Mine contractor treated as owner for vesting, and mine-related subsidy counted as due under the nationalisation scheme.

A raising contractor of a coking coal mine was treated as an owner for vesting purposes because the Nationalisation Act incorporated the Mines Act definition, which includes a contractor working the mine. On that construction, mine-linked machinery, plants, equipment and other assets installed or brought in by the contractor vested in the Central Government. A subsidy or reimbursement claim for expenditure on sand stowing and hard mining operations was also an amount due to the mine, not shown to be subject to any restricted trust or purpose, and was therefore recoverable and usable under the statutory adjustment scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a raising contractor of a coking coal mine falls within the definition of "owner" for the purposes of vesting under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and whether the machinery, plants, equipment and other assets installed or brought in by such contractor vest in the Central Government; (ii) whether the subsidy amount receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board was an amount due to the coking coal mine capable of being appropriated under section 22 of the Act.

Issue (i): whether a raising contractor of a coking coal mine falls within the definition of "owner" for the purposes of vesting under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and whether the machinery, plants, equipment and other assets installed or brought in by such contractor vest in the Central Government.

Analysis: The definition of "owner" in section 3(n) of the Nationalisation Act incorporates the meaning assigned by section 2(1) of the Mines Act, 1952, which includes a contractor for the working of a mine as if he were an owner. The contractor had actual possession, dominion and control over the mine under the agreement and was therefore an occupier within the statutory meaning. The legal fiction was to be given full effect, and a narrow construction would defeat the object of nationalisation and allow contractors to retain mine-linked assets despite vesting.

Conclusion: The raising contractor was within the statutory concept of owner for the purpose of section 4(1), and the assets connected with the working of the mine vested in the Central Government.

Issue (ii): whether the subsidy amount receivable from the erstwhile Coal Board was an amount due to the coking coal mine capable of being appropriated under section 22 of the Act.

Analysis: The amount was claimed as reimbursement for expenditure already incurred on sand stowing and hard mining operations, and was not impressed with any specific trust or restricted purpose. Even if the grant were treated as assistance under the relevant rules, it would still be a sum due to the mine before the appointed day and would fall within the scheme of section 22 for discharge of liabilities.

Conclusion: The subsidy amount was recoverable under section 22 and could be utilised in accordance with the Act.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to vesting failed and the claim to retain the subsidy also failed, leaving the statutory acquisition and adjustment scheme intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractor for the working of a mine, who is in actual occupation and control, is treated as an owner for vesting purposes where the governing statute incorporates the Mines Act definition, and a reimbursement claim for mine-related expenditure is an amount due to the mine unless it is shown to be impressed with a legally restricted purpose.

---