- (1.) Amendment of the cause title is allowed. Intervention application is dismissed.
(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court dated 3/5/1985, made in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1260 of 1982. The appellant challenged in the above writ petition the directions dated 4/5/1981, order dated 30/9/1981 and a further order dated 9/6/1982 passed by the second respondent-chairman of Special Areas Development Authority (for short 'sada') , Singrauli, in the District of Sidhi ofm. P. directing the appellant under Section 26 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'adhiniyam') to pull down the constructions of the office buildings, staff quarters etc. made by the appellant contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam. In the High court, the controversy centred round the question as to whether the provisions of the Adhiniyam overlap the field occupied by the provisions of the Coal Act, the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act and Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') , The division bench held that these Acts have not occupied the field covered by the Adhiniyam and that, therefore, the Act is intra vires the powers of the legislature. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
(3.) It is contended by Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, that when the mining operations are to be carried out under the aforesaid provisions, it would include the building operations under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules') made under the Act. Therefore, the operation of the Adhiniyam stands excluded. Dr Ghatate, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent, resisted the contention contending that Adhiniyam regulates the development area under the Adhiniyam including the construction of buildings within the notified development plan in the zones; the appellant had constructed the buildings in Morwa and Jayanthi Villages without obtaining prior permission from thesada and that, therefore, the construction was in contravention of Section 26 of the Adhiniyam. He, therefore, contends that the action was correctly a taken and the central Acts have no application as regards the building operations are concerned. The question, therefore, is as to what is the exact scope of the operation of the Adhiniyam.;