Back
1966 Supreme(SC) 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. .SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S.M. SIKRI, R.S. BACHAWAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
The Bihar Mines Ltd., (In all the three Appeals), Appellant
Versus
The Union of India and others (In all the three Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 172 to 174 of 1963, D/-3-10-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., with him), for Appellant (In all the three Appeals); Mr. Niren De, Addl. Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), (for Nos. 1 and 2) and M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., (for No. 3), for Respondents (In all the three Appeals).
A.K.SEN GUPTA, D.P.Singh, G.L.SANGHI, M.K.RAMAMURTHI, Mahinder Narain, NIREN DEY, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMAMURTHI, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.N.ANDLEY
A lease deemed to be granted by the State Government upon the vesting of an estate under land reform legislation is a new lease from the date of vesting, not an "existing mining lease" granted prior to the statutory cutoff date for modification rules.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 9 and 10 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 - Section 7 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 8, 16 and 29 - Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 - Rule 2(c) - Deemed lease under land reform legislation - Whether a lease deemed to be granted by the State Government upon vesting of an estate constitutes an "existing mining lease" or a "new lease" - A lease created by statute upon the vesting of an estate in the State is a new lease granted from the date of vesting and cannot be treated as a lease granted prior to the cutoff date specified in the modification rules. (Paras 8, 15, 18)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 31-A(1)(e) - Meaning of "winning" a mineral - In a popular sense, winning a mineral means getting or extracting it from the mine - A law providing for the premature termination of a lease for extracting a mineral is protected by Article 31-A(1)(e) and cannot be attacked on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, 19 or 31. (Para 21)
(C) Validity of Rules - Rules made under a repealed Act are deemed to be made under the succeeding Act if the succeeding Act contains a saving clause - The validity of such rules must be judged with reference to the current Act. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
A head lease was executed in 1928 for 49 years, followed by sub-leases in 1933 and 1934. Subsequently, the estate vested in the State under land reform legislation. Under the relevant state act, the subsisting lease was deemed to have been leased by the State Government for the remainder of the term. The Controller of Mining Leases terminated the leases to bring them in conformity with central legislation limiting lease periods for certain minerals to 20 years.
Findings of Court:
The statutory lease created by the state land reform act is a new lease granted after the cutoff date of October 25, 1949. Consequently, it does not fall within the definition of an "existing mining lease" and cannot be modified or terminated under the rules applicable to existing leases.
Issues: Whether a lease deemed to be granted by the State Government under Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, constitutes an "existing mining lease" under the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956, and whether the Controller had jurisdiction to modify such a lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when an estate vests in the State and a subsisting lease is deemed to be leased by the State Government, the original lease ends and a new statutory lease begins from the date of vesting. Since this new lease was granted after the specified date of October 25, 1949, it is not an "existing mining lease" and thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the Controller to modify under the 1956 Rules. (Paras 15, 18)
Result: Appeals allowed.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : (On behalf of himself, K. Subba Rao, CJI., and S. M. Sikri, J.) These three appeals, by special leave, are directed against the orders of the Central Government dated January 18, 1962, on applications for revision under R. 7 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956, hereinafter called the 1956 rules, in respect of the orders passed by the Controller of Mining Leases, Nagpur, on July 1, 1961, in Cases Nos. H-317, H-317A and H-317B.
2. The appeals arise thus. On August 11, 1928, Raja Ban Bahadur Singh of Palganj, in Bihar, executed a lease with respect to a certain area of his estate in favour of Babu Tribang Murani Chakravarti of Asansol for a period of 49 years for the purpose of carrying out mining operations in the said area for soap stone, kaoline etc. Chakravarti, the head lessee, executed a sub-lease in favour of Deoji Jairam Solanki on May 18, 1933. Solanki, in his turn, granted a sub-lease in respect of the same area in favour of M/s. Hirji Premji Parmar and Brothers on May 18, 1934. On October 18, 1954, M/s. Hirji Premji Parmar and Brothers, assigned their right, title and interest in the said area in favour of the appellants, the Bihar Mines Ltd., Calcutta, for a period of 19 years and 7 months expiring on May 17, 1974.
3. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act XXX of 1950), hereinafter called the Reforms Act, came in to force on September 25, 1952. On July 13, 1952, the Government of Bihar issued a notification under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 declaring that the estate of Palganj passed to and became vested in the State. On January 26, 1955, the State Government issued notification under S. 3A of the Reforms Act declaring that the intermediary interests of all intermediaries in the whole estate had passed to and become vested in the State. Clrakravarti s mining rights in the area comprised in the lease became subject to the provisions of S. 10 of the Reforms Act.
4. In 1948, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Central Act LIII of 1948), hereinafter called the 1948 Act, was enacted for the regulation of Mines. Section 4 (1) of this Act provided that no mining leases would be granted after the commencement of the Act otherwise than in accordance with the rules made under that Act. Sub-s. (2) provided that any mining leases granted contrary to sub-s. (1) would be void and of no effect. Section 5 empowered the Central Government to make rules for regulating the grant of mining leases in respect of any mineral or in any area. Section 7 empowered the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of modifying and altering the terms and conditions of any mining leases granted prior to the commencement of the Act so as to bring such leases into conformity with the rules made under S. 5.
5. The Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, hereinafter called the 1949 rules, were made by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under S. 5 of the 1948 Act. The 1956 rules were made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under S. 7. Rule 6 of the 1956 rules empowered the Controller of Mining Leases, after following the prescribed procedure, to modify any existing mining lease so as to bring it in conformity with the 1948 Act and the 1949 rules.
6. The Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act LXVII of 1957), hereinafter called the 1957 Act, repealed the 1948 Act. In view of its S. 29, the l956 rules continued to be effective.
7. The Controller of Mines took action for the modification of the head lease dated August 11, 1928, and the sub-lease executed in favour of Solanki and Hirji Premji Parmar and Brothers in 1933 and 1934 respectively. Notice was issued to the appellants of the proposed modifications. The appellants, however, do not admit having received the notice of the modifications of the sub-leases. They admit the receipt of the notice for the modification of the head lease. They appeared before the Controller and raised objections
