BEG RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 18-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BEG RAJ SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure; Right to Relief 
C 
G.O. issued by the State Government for sand mining lease-Term of 
lease three to five years-Lease granted in favour of lessee for one year 
initially-Collector issued order for extension of lease by a further period of 
2 years-On revision, State Government held, there was likelihood of getting 
higher revenue by holding auction of mining rights, thus selling aside 
Collector's order-Jn writ proceedings, High Court held that State 
D Government was not justified in interfering with extension order since initial 
lease should hal'e been for 3 years but denied any relief on the ground that 
proposed auction would be in public interest and 3 year period had already 
ended-On appeal, Held: Right to relief should have been decided on the 
date on which petitioner commenced proceedings-However, under 
E exceptional circumstances due to subsequent/intervening events, relief could 
be denied in equity but it should not be denied only on account of time lost 
in proceedings-Lessee allowed to operate mine for remaining period of 
lease-Direction issued 
. State of Uttar Pradesh issued a G.O. to lease out mining rights of 
F Yamuna River Bed for 3 years to 5 years term. Appellant was granted lease 
for mining of such are!!, initially for a period of one year which was extended 
by the Collector by a further period of2 years. One competitor of the appellant 
filed a revision. State Government allowed the revision on the ground that 
Government have decided to hold auction of the mining rights in public interest 
and are likely to get higher re\•enue. Appellant preferred writ petition. High 
G Court dismissed it but opined that extension of mining rightSln favour of 
G 
' 
appellant was justified, however, denied the relief on the ground that auction 
of mining rights would be in public interest and 3 years period of lease came 
to an end. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that since the appellant made a huge 
530 
B.R. SINGH v. ST A TE 
531 
expenditure on mining area, as per State Government policy, he was A 
legitimately entitled to operate the mine for 3 years, State Government was 
not justified in interfering with the collector's order for extension of mining 
rights at the instance of a third party; and that despite the finding that the 
State Government was unjustified in setting aside collector's Order for 
extension of mining rights, the appellant was denied relief by the High Court. B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties 
stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and right to relief 
should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the 
portals of the Court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be C 
denied relief in equi~y because of subsequent or intervening events. The relief 
to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by 
lapse of time or may have been ~endered incapable of being granted by change 
in law. There may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant 
the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting D 
against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the 
date of judgment. Third party interests may have been created or allowing 
relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account of events 
happening in between. Else the relief may not be denied solely on account of 
time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum and 
for no fault of the petitioner. (534-8-E) 
E 
1.2. A petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief, the Court 
would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the same position 
in which he would have been ifthe wrong complained against would not have 
been done to him. The instant case is such a case. The delay in final decision F 
cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the appellant. (534-E-FI 
1.3. Merely because a little higher revenue can be earned by the State 
Government that cannot be a ground for not enforcing the obligation of the 
State Gonrn ment which it has incurred in accordance with its own policy 
decision. (534-G) 
G 
1.4. The appellant shall be allowed to operate mine for a full period of 
three years sub

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