Coal bearing acquisition law extends to dormant collieries, and mining restrictions and compensation provisions were upheld.

The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was construed to extend beyond virgin land and to cover dormant and previously worked collieries, because the statutory scheme in sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 used broad language and the exclusion in section 4(4) was limited to land where mining operations were actually being carried on in accordance with law. On constitutional challenge, the temporary restraint on mining was treated as a protected modification of rights under Article 31A(1)(e), and the acquisition provisions were supported by a complete compensation code under sections 13 and 14. The provisions were therefore upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 applied only to virgin land or also to dormant and previously worked collieries; (ii) Whether the impugned provisions infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2) of the Constitution, or were protected by Article 31A(1)(e).

Issue (i): Whether the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 applied only to virgin land or also to dormant and previously worked collieries.

Analysis: The preamble could not control clear statutory language. The scheme of sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 showed that the Act was not confined to land never previously worked. The power to prospect was expressed in broad terms, and the exclusion in section 4(4) was limited to land in which coal mining operations were actually being carried on in conformity with law. The reference in section 5(b) to undertakings of mining operations, read with the overall scheme, covered both initial commencement and resumption of operations after abandonment or discontinuance. The provisions for acquisition and objection likewise supported a wider operation of the Act. The absence of a separate compensation provision for minerals did not compel a narrower construction.

Conclusion: The Act applied to dormant and previously worked collieries as well as to virgin land, and the notification was not ultra vires the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned provisions infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2) of the Constitution, or were protected by Article 31A(1)(e).

Analysis: The temporary restraint on mining operations amounted to a modification of rights and fell within Article 31A(1)(e), which protected laws extinguishing or modifying rights under mining leases from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31. The restriction under section 5 was held reasonable in the context of prospecting operations. As to acquisition, the Act provided a complete compensation code in sections 13 and 14, specifying the principles and manner of determination. A challenge to the adequacy of compensation was barred by Article 31(2). Mineral interests were not treated as a separate tenement on these facts, and no independent compensation for minerals was required.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, and the provisions were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed in their entirety because the Act was construed to cover dormant collieries and its impugned provisions were upheld as constitutionally valid.

---