AJIT SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 03-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJIT SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
NOVEMBER 3, 1995 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977-'Rules 19( 1), 56, 
57, 59(1)'-Time for extension of lease-Relevant date for counting three 
months-Held, it has to be reckoned from date of receipt of sanction and not 
C from date of grant of lease. 
Rules 56, 57, 59( 1}-Availability of land for regrant-Entry in the 
register of lease-Held, not applicable in cases of revocation of lease. 
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959-Circular 
D under-Situation as' to deemed revocation-Availability of regrant-Con-
tinued to apply even after the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1977 which 
are silent on the issue-Held such administrative order contained in the 
circular not inconsistem with Rules-Hence, permissible. 
E 
F 
A mining lease for marble in respect of 7500 sq. mts. in Rajasthan 
granted in favour of one 'R' in 1976 for 15 years was cancelled in 1979 . 
One 'B' applied for grant of mining lease for an area of 10.000 sq.mts. and 
he was granted an area of 7570 sq. mts. including a part of the area covered 
by the mining lease granted to 'R'. Since, he failed to execute a formal lease 
agreement in Form No. 8 within the period prescribed under the Rajasthan 
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, by virtue of Rule 19 thereof, the order 
for grant of mining lease stood revoked. The order of revocation was issued 
as per circular issued under Non-Principal Mineral Concession Rules, 
1959. 
Respondent No. 5 filed an application dated October 20, 1982 in 
G respect of the same area. However, the application was rejected by the 
Mining Engineer on the ground that the area was not available for grant. 
He filed another application on January 19, 1983 and the Appellant also 
filed an application on January 20, 1983 in respect of 22,500 sq. mts. The 
Mining Engineer granted the lease in respect of 10,173 sq. mts. in favour 
H of the appellant the lease was registered. The second application by 
750 
.... 
AJIT SINGH v. U.0.1. 
751 
Respondent No. 5 was rejected on the ground that it was pre-mature. 
A 
Respondent No. 5 filed two appeals against the orders whereby his 
applications were rejected. The appeals were dismissed by the Additional 
Director, Mines. The appeal against this order was partly allowed by the 
State Government. The Revision filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed by 
the Central Government. The Central Government held that the grant of. B 
mining lease in favour of 'B' stood revoked on October 12, 1982 when the 
period of three months for the execution of the lease deed lapsed and the 
first application by the Respondent No. 5 on October 20, 1982 could not 
be rejected on the ground that the area was not available for regrant. The 
Central Government did not go into the question as to whether the second C 
application submitted by Respondent No. 5 was premature. The Writ 
Petition filed by Appellant against the order of Central Government was 
dismissed by Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The Writ Appeal 
was dismissed by the Division Bench. 
Before this Court, the question raised was whether the first applica- D 
tion and the second application submitted by Respondent No. 5 were 
premature. 
The appellant contended that the relevant date for counting the 
period of three months for the purpose of execution of a formal lease E 
agreement has to be counted from the date of receipt of the sanction of the 
mining lease by the applicant and that the procedure of notifying the land 
for regrant under Rules 56 and 57 should be applied in all cases where 
lease is to be regranted. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the clear language used in sub-rule (1) of Rule 
19 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, the relevant 
date for counting the period of three months for the purpose of execution 
F 
of a formal lease agreement has to be counted from the date of the receipt G 
of the sanction of mining lease by the applicant. The first application dated 
20.10.1982 submitted by the Respondent No. 5 was, therefore, premature 
and was rightly rejected by the Mining Engineer. (756-F, 757-FJ 
2. Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules has no application in the present case 
and the application dated 19.1.83 submitted by Respondent No. 5 cannot H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A be said to be pre-mature on the basis of the provisions of Rule 56. [760-F] 
B 
c 
D 
3. Sinc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.