LexRAMLAL & SONS versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • B c D E 2 22 RAMLAL & SONS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN October 9, 1975 [A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (67 of 1957), s. 5 and the Mineral/Concession Rules 1949, r. 41-State Government demand- i/lg premium without vrio~ approval of Central Gdvemment-Validity. The appellant's tender for mining rights for mica was accepted in 1951. The appellant deposited the premium demanded and took possession of the land. The lease was for a period of twenty years but no lease was executed. ln 1967, the State Government directed that the appellant should vacate the land within a month from the date of the receipt of their order. The appel- lant challenged the order under Art. 226. but the High Court dismissed the petition. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : ( 1) In view of the facts, that the period of the purported lease had already expired, and no proper lease had been executed, there was no question of issuing a writ for granting the lease, or the appellant exercising an optio]l to renew the lease. [224H] ( 2) The appellant, however, was entitled to a refund of the illegally realis- ed premium deducting the sum received on account of compensation for the tmexpired perio<J. The State Government was under a legal obligation to act in accordance with the statutory rules applicable, namely, the Mineral Con- cession Rules, 1949, made in exercise of the power conferred under s. 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 when granting a lease. It could not impose terms and conditions according to its own whims ignoring or disregarding statutory rules which are binding on it, and conld not exercise a power unknown to the rules. There is no provision in the rules authoris.ing the realisation of premium. Rule 41, providing for conditions of the lease, specifically mentions royalty, dead Jent and 5urface rent but not premium. Under r. 41 (3) a mini'ng lease may contain any other special condi- tions subject to the prior approval of the Central Government; but no such prior approval was given in the present case, for the realisation of the premium. [225A-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1562 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the F 29th July, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 172 of 1970. G H D. V. Patel, S. M. Jain, for the appellant. Miss Maya Rao for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judg- ment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by whic;h an . appeal against the judgment of a single Bench was summarily rejected. In answer to a notification of March 29, 1950, issued by the State of Rajasthan inviting tenders for mining rights for mica on certain terms and conditions, the appellant submitted its tender which was accepted on December 30, 1950 and a notification in that behalf was made by the State Government on February 6, 1951, granting the mining lease for mica for block No. 6 (except sidries mine) in Bhil- wara District on payment of the tendered amount of Rs. 1,55,000. ., • ' ' -) • .• RAMLAL & SONS v. RAJASTHAN (Goswami, J.) 223 The lease was for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal of the lease for another 20 years as per conditions prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (briefly the Rules). A premmm of Rs. 1,55,000 was deposited by the appellant and possession was also handed over to it on March 15, 1951. The area originally was 6021 acres but later on a dam, by the name of Meza Dam, was constructed over some parts of the original area and the appellant was left to work on 2924 acres. It is stated that the appellant spent Rs. 5,65,000 between 1951 and 1955. It is also common case that no lease was executed within. six months of the acceptance of the tender as required. On June 19, 1955, the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, sent a notice to the appellant intimating that the orders sanctioning the lease stood revoked with effect from June 6, 1955. The appellant was asked by this notice to show cause why further action to take immediate possession of the area should not be taken. It may be noted that in this notice exception was taken for the appellant not executing the lease within the requisite period of six months which, it was mention
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.