Point of Law : Permission by State Government shall be granted only if applicant has surrendered equal area of khatedari land in favour of State Government in same village or nearby village within same Panchayat and has deposited development charges for development of such surrendered land as pasture land.

JUDGMENT :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 356/2017, whereby, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner has been allowed and learned Single Judge has directed the appellants-State to execute mining lease in favour of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner-company and also directed for handing over the possession to Respondent No.1-writ petitioner, while issuing ancillary directions.

2. Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner filed writ petition aggrieved by inaction/refusal on the part of the appellants in the matter of execution of mining lease in its favour on pleadings inter alia that Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Companies Act of 1956’) and is the successor of M/s. Grasim Industries Limited. According to Respondent No.1-writ petitioner, under a scheme of arrangement (demerger) entered into between M/s. Grasim Industries Limited and M/s. Samruddhi Cement Limited on 18.05.2010, entire cement business of M/s. Grasim Industries Limited was transferred to its fully owned subsidiary M/s. Samruddhi Cement Limited in terms of Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act of 1956. This scheme of demerger was approved by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Gujarat. Subsequently, scheme of amalgamation was entered into between M/s. Samruddhi Cement Limited and M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited, which was approved by the High Court of Gujarat and the High Court of Bombay. In terms of approved amalgamation scheme, all the assets including land, mining lease and Letters of Intent (LoIs), as claimed by Respondent No.1-writ petitioner, stood transferred and vested in favour of M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited(writ petitioner).

3. It was further averred that the State Government notified an area admeasuring 318.78 hectares under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1960’) for grant of mining lease for setting up of a cement plant with the capacity of 1.0 MTPA. M/s. Grasim Industries Limited had already applied for grant of mining lease vide its application dated 05.06.2007, in pursuance whereof, the State Government issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) on 10.10.2007 containing as many as four conditions which related to environmental clearance, submission of mining plan, consent letter from land owner and NOC from Forest Department. The letter of intent was further extended from time to time. The Forest Department granted NOC on 11.08.2008 and environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest was also granted on 06.05.2010. Respondent No.1-writ petitioner had already submitted mining plan, which was approved on 22.12.2008.

According to Respondent No.1-writ petitioner, Letter of Intent was further extended on 03.12.2010 up to 30.09.2011 on three conditions, namely, enhancement of capacity of plant from 3 MTPA to 4 MTPA, deposit of keenness money and payment of stamp duty for the amalgamation effected between M/s. Grasim Industries Limited and M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited. Further, in view of the approval of the scheme of amalgamation, condition was also imposed in the LoI with regard to change in the name from M/s. Grasim Industries Limited to M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited. Respondent No.1-writ petitioner wrote a letter to Director, Department of Mines and Geology on 07.07.2010 for grant of mining lease. Since all the compliance had been made, Assistant Mining Engineer also recommended grant of mining lease in favour of Respondent No.1-writ petitioner. On the request of Respondent No.1-writ petitioner, LoI was further extended from time to time. Lastly, it was extended for a period of six months vide letter dated 11.12.2014. As according to Respondent No.1-writ petitioner, it had applied for grant of lease with all the formalities and letter w