9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia, by order dated July 12, 1982. Babulal Modi failed to execute a formal lease agreement in Form No. 8 with in the period prescribed under the 1977 Rules and by virtue of Rule 19 of the 1977 Rules the order for grant of mining lease stood revoked. Babulal Gupta, respondent No. 5 herein, filed an application dated October 20, 1982 for grant of lease in respect of an area which was overlapping the area held by Rajesh Vardia and subsequently granted to Babulal Modi. The said application of respondent No. 5 was rejected by the Mining Engineer, Udaipur, by order dated February 24, 1983 on the ground that the area for which lease was sought was not available for grant. Respondent No. 5 filed another application for grant of mining lease for the same area on January 19, 1983. Ajit Singh, appellant herein, also filed an application on January 20, 1983 for grant of mining lease in respect of an area covering 22,500 sq. mts. By order dated July 26, 1983 the Mining Engineer, Udaipur granted mining lease in respect of an area covering 10,173 sq. mts. out of the area of 22,500 sq. mts. for which the appellant had submitted the application and in pursuance the said order the appellant obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judgment dated April 4, 1991. The Special Appeal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 167 of 1991) filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned single judge has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by concurring judgments (per V.S. Kokje and R.R. Yadav. JJ. ). Two questions broadly arise for consideration in this appeal, viz, (i) whether the first application dated October 20, 1982 submitted by respondent No. 5 was prematures; and (ii) whether the second application dated January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 was pre-mature. For answering the first question, it is necessary to take note of Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules which provided as follows : 19. Execution of lease. - (1) Where a lease has been granted or renewed under these rules, the formal lease in Form No. 8 shall be executed within three months from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant and if no such formal lease is executed within the aforesaid period, the order granting the lease shall be deemed to have been revoked. The competent authority shall sign the agreement on behalf of the Governor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12, 1982 regarding grant of mining lease was received by respondent No. 5 on August 16, 1982 and the period of three months, when counted from August 16, 1982 expired on November 15, 1982 and, therefore, the application dated October 20, 1982 submitted by respondent No. 5 was premature. The other Judge [R.R. Yadav. J] while agreeing that the period of three months prescribed under Rule 19 has to be counted from the date of the receipt of the order granting sanction of the lease , was not inclined to disturb the order passed by the Central Government for the reason that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, would not permit the appellant to place before the Court fresh material, namely, Annexure 1-A to the writ petition, which showed that the letter dated July 12, 1982 granting the mining lease was received by Babulal Modi on August 16, 1982. According to Yadav. J. since the said document was not placed before any of the tribunals and the matter is to be decided by the State Government afresh after remand it would not be proper to make further comments on the same regarding its credibility and reliability. In view of the clear language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authenticity of these documents which have been filed by the appellant. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that the letter dated July 12, 1982 regarding grant of mining lease was received by Babulal Modi on August 16, 1982 and the period of three months for the execution of the formal lease, as required by Rules 19(1), expired on November 15, 1982 and the grant of mining lease in favour of Babulal Modi would be deemed to have been revoked only on November 15, 1982. The first application dated October 20, 1982 submitted by the respondent No. 5 was, therefore, pre-mature and was rightly rejected by the Mining Engineer by his order dated February 24, 1983. We may now came to the question whether the second application dated January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 was pre-mature. The answer to this question would depend upon the question whether on January 19, 1983 the area in question was available for grant. The appellant has placed reliance on the provisions of Rules 56 and 57 of the 1977 Rules in this regard. The said Rules provide as under : Rule 56. Availability of the areas for re-grant to be signified an entry in the register for mining lease and rent-cum- ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fails to execute a formal lease under Rule 19 and there is deemed revocation of sanction. Yadav J. has, however, held that no extract of entry from the register of mining lease has been filed to show the date on which the entry in the said register was made and that the alleged admission that an entry was made and that the alleged admission that an entry was also made in the register of mining leases maintained at the office of Mining Engineer, Udaipur was not sufficient to confer right on the appellant to obtain the lease of the disputed mining area on the basis of his application dated January 20, 1983 while respondent No. 5 had also moved an application for grant of the said area on January 19, 1983. According to the learned judge if the entry was made in the register on January 4, 1983, in pursuance of order dated January 4, 1983 then the application of respondent No. 5 dated January 19, 1983 and the application of the appellant dated January 20, 1983 would be mature and that if the entry in the register was made on any subsequent date, then it is to be decided by the State Government as to whether these two applications were mature or pre-mature. Shri Arun Jaitley, the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a has been removed and in Rule 59(1) of the 1986 Rules, which contains provisions similar to those that contained Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules, it has been provided : No area which has been previously held under a mining lease or in respect of which order of grant has been made but the same has been revoked shall be treated as available for regrant unless an entry to this effect has ben made in the register of mining lease, the area has been notified as `free area' on the notice boardi of Mining Engineer Assistant Mining Engineer and 15 days have elapsed from the date of such i notification and entry in the register. [emphasis supplied.] It must, therefore, be held that Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules has no application in the present case and the application dated January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be pre-mature on the basis of the provisions of Rule 56. The non-applicability of Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules would mean that there is no provision in the 1977 Rules for specifying the date on which an area in respect of which the grant of mining lease stands revoked under Rules 19(1) would be available for regrant. Yadav J. has expressed the view under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circular dated December 10, 1976 in respect of applications for lease of mining of minerals or lease of rent-cum-royalty. In paragraph 4 of the said Circular, it is stated : 4. Who has been granted lease of mining or rent-cum-royalty under Non- Principal Minerals Concessions Rule, 1959 and he does not execute contract in the prescribed tome as per Rules then on expire of prescribed period for execution of contract, the order of sanction deemed to be considered as revoked and that area should be notified as free zone according to Rules is appropriate time i.e. if the area is more than one mile than it should be published in the gazette and if the area is less than one mile then it should be notified on the Notice Board of the office for the period of 15 days. Paragraph 4 of the said Circular envisages a situation where grant of the lease stands revoked on account of failure on the part of the applicant to whom lease has been granted to execute formal lease deed as per the Rules and it requires that the areas should be notified as free zone according to Rules in appropriate time and if the area is more than one mile than it should be published in the gazette and if it is less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period prescribed for the execution of a formal lease deed under Rule 1991 of the 1977 Rules. No fault can be found in the said order dated January 4, 1983 when it says that `the area is available for re allotment after 15 days excluding the day of publication of the said order'. This would mean that the area became available for regrant only on January 20, 1983. The application dated January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 before the expire of 15 days from the day of publication of the order dated January 4, 1983 has, therefore, to be considered as pre-mature with regard to the area covered by the area for which mining lease had been earlier granted to Babulal Modi. Since we have come to the conclusion that the application dated October 20, 1982 and January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 were both pre-mature the same were liable to be rejected and the order of the Central Government dated March 18, 1987 as well as judgment dated April 4, 1991 of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated July 18, 1994 cannot be upheld and have to be set aside. The order of the State Government dated July 3, 1984 is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
