Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, ANJANA MISHRA, JJ.
Surajdev Singh @ Suraj Baba S/o Shri Mahendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.925 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9562 of 2015
Decided On : 17-04-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Mr. Naresh Dixit, Special P.P.
Headnote:
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 – Rules 24(3) 52 (4) – Dispute of mining rights of stone quarries stated to have been settled though an auction and is confined to the claim in respect of two quarries – Complaint of unauthorized mining over forest land upon which the forest area demarcated with pillars errected in order to avoid any further disturbance – Appellant been instructed to continue with mining operations 10 metres away from the forest boundary as per the report – Demarcation arose on account of the report of the Forest Department that the appellant encroaching upon forest land – Encroachment continued inspite of the demarcation which is evident from the intimation given by the forest Department to the District Magistrate – Inspection made by the forest department officials indicating that mining operations being carried out by the appellant unauthorizedly over forest land and a crusher also running unauthorizedly very close to forest area within prohibited limits – Power of the Collector to determine the lease in terms of Rule read with the conditions of the agreement – No option left with collector but to determine the lease once the default established – No evidence of any force Majeure or any default on the part of the Department in not identifying the and under the terms of the agreement – A clear doubt about the correctness of the approach of the appellant who clearly set up his entire claim on the basis of manipulation evident on record – No interference in the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1 to 8; 10 to 16; 19 to 22; 27 to 30; 33 to 37 & 50 to 55)
JUDGMENT :
1. This intra court appeal is about the dispute of mining rights of stone quarries stated to have been settled through an auction on 30th December, 2008 and is confined to the claim in respect of two quarries, one over Block No. 1 and the other over Block No. 2 of Plot No. 789 of Mauza Bodha Chak, District-Gaya. The settlement was concluded through auction under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1972 Rules”). Two lease deeds dated 14th of May, 2009 were executed between the appellant and the Collector of District-Gaya for a period of five years, with effect from 26.05.2009. Apart from the security deposit, Block No. 1 was settled on a royalty of Rs. 1.55 crore and Block No. 2 was settled for Rs. 25.55 lacs.
2. The appellant complains of not having been allowed to commence mining operations in respect of the aforesaid two Blocks due to non-demarcation of the settled area, which, according to the appellant, took place on 8th September, 2011 for the first time. Thus, the first complaint is of not allowing the appellant to quarry the stones as per the terms of the agreement, which was delayed for more than two years from 26.05.2009 to 08.09.2011 on account of the respondents themselves having not demarcated the area resulting in the mining operations having not commenced at all in respect of these two Blocks. It is on 08.09.2011 when for the first time, the appellant commenced his operations on permission of the department itself on the conclusion of demarcation proceedings.
3. The second part of the complaint is that the auction lease of the appellant has been determined by the Collector on erroneous considerations vide order dated 16th of November, 2013, whereafter also, the appellant has been unable to carry out the mining operations, which had to even otherwise continue till 26th of May, 2014, as the lease was for five years.
4. Thus, these two periods, as indicated above, resulted in deprivation of the mining operations and, therefore, a prayer has been made to quash the orders of cancellation of the lease of the appellant and to allow the appellant to commence and continue his mining operations for the entire period he has been wrongfully prevented from availing the benefit of five years of mining arising out of the agreement dated 14.05.2009.
5. The facts that have given rise to the controversy have been indicated in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29th June, 2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9562 of 2015, but the facts being spread over in various parts of the pleading on record, we find it necessary to delineate them in a chronological manner so as to gather the genesis of the dispute resulting in the orders impugned passed by the authorities and culminating into the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge.
6. Under an advertisement dated 30th December, 2008, bids were invited for auction of stone quarries including the ones that were settled in favour of the appellant. The appellant’s bid having been accepted, the agreement was entered into on 14th of May, 2009 to be effective from 26th May, 2009 for a period of five years that completes the period of five years on 26th of May, 2014.
7. The appellant’s contention is that he was unable to operate the mines in respect of the area of Block Nos. 1 and 2, and in addition thereto, his complaints also indicate of not having been able to mine another area of Block No. 7 in addition to these two Blocks. For this, the appellant has set up a claim that he made written complaints of not having been able to operate the mines over Block Nos. 1, 2 and 7 vide his letters dated 26th June, 2009, 30th of October, 2009, 10th of May, 2010, 22nd July, 2010 and then ultimately on 5th of March, 2011. These documents are said to have been got received in the Mines Office and are alleged to have an endorsement of receipt of the said office. The endorsements are only initials with a date without any indication o
