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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Bolwa Oraon, son of Late Sukhram Oraon - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W.P(C) No. 6038 of 2019
Decided on : 04-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Sushant Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar

The court affirmed that a petitioner has a vested right to a mining lease under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, provided all conditions of prior approval are met.

Headnote:(A) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 - Section 10A(2)(c) - Writ application for mining lease - Petitioner applied for mining lease of Bauxite in 1986, received prior approval from Government of India, and fulfilled conditions for mining plan approval - State of Jharkhand failed to execute lease despite compliance - Court held that petitioner has a vested right under Section 10A(2)(c) and directed the State to grant the mining lease. (Paras 1, 9, 25)

(B) Previous Approval - The court emphasized that previous approval granted by the Central Government must be honored, and the conditions fulfilled by the petitioner must lead to the execution of the mining lease. (Paras 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a mining lease in 1986, received necessary approvals, but the execution of the lease was delayed due to administrative issues and the bifurcation of Bihar into Jharkhand. The State claimed the petitioner was not traceable, which was disputed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had fulfilled all necessary conditions for the mining lease and that the State's claim of the petitioner being untraceable was unsubstantiated.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had a vested right to the mining lease under the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, and whether the State's failure to execute the lease was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner had a vested right to the mining lease due to prior approvals and compliance with conditions, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to statutory provisions in the mining sector.

Result: Writ application allowed; the State directed to grant mining lease within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT :

Per Deepak Roshan, J.

1) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon concerned respondents to grant mining lease in favour of the petitioner as per Section 10A(2)(c) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "MMDR Amendment Act, 2015" for mining of Bauxite under Village Dokapat, Thana No. 98, District Gumla, having an area of 180.34 acres.

2) Before coming to the issue which has arisen for determination by this Court, it would be convenient to state the facts in brief.

The petitioner, being an individual, applied for grant of mining lease of Bauxite under Village Dokapat, Thana No. 98, District Gumla, having an area of 180.34 acres on 03.05.1986. Pursuant to said application, Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla, vide its letter no. 2497 dated 29.11.1987, issued "No Objection Certificate" in favour of petitioner for grant of mining lease and even Circle Officer, Chainpur granted "No Objection Certificate" regarding Gair Mazarua land and also gave details of consents given by owners of raiyati land pursuant to the application filed by petitioner.

3) The Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, passed order in terms of Section 5(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short "MMDR Act") granting prior approval for grant of mining lease by imposing a condition for submission of mining plan duly approved by Indian Bureau of Mines (for short "IBM").

4) Subsequent to said prior approval granted by Government of India, erstwhile State of Bihar, vide its letter contained in Memo No. 7809/M dated 30th November, 1989, recorded the fact of previous approval granted by Government of India and, accordingly, informed Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga that previous approval has been granted by Government of India for grant of mining lease in favour of petitioner on a condition that the petitioner would submit mining plan duly approved by IBM. In the said letter, it was clearly recorded that previous approval has been granted by Government of India subject to approval of mining plan by IBM, failing which, previous approval towards mining lease granted in favour of petitioner would be treated to be an approval only for Prospecting Licence. Consequent upon such previous approval granted by Government of India, IBM, vide its letter dated 27.11.1990, granted approval of mining plan in favour of petitioner. Said approval of Mining Plan was also directly communicated to erstwhile State of Bihar and the said fact is recorded in the letter bearing Memo No. 1854/M dated 06.04.1991, wherein Director, Mines, State of Bihar informed to Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga that approval of mining plan has been received by the State of Bihar directly from IBM and direction was issued to Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga to obtain instructions from petitioner as to whether the petitioner intends to establish an industry over the mining area or not. In the said letter, Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga was further directed to ascertain the number of trees, etc., situated over the Gair Mazarua land (Government land) through the office of Circle Officer and to get the valuation of said trees done from Circle Officer, Lohardaga. A copy of the said letter was also marked to the petitioner.

5) Pursuant thereto, Assistant Mining Officer, Lohardaga, vide its Letter No. 506/M dated 10.07.1991, directed the petitioner to clarify as to whether he intends to establish an industry over the mining area or not, and, consequent thereto, the petitioner submitted its detailed Project Report before the Respondent-authority. However, despite aforesaid compliances being made, matter pertaining to execution of mining lease in favour of the petitioner was pending before the authorities of the State of Bihar and, in the meantime, on 15.11.2000, erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated and the new State of Jharkhand was created.

6)

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top