SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1347

2007(8) Supreme 45
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
State of Haryana & Anr. — Petitioner
versus
Aravali Khanij Udyog & Anr. — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 5874 of 2000
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4855 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12611 OF 2001)
Decided on : 12-10-2007

important point
No relief can be granted where third party rights have been created.

Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 136 – In view of the respondent’s mining lease expiring long ago, third party right having been created in the interregnum and prohibition of all mining activities in the area, no relief could be granted to the respondent and direction of the High Court could not be implemented – However respondent could held at liberty to claim damages if permissible in law. (Paras 10 and 11)

       Facts of the case :

       1.On 18.02.1980, lease of mining silica sand was granted to the respondent M/s Aravali Khanij Udyog in respect of 139 hectares of land in certain areas Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana for a period of 20 years by the appellants. State Government took a policy decision in August, 1984 to grant the mining lease of ordinary sand also to the lessee of silica sand for the purpose of systematic and harmonious mining in accordance with the Regulation No. 106 of Metalliferrous Mines Regulation, 1961.

       2.As per the said decision, on 27.09.1984, the respondent was advised to apply for the mining lease of ordinary sand. On their failure to act accordingly despite reminders, ultimately the mining lease was prematurely terminated on 06.05.1986.

       3.Respondent filed a revision before the Central Government who while restoring the mining lease of the respondent also directed them to apply for the mining lease of ordinary sand within 30 days of the order. Accordingly, mining lease of ordinary sand was granted to them for a period corresponding with the mining lease period of silica sand i.e. up to 17.02.2000.

       4.The respondent requested the State Government for extension of the mining lease by 850 days on the ground that for 850 days his mining lease remained terminated in past. Since no decision was taken by the State Government on the request, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed the State to take a decision on the representation of the respondent within a period of one month. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Mines and Geology Department rejected the representation for extension of the mining lease period.

       5.Questioning the rejection order of the Financial Commissioner, the respondent filed C.W.P. in the High Court for quashing the same which was allowed.

       Findings of the Court :

       High Court’s direction cannot be implemented at this juncture. However respondent would be at liberty to claim damages/compensation if permissible in law.

       Result : Appeal filed by appellant allowed and that filed by respondent dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.—

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5874 OF 2000

1.Secretary to Government, Mines and Geology Department, Haryana and Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana aggrieved by the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 09.05.2000 made in C.W.P. No. 3007 of 2000 have filed the above appeal.

BRIEF FACTS :

2.On 18.02.1980, lease of mining silica sand was granted to the respondent M/s Aravali Khanij Udyog in respect of 139 hectares of land in certain areas of village Chelaka and sand in Tehsil Nuh, Dist. Gurgaon, Haryana for a period of 20 years by the appellants. Silica sand is a major mineral and is found underneath the ordinary sand, a minor mineral. In order to exploit the silica, every lessee is required to remove the overlaying ordinary sand in the interest of sale, systematic and scientific mining. As both ordinary and silica sand occur one above the other, the State Government took a policy decision in August, 1984 to grant the mining lease of ordinary sand also to the lessee of silica sand for the purpose of systematic and harmonious mining in accordance with the Regulation No. 106 of Metalliferrous Mines Regulation, 1961.

3.As per the said decision, on 27.09.1984, the respondent-herein was advised to apply for the mining lease of ordinary sand. According to the Department, in spite of four reminders, no steps were taken by the respondent to apply for the mining lease for the ordinary sand. A notice dated 12.07.1985 was also served upon them. Finally, the mining lease was prematurely terminated on 06.05.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a revision before the Central Government. On the basis of the undertaking of the lessee, the Central Government, vide its order dated 28.03.1998, while restoring the mining lease of the respondent also directed them to apply for the mining lease of ordinary sand within 30 days of the order. Subsequent to the order of restoration, the respondent applied for the grant of mining lease of ordinary sand which was granted to them for a period corresponding with the mining lease period of silica sand i.e. up to 17.02.2000. Since the period of mining lease was to expire on 17.02.2000, the respondent submitted a representation on 01.03.1999 to the State Government requesting for extension of the mining lease by 850 days on the ground that for 850 days his mining lease remained terminated in past. Since no decision was taken by the State Government on the request of the respondent, the respondent filed a writ petition No. 602 of 2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, by order dated 16.02.2000, directed the State to take a decision on the representation of the respondent within a period of one month. Pursuant to the said direction and after hearing the counsel for the respondent herein, by order dated 03.03.2000, the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Mines and Geology Department rejected the representation for extension of the mining lease period.

4.Questioning the rejection order of the Financial Commissioner, the respondent herein filed C.W.P. No. 3007 of 2000 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the same. Though serious objection was raised by the State through their reply statement, the Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 09.05.2000, allowed the writ petition and directed that the writ-petitioner shall be put into possession of the lease by 01.06.2000. Challenging the said order, the State of Haryana filed the above appeal.

5.We heard Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Mrs. June Chaudhari, learned senior counsel and Mr. Manjeet Singh, AAG for the appellants and Mr. K.B. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the respondents.

6.In view of the fact that the lease granted in favour of the respondent had expired long ago and in the light of the subsequent developments as well as orders of this Court, it is unnecessary to traverse the claim of both the parties in detail. It is not in dispute that the lease of mining


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top