2013 (7) TMI 932 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether after the death of the original lessee, Rajendra Nath Bhaskar, all rights come to an end and the first respondent or any other legal heir(s) were neither entitled to continue with the lease nor entitled for renewal of lease?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of mining lease post the death of the original lessee.
2. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to interfere with the grant of lease by the State Government.
3. Entitlement of legal heirs to continue or renew the mining lease.
4. Delay and laches in seeking legal remedy by the legal heirs.
5. Creation of third-party rights in favor of the Mining Corporation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Mining Lease Post the Death of the Original Lessee:
The original lessee was granted a mining lease for 20 years starting from November 3, 1966. On September 7, 1982, the original lessee died, and no substitution application was filed by the legal heirs. The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the determination of the lease and directed the State Government to re-evaluate the matter. However, the legal heirs did not apply for a fresh grant of lease. The Supreme Court held that after the death of the original lessee, all rights under the lease came to an end, and the legal heirs were neither entitled to continue the lease nor to renew it.

2. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The State and the Mining Corporation argued that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of grant passed by the State Government pursuant to the direction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the Delhi High Court failed to consider the jurisdictional issue and should have directed the first respondent to seek relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

3. Entitlement of Legal Heirs to Continue or Renew the Mining Lease:
The legal heirs, including the first respondent, did not file a fresh application for the grant of a mining lease after the death of the original lessee. The Supreme Court referred to the precedent in G. Buchivenkata Rao v. Union of India, which established that legal representatives must apply afresh for a mining lease if they wish to continue the business. Rule 25A, inserted in 1991, which allows legal representatives to be deemed applicants for a mining lease, was not applicable as it was introduced nine years after the death of the original lessee.

4. Delay and Laches in Seeking Legal Remedy by the Legal Heirs:
The first respondent made representations and filed a contempt petition years after the original lessee's death and the High Court's order. The Supreme Court observed that the legal heirs did not explain the delay of over 14 years after the original lessee's death and 10 years after the High Court's order. The Court opined that the High Court should have dismissed the case on the grounds of delay and laches.

5. Creation of Third-Party Rights in Favor of the Mining Corporation:
During the pendency of the legal heirs' revision application, the State Government granted a lease to the Mining Corporation. The Supreme Court noted that third-party rights were created pursuant to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which was not challenged. The Delhi High Court failed to consider this and the jurisdictional issue, which led to the Supreme Court setting aside the Delhi High Court's orders.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, allowing the appeals by the State and the Mining Corporation. The legal heirs were not entitled to continue or renew the mining lease, and the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions filed by the first respondent. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →