1966 Supreme(Pat) 153

PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.N.P.Singh JJ.
Baij Nath Kedia
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 686 of 1965 ; 1036 of 1965 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 01, 1966

Headnote:

MINES AND MINERALS - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) - Sec.10(1) - Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 - Validity - Whether the State Government is competent to enact law for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith or for their conservation and development - Whether the Bihar Rules by their own force could amend the terms and conditions of the existing leases granted before their coming into force - Whether the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Act can certainly do it as it incorporates by reference the Bihar Rules made under Sec.15 of Central Act LXVII of 1957 in regard to minor minerals as defined in that Act - Whether the terms and conditions of a lease of the kind aforesaid in regard to minor minerals shall stand substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions prescribed by the Bihar Rules under the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Act - Whether the demand of enhanced rent and royalty is confiscatory - Whether the Bihar Act IV of 1965 had received the assent of the President or had been assented to by the Governor.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner obtained a right of quarrying and getting stone ballasts, boulders and chips from and upon block nos. 32. 45/1, 45/2 and 45/3 having a total area of 12 bighas 2 Kathas 10 dhurs in tauzi No. 1452 khata No. 1 situated in Mauza Malpahari No. 89 in the subdivision of Pakur, district Santhal Parganas, from Shrimati Anila Debi for self and as legatee under a Will of late Baidyanath Pandey and Babu Bijan Kumar Pandey, that is to say from the ex-landlords, for a period of thirty years commencing from the 1st November 1954, and ending on the 31st October, 1984 under a registered lease dated 23-3-55, a copy whereof is annexed and marked annexure A to the writ application. After the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar, the State became the lessor for the remainder of the term of the lease under Sec.10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950), and the above lease was recognised by the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas as evidenced by letter No. 177/Mines dated the 2nd February, 1963, a copy whereof is annexure B. The said letter reads thus:- - The Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, has been pleased to recognise the lease for quarrying stone in respect of the above property under Sec.10(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , for the remaining period of the lease in your favour. You are accordingly desired to pay the Government dues by 15th February, 1963, from the date of vesting, i.e. 18-8-55 to 30-4-65 at the rate of Rs. 200 a year.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Bihar Legislature is not competent to enact law for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect even of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith or for their conservation and development. 2. The Bihar Rules by their own force could not amend the terms and conditions of the existing leases granted before their coming into force. 3. The second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Act can certainly do it as it incorporates by reference the Bihar Rules made under Sec.15 of Central Act LXVII of 1957 in regard to minor minerals as defined in that Act. 4. The terms and conditions of a lease of the kind aforesaid in regard to minor minerals shall stand substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions prescribed by the Bihar Rules under the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Act. 5. The demand of enhanced rent and royalty is not confiscatory. 6. Bihar Act IV of 1965 had received the assent of the President on the 16th January, 1965.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Government is competent to enact law for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith or for their conservation and development? 2. Whether the Bihar Rules by their own force could amend the terms and conditions of the existing leases granted before their coming into force? 3. Whether the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Act can certainly do it as it incorporates by reference the Bihar Rules made under Sec.15 of Central Act LXVII of 1957 in regard to minor minerals as defined in that Act? 4. Whether the terms and conditions of a lease of the kind aforesaid in regard to minor minerals shall stand substituted by the corresponding terms and conditions prescribed by the Bihar Rules under the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Bihar Act? 5. Whether the demand of enhanced rent and royalty is confiscatory? 6. Whether Bihar Act IV of 1965 had received the assent of the President or had been assented to by the Governor?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Entry 54 in List I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution reads thus- "Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest." 2. The Bihar Legislature had lost its legislative competence to enact law under entry 23 of List II after coming of the 1957 Act into force. 3. Only the State Government can regulate such grant of licences and leases by making rules under Sec.15 (1) of the said Act. 4. The State Legislature was competent to introduce the second proviso in Sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of Bihar Act 30 of 1950 in exercise of its legislative power under entry 23 of List II. 5. The term of the period of the lease cannot be interfered with in exercise of the powers of the State Government under the Bihar Rules or the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of S. 10 of the Bihar Act.

Final Decision: The petition in C.W.J.C. 1036 of 1965 is accordingly allowed to the extent just indicated; there will be no order as to cost. C.W.J.C. 686 of 1965 is also allowed to this extent and the respondents are directed by a writ of mandamus not to give effect to their demand of dead rent, royalty and surface rent in accordance with the Bihar Rules from a date prior to 15th October, 1964 and the demand made upon the petitioner to continue the mining operation upto 30th June, 1965 only and to take necessary steps for renewal of his lease. There will be no order as to cost in this case either.