HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Ramakishan Prajapat & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 202/2019
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Mining Lease - Cancellation - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Rule 43(1), Section 43(2) - The court discussed the cancellation of the mining lease granted to Shri Ramakishan Prajapat, the deposit of dead rent, and the dismissal of the appeals. The court highlighted the automatic consequence of non-deposition of dead rent leading to cancellation of the mining lease and the time-barred nature of the second appeal.
Fact of the Case:
Shri Ramakishan Prajapat failed to deposit the dead rent for the mining lease, leading to its cancellation. His appeals against the cancellation were dismissed, and his legal representatives filed a writ petition which was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the mining lease was justified due to non-deposition of dead rent, and the appeals were rightly dismissed. The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Bench.
Issues: Non-deposition of dead rent, dismissal of appeals, and the validity of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The automatic consequence of non-deposition of dead rent is the cancellation of the mining lease. The time-barred nature of the second appeal was not justified.
Final Decision: The intra court appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, and the stay application was also dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of this appeal are noted herein below:
Shri Ramakishan Prajapat (the erstwhile mining lease holder-since deceased) through his legal representations filed Single Bench Writ Petition No. 14777/2018 for assailing the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines whereby, the appeal preferred by Shri Ramakishan questioning the legality of the order dated 11.01.2002 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur cancelling the mining lease granted to Shri Ramakishan Prajapat was dismissed.
Shri Ramakishan Prajapat was granted a mining lease of limestone mineral at the Village Hemdai, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali over an area admeasuring 5 Hectares comprising Khasra No. 1633 for a period of twenty years w.e.f. 04.11.1999. Shri Ramakishan Prajapat failed to deposit the dead rent to the tune of Rs. 37,300/- for the period from 04.11.2000 to 03.05.2001 and thus, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City recommended cancellation of the mining lease. The Superintending Engineer accepted the recommendation and cancelled the mining lease granted in favour of the original lessee Shri Ramakishan Prajapat by order dated 11.01.2002. The security amount was forfeited and the mining area was taken possession of by the State Government. Aggrieved thereby, Shri Ramakishan Prajapat preferred an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur under Rule 43(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.04.2006. After lapse of about 6 years, Shri Ramakishan Prajapat deposited the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 90,687/- and preferred yet another appeal before the Additional Director (Mines) which was withdrawn on 16.07.2013. Parallaly, Shri Prajapat also preferred a second appeal before the Joint Secretary (Mines) against the order dated 19.04.2006 by invoking the procedure provided under Section 43(2) of the Rules of 1986. The said appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The second appeal preferred by Shri Ramakishan Prajapat was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 26.06.2008 as being barred by limitation and so also on merits. Shri Ramakishan Prajapat passed away and thus, for challenging the impugned orders, his legal representatives preferred the Single Bench Writ Petition No. 14777/2018 which has been dismissed by order dated 04.12.2018 which is assailed in this intra court appeal filed by the LRs of Shri Ramkishan Prajapat.
2. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the second appellate authority was absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the appellants. The lease cancellation order dated 11.01.2002 was never conveyed to the lease holder. The delay in depositing the dead rent was unintentional and it was deposited alongwith the penalty amount on 21.06.2012 after which, inadvertently, a first appeal was again preferred before the first appellate authority which was withdrawn on realising the mistake and the second appeal was preferred to the State Government supported by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay for bona fide reason. The dismissal of the appeal as being barred by limitation was totally unjustified as the appellate order was passed ignoring the factum of the deposit of the dead rent albeit with some delay. Dr. Acharya vehemently contended that the order dated 11.01.2002 cancelling the mining lease was never conveyed to Shri Ramakishan Prajapat. That the amount of the dead rent has been deposited long back with penalty, etc. and thus, a lenient view deserves to be taken by restoring the mining lease in favour of the appellants-petitioners. He further urged that the learned Single Bench also fell in err
Non-deposition of dead rent leads to automatic cancellation of mining lease, and time-barred appeals lack merit.
The mandatory requirement of depositing dead rent for a mining lease and the automatic consequence of non-deposition leading to cancellation of the lease.
The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to follow procedural rules before canceling mining leases, allowing alternative penalties rather than outright cancellations.
Amnesty Scheme was floated to give benefit to mining lease holder.
Affording an opportunity of hearing before cancelling a mining lease is essential to comply with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concess....
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Rule 18 (21) of Rules, 1986, which provide for alternate consequences of breach of conditions of lease.
An appeal is time-barred if not filed within three months of the order communication, with six months as an absolute limit, irrespective of claims of ignorance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.