.4. The trial Court and the High Court upheld the claim of the plaintiff and negative both the contentions of the Central Government which has come up in appeal before us by special leave. We find considerable force in the contention of the plaintiff which has found favour with the courts below. It must be stated that the statute leaves much to be desired in the matter of precision and clarity with special reference to coke oven plants. Indeed, it is obvious that the coke oven involved in this case has been retained with the plaintiff as the documents disclose. The endeavour of Shri Sinha, appearing for the Union of India, to make out that the coke oven also had been transferred has been rightly negatived by the courts below. In fact, the thrust of Shri Sinhas argument was that even if the coke oven was owned by the plaintiff at the time of the nationalisation, since coke oven was not "coke oven plant", but an integral part of the mine, it must be deemed to have been passed to the Central Government under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is a little mystifying to hear counsel submit that there is a subtle distinction between coke oven and coke oven plant.The trial Court and the High Court upheld the claim of the plaintiff and negative both the contentions of the Central Government which has come up in appeal before us by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
There is force in this submission which means that the Central Government must treat all the owners of coke oven plants equally by resorting to appropriate legislation. It will be in the public interest and promotion of equity among the owners of coke oven plants to have a legislation whereby a central agency is created for equitable and rational fixation of fair and reasonable rents which should be payable by the Central Government to the owners of coke oven plants depending upon relevant considerations including the capitalised value of such plants. We also consider the in the light of the resolution of the dispute by us in the present judgment substantially scaling down the rent payable to the plaintiff, the earlier suggestion made by this Court in an interlocutory order regarding fresh legislation obviating payment altogether of any rent will be given up by the Central Government. Shri L. N. Sinha appearing for the Union of India agrees that this will be a fair gesture on the part of the Central Government.