9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhya Pradesh on 3rd November, 1966 granted a mining lease over an area of 28.00 acres in Village Kari, District Tikamgarh, (M.P.) to one Rajendra Nath Bhaskar for extraction of Pyrophyllite and Diaspore minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1957") read with Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1960") for a period of twenty years commencing from 3rd November, 1966 to 2nd November, 1986. After about 13 years, a notice dated 18th September, 1979 was issued to said Rajendra Nath Bhaskar by the Collector, Tikamgarh to show cause as to why his mining lease should not be revoked on the ground of certain breaches committed by him which were discovered during the inspection made by the Mining Inspector on 28th May, 1979. Rajendra Nath Bhaskar submitted his reply on 3rd October, 1979 and denied the alleged breaches. Thereafter, by an order dated 5th April, 1980, determination of the lease was done by the State Government in accordance with the then Rule 27(5) of the Rules, 1960, on the ground of contravention of Clause(f) and (g) of subrule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules, 1960. A Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust, 1990 and 8th December, 1993 were inadvertently sent. 5. The first respondent, one of the legal heirs, made representations, inter alia, on 28th August, 1996, 14th April, 1997 and 23rd September, 1997 to allow him to do mining for rest of the period of 6 years, 6 months and 29 days but it has not been made clear as to why no representation was made by legal heirs for more than 10 years after the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed on 16th July, 1986. 6.Receiving no reply, the first respondent filed a contempt petition No. 186 of 1998 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which was dismissed on the ground of being time barred. However, an observation was made by Madhya Pradesh High Court that it could hope and trust that the Government would implement the order passed in the year 1986, if they had not implemented the same so far. 7. For the first time, the State Government responded on 21st April, 1999 declining to extend the mining lease. It was communicated that in view of the order passed by the High Court on 16th July, 1986, the mining lease was automatically restored for the remaining period upto 2nd November, 1986. In absence of any direction given by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t holding that the grant could not have been made in favour of the Mining Corporation and that the first respondent was entitled to the benefit of remaining expired period of the original lease to begin from the date the decision was taken by the State Government, but subject to the first respondent complying with all the requirements of the Act and Rules and any other applicable law and paying the dead rent and other charges as required by law. The common order passed in those two writ petitions was upheld by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by its common Judgment dated 20th April, 2011. 11. Learned counsel for the State and the Mining Corporation assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (a) Original Lessee Rajendra Nath Bhaskar having died on 7th September, 1982, the lease comes to an end. As per Rules, 1960 as was prevailing in June, 1982, if lessee dies during the continuation of the lease, a fresh application has to be presented by his heirs or legal representatives if they are continuing the business of the deceased and have the required qualification to obtain a grant on account of special reason for grant. In absence of any such application filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for grant of fresh mining lease. Admittedly, after the death of the lessee (7th September, 1982), legal heirs including the first respondent never applied for fresh grant of lease. It has also not been made clear that whether any one of them have required qualification for grant of mining lease. 16. In view of the aforesaid fact, we hold that 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. 17. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in G. Buchivenkata Rao v. Union of India & Ors., (1972) 1 SCC 734. In the said case, this Court held as follows: "14. It has to be remembered that, in order to enable a legal representative to continue a legal proceeding, the right to sue or to pursue a remedy must survive the death of his predecessor. In the instant case, we have set out provision showing that the rights which an applicant may have had for the grant of a mining lease, on the strength of an alleged superior claim, cannot be separated from his personal qualifications. No provision has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which reads as follows: "25A. Status of the grant on the death of applicant for mining lease.( 1) where an applicant for grant or renewal of mining lease dies before the order granting him a mining lease or its renewal is passed, the application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease shall be deemed to have been made by his legal representative. (1.2)In the case of an applicant in respect of whom an order granting or renewing a mining lease is passed, but who dies before the deed referred to in subrule (1) of rule 31 is executed, the order shall be deemed to have been passed in the name of the legal representative of the deceased." 19.The aforesaid substituted provision of Section 25A is not applicable in the present case as it was not a case of death of the applicant during the pendency of grant or renewal of mining lease. Further Section 25A having inserted nine years after the death of the assessee, the first respondent and the other legal heirs cannot derive advantage of the same. 20. The Original Lessee died on 7th September, 1982 during the pendency of Miscellaneous Petition No. 805/81 and much before the final order dated 16th July, 1986 passed in the said case by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
