Summarize the following court judgment. 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 S.C.A. NO. 1021 of 1973. M.S. Gujral	 R.N. Poddar and Dalveer Bhandari for the appellant. U.R. Lalit	 N.M. Ghatate and S.V. 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 s.(l) of s.3 of the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act	 1973 w.e.f. May 1	 1973	 was or was not covered by the definition of the term 'mine ' in s.2(h)(xii) 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 i.e. 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 s.(1) of s.3 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle had been placed at the disposal of one D.D. 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 s.(1) of s.3 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 D.D. 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 & Ors.(l) 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 s.2(h)(xii) 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 s.(l) of s.3 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 Work.s ' case were made in the context of s.2(h)(xi). In the Act	 'mine ' in s.2(h) 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 s.2(h)(xi) 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 cl.(xii) 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 s.2(h) i.e. 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 s.2(h) 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 s.2(h) 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.	 p.573; Stroud 's Judicial Dictionary	 4th edn.	 Vol.1	 p.201. The staff car therefore fell within the definition of 'mine ' as contained in s.2(h)(xii) and vested in the Central Government under sub section (1) of s.3 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. S.R. Appeal allowed.

An Ambassador car No. MHX 3771 was purchased by M/s. 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 i.e. 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 2(h) 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 2(h) 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 2(h)(xii) 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 2(h)(xi) 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 s.(i) 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 2(h)(xi) 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 2(h) i.e 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 2(h)(xii) and not by section 2(h)(xi). [213G H; 214A B ; 213A B] New Satgram Works & Anr. vs Union of India ; distinguished