Case: National Coal Development Corporation Vs. Manmohan Mathur

2. The facts are as follows: Chirimiri is a coal-bearing area. On February 1, 1957 the Government of Madhya Pradesh, acting in exercise of the functions of the Central Government underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 entrusted to it by the President under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution, issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act stating that the lands specified in Chirimiri village were needed for the prospecting of coal seams for development of collieries by the Central Government. On June 8, 1957 the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957) was enacted and was brought into force. On August 7, 1958 the Central Government purporting to act under Section 9 (1) of Act XX of 1957 issued a notification acquiring land measuring 145-75 acres described in the notification. In that notification it was stated that no objection was received after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. On April 16, 1964 the appellant gave notice to the respondent that he should vacate the said land within 30 days of the receipt of the notice and any superstructure and material that may be on that land be removed. It was also stated that the mining rights in village Chirimiri acquired by the Central Government has been vested in the appellant under an order of the Government dated September 30, 1958. The respondent was also informed that there were coal mines underneath his land and that the appellant would soon commence deploring operations. The petition under Article 226 was then filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court to retrain the appellant from enforcing the provisions of Act XX of 1957 against the respondent.

Court's reasoning:
In view of this amendment it is obvious that now under the scheme of Act XX of 1957, as amended by Act 51 of 1957 and Act XXIII of 1969 a notification under Section 4 (1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is by fiction a notification under Section 4 of Act XX of 1957; an objection under Section5 A ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is deemed to be an objection under Section 8 of Act XX of 1957. It is also provided that if no objection had been preferred under Section 5A ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the period specified in that Act, then it shall be deemed that a notification has been issued under S. 7 of this Act in respect of the land and further that no objection to the acquisition of the land or any rights in or over that land has been preferred under Section 8 of the Act and accordingly the Central Government may at any time make a declaration under Section 9 of Act XX of 1957 in respect of that land. By section 3 the effect of a decision of a Court is removed as if the provisions of Section 28 of Act XX of 1957, as amended by Act XXIII of 1969 were in force at all material times9. LearnedCounsel for the respondent could not point to anything by which the amending Act could be called in question.It was conceded that it was within the competence of Parliament to create the fictions it has created in the original Act XX of 1957 (sic) by the amending 51 of 1957?) and against by the amending Act XXIII of. Learnedcounsel, however, said that we must take a humane view of the position of a person like the respondent who would lose his all by the acquisition and that too through legislation which make the provisions fictional rather than real. As to the first part we can only say that if the law allows it, the Court must award it and as to the second part we say that this kind of legislation by making obligatory notifications fictional does not accord with our sense of propriety but we cannot say anything against it since Parliament undoubtedly possesses the power to make such fictions.