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

2010 Supreme(Ori) 170

2010 (Supp.-II) OLR — 460
I.M. QUDDUSI, ACJ. AND SANJU PANDA, J.
M/s. Jagannath Minerals & another...Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa & others...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.11151 of 2007
(Date of Judgment : 23.3.2010)

Advocates:
For Petitioners:M/s. Milan Kanungo, S. Das, D.Pradhan, S. Nanda, Y. Mohanty, S.K. Mishra & C. Samantaray
For Opp. Parties:M/s. S.K. Nayak (I), Sr. Advocate, D. Nayak, A.C. Biswal, S. Nayak, S. Biswal & R. Mohanty. (for o.p.1),
Additional Government Advocate (for o.p.2 to 5),
M/s. Biswanath Rath,S.K. Jethy, P.K. Behera & S.K. Mishra (for o.p. 6 to 10)

Headnote:1. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - Sec. 105 - Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Mining lease - The expression "immovable property" comprehends all that would be real property according to English law and possibly more - Every interest in immovable property or a benefit arising out of land, will be 'immovable property' for the purpose of Section 105 - A right to carry on mining operations in land to extract a specified mineral and to remove and appropriate that 'mineral' is a 'right to enjoy immovable property' within the meaning of Section 105 - Transfer of mining lease is a property transfer, it requires registration - In the present case held, since the transfer deed has not been executed, the right over the mines cannot be transferred to the transferee - Petitioners have no locus standi to claim any relief to continue the mining operation.

       (Paras - 13 to 15)

       2. PARTNERSHIP - A partnership means a contract of two or more competent persons to place their money, effects, labour and skill, or some or all of them in lawful commerce or business and to divide the profit and bear the loss in certain propositions - Detail stated.

       Partnership is a relation between persons who have agreed to share the profit of business to be carried on by all or any of them acting for all. The said relation subsists between the persons who have agreed to combine their profit, labour, skill and to share the profit thereof between them. Therefore, from the above discussion, it cannot be said that a partnership would continue by only one person if the partnership was formed between two persons and out of them one declared his intention to retire or withdraw himself from the said partnership. (Para - 12)

JUDGMENT

SANJU PANDA, J. : In this writ application, the petition¬ers have challenged the revocation of Mining Lease transfer order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Steel and Mines and cancellation of removal permission for iron ore (vide Annexure-14) and issuance of work¬ing permission in favour of a dead person, namely, Late Manoran¬jan Das (vide Annexure-16).

2. The facts leading to this case are as follows:

A mining lease in respect of an area measuring Ac.11.533 hects in village Deojhar in the district of Keonjhar for a period of 20 years was to be granted in favour of one Manoranjan Das. Due to paucity of funds, on 18.3.1997 he entered into an agree¬ment with Deepak Kumar Rana, Managing partner of petitioner no.1 firm to transfer the said mining lease and also executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour. Accordingly, on the said lease being granted in favour of Manoranjan Das, on 6.7.1998 Deepak Kumar Rana as the Power of Attorney Holder of Manoranjan Das executed the mining lease deed with the Collector, Keonjhar to carry on the mining operation.In the said agreement, they further agreed that Deepak Kumar Rana will exercise all the lease-hold rights on his own and the Power of Attorney shall not be revoked till the lease was transferred. Thereafter, by virtue of a deed of partnership dated 16.4.1999, Manoranjan Das and Deepak Kumar Rana became partners and created a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Jagannath Minerals. It was agreed therein that Deepak Kumar Rana would be the managing partner of the said firm and if Manoranjan Das retired, neither he nor his heirs, successors and assigns could claim further continuance of partnership and the lease would continue in the name of the firm and Deepak Kumar Rana would be at liberty to take anybody as partner in the firm (Annexure-7).

In pursuance of formation of the partnership firm between Manoranjan Das and Deepak Kumar Rana, a letter was issued to the authority for transfer of the mining lease in the district of Keonjhar in favour of M/s. Jagannath Minerals wherein it was clearly indicated that Deepak Kumar Rana was the Managing Part¬ner. A copy of the partnership deed was also enclosed for the purpose of transfer. The State Government on 9.5.2001 transferred the mining lease in favour of the partnership firm by granting permission under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules.There¬fore, the transfer deed was executed in Form ‘O’ on 4.8.2001 between the Collector, Keonjhar and Manoranjan Das as transferor and petitioner no.1 as transferee, but the said document was not registered.

While the matter stood thus, Manoranjan Das decided to retire from the partnership and to that effect, he issued a letter on 21.3.2005 indicating therein that he cancelled the General Power of Attorney executed on 18.3.1997 in favour of Deepak Kumar Rana. Petitioner no.1 also filed Civil Suit No.16 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champua with the following prayers:

“(a) to restrain the defendant and any other person claiming under him from entering into the mines and from obstructing the petitioner from smooth operation of the said mines by virtue of the permanent injunction,

(b) to restrain the defendant from revoking the power of attorney dated 18.3.1997 and if at all during the meantime the defendant no.1 revoked the said power of attorney, then the same may be declared as inoperative, void, ab initio by virtue of mandatory injunction and other consequential relief.”

During pendency of the said suit, Manoranjan Das died on 6.5.2005. Therefore, the suit became infructuous. Removal permis¬sion granted in favour of the petitioners was stopped by the Government on 31.3.2005.

3. Challenging the order passed by opposite party no.4, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.8152 of 2005. On 2.9.2005 the said writ application was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners were not aware of that order. Whe





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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