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

1977 Supreme(Raj) 357

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.L.Jain, J.
Ram Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 145 of 72.
Decided On : 23-09-1977

Dues under a mining lease can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, even in the absence of a duly executed agreement or lease.

Headnote:

MINING LEASE - RECOVERY OF DUES - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Sections 256, 257B - Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - Rule 55 - Constitution of India - Article 299 - Recovery of dues under mining lease as arrears of land revenue - Availability of alternative remedies.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was granted a mining lease for building stone. He deposited the first installment and security but failed to deposit subsequent installments. The lease was canceled, and the department initiated recovery proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings, arguing that no recovery could be made in the absence of an agreement or lease duly executed under Article 299 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the dues were recoverable under the Land Revenue Act even in the absence of a duly executed agreement or lease. The court relied on Section 256(a) and (d) of the Act, which provide for the recovery of sums declared by law to be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue, and rents, rates, and royalties due to the State Government. The court also noted that Rule 55 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, impliedly provides for the recovery of dues in respect of dead rent, surface rent, royalty, and value of minerals as arrears of land revenue.

Issues: 1. Whether the dues under the mining lease were recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956? 2. Whether the petitioner had alternative remedies available to challenge the recovery proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dues were recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, even in the absence of a duly executed agreement or lease. The court relied on Section 256(a) and (d) of the Act, which provide for the recovery of sums declared by law to be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue, and rents, rates, and royalties due to the State Government. The court also noted that Rule 55 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, impliedly provides for the recovery of dues in respect of dead rent, surface rent, royalty, and value of minerals as arrears of land revenue.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the dues were recoverable under the Land Revenue Act and that the petitioner had alternative remedies available to challenge the recovery proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. - The farts of this writ petition are that the respondents accorded a sanction of mining; lease for building stone in favour of the petitioner on 25-3-1958. The dead rent was of Rs. 4501/- and royalties were to be charged as stated in the order of sanction. The mining lease was for the period from 1-4-1958 to 3-3-1960. Besides, the petitioner was requiifd to pay surface rent and all taxes as per the Government Rules The petitioner deposited Rs. 1125/- of the first installment and Rs. 1125/- towards security. No lease deed was executed. The petitioner contends that he was a not given the possession of the mines By his order dated 5-5-1959, the Director of Mines and Geology, however cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the due installments as stipulated in the agreement. Thereafter, the Department of Mines and Geology sent a certificate of recovery on 27-1-1960 of the recovery of Rs. 3,945/60 under the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act to the SDO Jodhpur. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a petition denying his liability upon which the proceedings were dropped on 24-11-1961. A fresh requisition certificate was sent by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur on 4-9-70, to the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Bikaner, under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Laid Revenue Act, 1956. This certificate was transferred by the said Assistant Mining Engineer to the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery), Jodhpur. The petitioner submitted his objections before the respondent that the recovery having once been dropped cannot be recommenced and that no recovery can be made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, in the absence of the agreement. The objections were rejected on 15-11-1971. The petitioner now prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery proceedings and for mandamus and prohibition to restraint the respondents from recovery of the aforesaid amount and to return Rs. 2250/- paid by him.

2. In reply, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had signed an agreement on 8-5-1958 but the same was not signed by the Director of Mines and Geology as the petitioner failed to deposit the amounts due. There were certain other deficiencies also The Department also stated that the area was previously held by the petitioner. He was in continuous possession of the area and has also worked some quarries therein as was disclosed in his letter dated 9-5-1958 in which he protested that he established some quarries but a Railway Contractor was also working in the same area without his permission and was collecting ballast. He requested on 27-4-59 that his contract may be terminated right from 1-4-58. But the Director cancelled the lease because the petitioner fail d to make the due payments That is how the recovery came to be effected. The learned Dy. Government Advocate submitted further that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 257B of the Land Revenue Act 1956) by way of a suit and therefore, the writ petition was liable to dismissal.

3. I have heard arguments. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the said Act, Section 256, Clause (e), only such sums of money can be recovered thereunder which are due to the State Government under any g. ant, lease or contract which provides that they shall be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue. The learned Dy. Government Advocate says on the other hand, that the petitioner has been in possession of the area for one ear under the alleged order of sanction which is a grant, R. 55 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, declared that the Govt. may recover any dues in respect of dead rent, surface rent, royalty & value of minerals as arrears of land revenue under the law in force relating to such recovery. It is, therefore, not necessary to provide in the grant that any sum due thereunder mall be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue. It is by virtue of this rule implied in every sanc



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
whatsapp-icon Back to top