Coal slurry rights and territorial writ jurisdiction examined; no enforceable lease or title by possession was found.

The writ petition was treated as maintainable in the High Court because territorial objection alone did not warrant rejection where one respondent had offices within jurisdiction and related facts were disputed. The claimed right to collect and remove coal slurry was held unenforceable: slurry was treated as a mineral, and its surface collection amounted to mineral-winning activity, so the indenture was in substance a mining lease requiring prior Central Government approval and, in any event, was overtaken by coal nationalisation legislation. The petitioners also failed to prove abandonment, as the coal company continued to assert ownership and sell the slurry, so no title arose by possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable in the High Court having regard to territorial jurisdiction under Article 226; (ii) whether the indenture executed by the State conferred any enforceable right on the petitioners to collect and remove coal slurry from the river bed and adjoining lands; and (iii) whether the slurry had been abandoned by the coal company so as to become available to the petitioners by possession.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable in the High Court having regard to territorial jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The jurisdictional inquiry turned on whether the respondents were located within the court's territorial limits or whether any part of the cause of action arose there. The impugned criminal proceeding and the alleged interference with the petitioners' asserted rights had taken place outside the territorial limits. The court nevertheless accepted that one respondent had offices within the jurisdiction and held that the writ should not be rejected solely on the preliminary objection of territorial incompetence or disputed facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was treated as maintainable in this court.

Issue (ii): whether the indenture executed by the State conferred any enforceable right on the petitioners to collect and remove coal slurry from the river bed and adjoining lands.

Analysis: The court held that the coal slurry and ejects were minerals within the meaning of the mining legislation. The expression "winning of mineral" was construed broadly to include collection from the surface and not merely excavation from below the earth. On that basis, the indenture was treated as a mining lease in substance. Such a lease could not be granted without previous approval of the Central Government under the mineral law, and in any event coal mining leases stood terminated by force of the nationalisation legislation. The State therefore lacked competence to confer the claimed right after the statutory regime had intervened.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no valid or subsisting right under the indenture to collect or remove the slurry.

Issue (iii): whether the slurry had been abandoned by the coal company so as to become available to the petitioners by possession.

Analysis: The court rejected the theory of abandonment. The materials showed continuous assertion of ownership and commercial sale of the slurry by the coal company. In the absence of proof that the owner had parted with title, possession by another could not defeat the true owner's title. The slurry was therefore not treated as res derelicta.

Conclusion: The slurry had not been abandoned and the petitioners acquired no title by possession.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on merits, and the respondents' ownership and control over the coal slurry were upheld; the interim protection granted earlier was withdrawn.

Ratio Decidendi: A surface deposit of coal slurry can amount to a mineral-winning operation, and a purported lease for its removal is ineffective where the statute requires Central Government approval and the later nationalisation regime has terminated coal mining rights.

---