ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. By this writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for quashing Annexure-8 to the writ case dated 12th Feb., 1979, by which petitioner No. 2 has been directed to get the schedule of the lands corrected in accordance with the map and by which the petitioners have also been directed to stop forthwith the mining operation in the pits including plot No. 14/2650 under Khata No. 36 in village Charka Pathal, having an area of 13.18 acres.

2. The area of plot No. 260 is 13.18 acres, as mentioned in the body of the lease deed, whereas the area of that plot enclosed by red ink in the map is said to be 9.38 acres. The short question in the instant case is as to which one will prevail.

3. Shorn of other details, the relevant facts for the determination of the point in question are as follows :-

Petitioner No. 1 is an authorised agent of petitioner No. 2 in respect of mining operation carried on the leasehold. Petitioner No. 2 applied for mining lease in respect of mica. On receipt of that application and on consideration thereof, the respondent-State made an order for the grant of lease of the area measuring 210.29 acres comprised in various plots including that plot No. 14/2650 under Khata No. 36 in village Charka Pathal, having an area of 13.18 acres. After the order for the grant of lease was passed by the State of Bihar, the lease deed in accordance with the requirement of R.31 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, was executed inter partes and registered. The relevant extract, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced at the Bar, is as follows :

"Whereas the lessee has applied to the State Government in accordance with the Mineral concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) for a mining lease for mica in respect of the land described in part I of the Schedule hereinafter written . . ........."

Part I does not give either Khata No. or Khesra No. or area or class of land. It only gives the boundary, whereas the land schedule in respect of the lease granted over 210.29 acres for mica in favour of petitioner No. 2 gives the entire details i.e., Khata Nos., Khesra Nos., the area and also the nature of the land. This land schedule which is a part of the lease deed specifically mentions the area of plot No. 14/2650 as 13.18 acres. It appears that on the application filed by some third party complaining of encroachment at the instance of the, petitioners in the working of the mines, the District Mining Officer (respondent No. 4) under his letter dated 31st Aug., 1978, stopped the mining operation over plot No. 14/2650 till demarcation. The Director of Mines (respondent No. 3), in his turn, asked the District Mining Officer (respondent No. 4) to hold an enquiry with regard to the alleged encroachment and accordingly an overseer was directed to go to the spot. Without waiting for the report, the Director of Mines directed the District Mining Officer to personally hold an inspection. It seems, as is apparent from Annexures-4 and 5, that the Overseer and the District Mining Officer, each on his part, noticed no encroachment at the instance of petitioner No. 2 over any area and in fact found that having regard to the boundary specified and the plot numbers mentioned in the lease deed the area of 210.29 acres was short of 3.80 acres under the delineation, that is to say, plan drawn up following the boundary and that the plot Nos. represented and comprised an area of 206.49 acres in place of 210.29 acres. Thereafter as it appears from Annexure-6, the District Mining. Officer being satisfied that there was no encroachment permitted the petitioners to continue their operation within the leasehold area. However, it was directed that when called upon petitioner No. 2, will have to execute a rectification deed. What is more important follows now i.e. Annexure-7 to the writ case, which is the report of the Deputy Director of Mines (Vigilance). This Annexur