Khalid, J. - (1.) The coal mines were nationalised by the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, (for short 'the Act'). Under this Act, the mines vested in the Government with effect from 1st May, 1972. The Act contains a schedule showing the various mines which come under the nationalisation scheme. The mines involves in this appeals are shown as serial Nos. 112 to 116 in the First Schedule to the Act. The Schedule, in addition, shows the location of the mines, name and address of the owners of the mines and the amount of compensation. The owners' name in the fourth column of the mines involved in the appeal is shown as East India Coal Company Limited, the appellant before us and the total compensation as Rs. 93,23,500/-.
(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 were carrying on the business as raising contractors and selling agents of coking coal of working coal mines. According to them, Messrs Jardine Handerson Limited, who were the managing agents of the appellant-company, appointed them as contractors to raise and sell coal and manufacture hard coke in respect of the unworked mines, as per an agreement. It was alleged that they were entitled under the agreement to instal plant, machinery and other equipment for efficient discharge of their functions as raising contractors. Pursuant to this agreement, they installed valuable machinery, utensils and coke ovens at a heavy cost. After nationalisation, they felt that there would be difficulty for getting apportionment from the appellant-company, of their due share in the compensation. Therefore, they filed a claim under S. 26 of the Act before the 4th respondent, the Commissioner of Payment, Coking Coal Mines, a statutory authority constituted under the Act. They also moved the High Court by way of writ petition and contended that they were also owners of the mines under the Act and were entitled to their share in the compensation and prayed for a direction that they be paid compensation at the market value for machinery, plant, equipment, building, stores, etc., and in addition challenged the validity of the Act. The challenge against the validity of the Act became infructuous since the Act had been placed in the 9th Schedule. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the plea of the writ petitioners, who are respondents 1 and 2 here, held that these two were owners under the Act, and directed the 4th respondent to proceed with the claim according to law. It is against this Judgment that this appeal is filed by special leave.
(3.) The appellants before us in their challenge against the judgment of the High Court dispute the finding that respondents 1 and 2 were also owners under the Act and deny that they owned any part of the plant and machinery or equipment which had been taken over under the Nationalisation Act.;