D.Basu, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against a Notification No S. O. 2043 dated the 1st August, 1963 under Section 3(1) and Notification No S. O. 1470 dated the 18th April, 1964 under Section 6(3) of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of this Act on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution in so far as it does not provide for compensation for the loss or injury to the sub-soil rights in the land over which the pipeline of the respondent No. 4 - the Indian Refineries Ltd. (since called as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) is being run.
(2.) Though there was some controversy at an earlier stage of the hearing as to whether and to what extent, the petitioner own interests in the surface as well as in the sub-soil of the disputed lands over which the pipelim is being run eventually, after the production of documents on either side, it has been acknowledged that the petitioner coal mine, known as the Sripur Colliery and the like lie in the sub-soil of various plots as scheduled in Annexure 'A' to the petition. The petitioner did present two applications to the competent authority prescribed under the said Act - one of those was a petition under Section 10 of the Act for awardine compensation to the injury damaee or loss sustained by the petitioner in his surface as well as sub-soil rights as may exist in the disputed plots. By his order of the 29th January 1965 the competent authority rejected the claim for compensation by a speaking order which states as follows: "Heard the Counsel for Lodna Colliery Co. Ltd. He stated his case in support of his claim for compensation for laying the Petro leum Pipeline, and thereby for their loss in underground right and for future blocking of clevelopment and expansion of coal mining P. P. Act 50 of 1962 however does not contemplate payment of compensation for such future, uncertain and apprehended claims. By this Right of User Act (50 of 1962) no restriction has been made in the underground coal mining operation. It is concerned with compensation for the temporary loss suffered in the surface rights only. In the circumstances the claim filed by Lodna Colliery cannot be entertained."
(3.) It is clear that the competent authority rejected the claim on the assumption that the Act contemplated payment of compensation only for damage to the surface and not for any loss caused to underground rights, whether relating to coal mining or otherwise. Without much elaboration, it can rightly be said that if this was the proper construction of the statute and sub-soil rights were likely to be affected, in fact, the statute would contravene Article 31(2) of the Constitution There is no doubt that there being no definition of the word 'land' in this statute of 1962, the definition of that term in the General Clauses Act would apply so as to include both surface and subsoil rights in the land which was sought to be affected by the statute in question. Though the object of the earliest law of Land ' Acquisition since 1863 has been to provide compensation for all material interests in a land recognised by law including subsoil rights, - experiencing in some difficulties - the Legislature passed a specific statute in respect of mining rights in the year 1885 by enacting the Land Acquisition (Mines) Act to remove any doubts that where mines 01 minerals were situate under the land which are desired to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the owner or occupier of such rights would be entitled to compensation;