SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
State of Bihar and another, Appellants
Versus
Khas Karanpura Collieries Ltd. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 705-724 of 1971
Decided on 6-8-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. P. Singh Senior Advocate (M/s. S. C. Agarwal and Mr. V. J. Francis. Advocates with him), for Appellants; Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Senior Advocate (in C. A. 705/71), for Respondent No. 1, Mr. B. Sen, Senior Adv. (In CA. 709/71) In CAs. 705-713 and 718 and Respondents in 714/71, Mr. S. J. Sorabjee Sr. Adv. (In CA. 706/71), M/s. S. B. Sanyal, Mr. S. C. Banerjee Sr. Adv. (M/s. D. N. Mukherjee and A. K. Nag Advocates with them), for Respondents.
Where mining leases for coal mining were granted by erstwhile proprietors of estate who in terms granted sub-leases for mining purposes before October 1949 when the Mines and Minerals Act, 1948 and Mineral Concessions Rules 1949 came into force and the provisions of the Rules of 1949 did not apply to such leases and the State legislature passed Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which provided that in place of the original lessor the State shall be substituted as the lessor which shall subsist for the remainder of the period of lease and Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 also did not apply to mining leases in respect of coal, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 replaced 1948 Act came into force on June 1, 19S8 provided for payment of royalties on coal at the rate of 5% on coal removed after December, 28, 1957 but this was subject to rules being framed for leases granted prior to October 25, 1949, Section 30A was inserted in 19)7 Act by Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1955 giving retrospective effect requiring the lessees in respect to coal granted before October 25, 1949 to pay royalty at the rate specified or 21/2% whichever is higher and Bihar Land Reforms Act was amended by inserting section 10 A by Bihar Act 4 of 1965 acquiring the rights of sub lessees. The Central Government by notification dated January 1, 1966, applied the provisions to payment of royalty by the lessees or sub-lessees prior to the commencement of 19)7 Act. The High Court by an earlier decision held that the sub lessees were liable to pay royalty on coal at the rate of 5% from the date of vesting of the estate to May 31, 1958. In June 1968 made a demand for payment of royalty at the rate specified in the Mineral Concession Rule, 1949 from November 1951, the date of vesting of the lease till May 31, 1958 and also from June I, 1958 to December 31, 1965.
Held, that the demand for royalty at the rate of 5% for period prior to June 1, 1958 the date on which 1957 Act came into force is not justified in view of the fact that Rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 applied only to contractual leases by chapter IV of the said Rules and not to the Statutory leases which came into existence as a deeming provision embodied in section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
Held further that the demand for royalty for the period beginning with June 1, 1958 and ending December 31, 1965, is not justified in view of the fact that section 30A of 1957 Act has an overriding effect on the other provisions of the Act affording temporary protection from applicability of sections 9 (1) and 16 (1) of the Act not only to the leases granted before October 25, 1949, but also to the statutory leases which came into existence as a result of the operation of section 10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
JUDGMENT
JASWANT SINGH, J.:— This batch of 20 Civil Appeals Nos. 705 to 724 of 1971 by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution which are directed against the common judgment dated September 3, 1970, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raise important questions relating mainly to interpretation and scope of Section 30-A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act), shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Circumstances leading to these appeals in so far as they would be helpful in appreciating the points involved are : Prior to October 25, 1949, proprietors of big estates like Rajas of Ramgarh and Jharia granted, in exercise of their untrammelled discretion, mining leases of huge tracts of land in the districts of Hazaribagh, Dhanbad, and Singhbhum to various persons for winning and extracting coal for a period of 999 years in lieu of payment of premiums and fixed annual rental. There was in these leases either no stipulation for payment of royalty or the royalty stipulated for was very low. Except in a few cases, the lessees of these mining leases did not work the mines themselves and granted sub-leases thereof more or less on similar terms.
3. On September 8, 1948, the Central Legislature passed the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Act No. 53 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act) under Entry 36 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. The Act, as declared in its Preamble, was enacted as it was considered expedient in public interest to provide inter alia for the regulation of mines and for the development of minerals. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act prohibited the grant after the commencement of the Act of any mining lease otherwise than in accordance with the rules made under the Act. Sub section (2) of Section 4 of the Act provided that any mining lease granted contrary to sub-section (1) would be void and of no effect. Section 5 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make rules for regulating the grant of mining leases or for prohibiting the grant of such leases in respect of any mineral or in any area. Section 7 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of modifying or altering the terms and conditions of any existing mining lease i.e. any mining lease granted prior to the commencement of the Act, so as to bring such lease into conformity with the rules made under Section 5. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government made the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. Both the 1948 Act and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, came into force on October 25, 1949.
4. Rule 41 of the Mineral Concession Rules which related to the conditions of mining leases made it compulsory for every mining lease to include a condition enjoining the lessee to pay royalty on the minerals at the rate specified in the First Schedule to the Rules which in case of coal was 5% of the F. O. R. price.
5. The 1948 Act was extended to Chhota Nagpur by a notification dated January 16, 1950, issued under Section 92 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
6. The provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, did not apply to leases or sub-leases granted anterior to October 25, 1949.
7. The Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950. Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution which relate to the distribution of legislative powers and Entry 54 of List I (Union List) and Entry 23 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read thus :-
"Article 246. (1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respec
relied on : Chhatu Ram Horril Ram Pot. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Bihar Mines Ltd v. Union of India
State cfM. P. v. Dadabhoys New Chirimiri PonriHill Colliery Co. Put. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.