Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.R. Mohapatra., J.
M/S. MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LTD. - APPELLANT
Versus
M/S. KHATAU NARBHERAM & CO. - RESPONDENT
FAO No. 217 of 2014
Decided On : 15-10-2015
Mr. Sanjeet Mohanty, Senior Advocate, M/s. D. Mohanty, S.C. Samantray, R.R. Swain and S.P. Panda, Advocates, for the Appellant; M/s. Dipak Kumar Dey and C.K. Dey, Advocates, for the Respondents
The plaintiff failed to establish a case for grant of temporary injunction due to the lack of irreparable injury, balance of convenience, and suppression of material facts.
Headnote:
MMDR Act - Mining Lease - Easement - [FACT OF THE CASE] The case involves a dispute over the use of a road connecting iron ore mines with NH 215. The plaintiff claimed the right to use the road, while the defendant refuted its existence and use. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a case for grant of temporary injunction and dismissed the appeal. [ISSUES] The issues involved the right to use the road, the existence of alternative access, and the suppression of material facts by the plaintiff. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the plaintiff did not establish irreparable injury or balance of convenience in its favor and failed to disclose all material facts. [FINAL DECISION] The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Mohapatra, J. - Order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champua in CMA No. 45 of 2013 arising out of CS No. 61 of 2013 rejecting an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff is under challenged in this appeal.
2. Civil Suit No. 61 of 2013 has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The dispute is in respect of a 30 feet wide road connecting Roida-I iron ore mines with NH 215 running through the leasehold area of in Roida-II iron ore mines of the sole defendant (for short, 'the suit road').
Case of the plaintiff in brief is that defendant was the lessee in respect of Roida-I and Roida-II iron ore mines since 23.01.1953. The said lease was for thirty years, i.e., up to 22.01.1983. First renewal of mining lease was granted in favour of the defendant in respect of both Roida-I and Roida-II iron ore mines for a period of 20 years, i.e., from 23.01.1983 to 22.01.2003. On 16.09.1994, the defendant made an application under Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ('Rules 1960' for short) for transfer of the mining lease of Roida-I iron ore mines in favour of the plaintiff for the remaining period of the lease. On 20.05.1996, the Central Government conveyed its approval for transfer of Roida-I in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the transfer deed in Form 'O' was executed between the plaintiff, the defendant and Government of Odisha on 31.10.1996 for the remaining period, i.e., up to 22.01.2003. Clause-6 of the deed of transfer stipulates that all the rights and interests in the original mining lease in respect of Roida-I iron ore mines was transferred to the plaintiff on the same terms and conditions as was prevailing. Before expiry of the period of lease, the plaintiff submitted an application for second renewal on 25.11.2002 under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'MMDR Act') and as per the provisions of Rule 24A(6) of the Rules, 1960, the mining lease was deemed to have been extended. As such, the plaintiff continued to carry out mining operation. It is contended by the plaintiff that in the year 1997, the defendant blocked the suit road which was reported to the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda. Deputy Director of Mines, Joda vide order dated 20.05.1997, directed the defendant to allow access for movement of carriers of the plaintiff on the suit road. Again on 27.11.2013, the defendant attempted to block the suit road disrupting the mining activities and lodged an FIR against the officials of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed for the aforesaid relief. Reiterating the assertions made in the plaint, the plaintiff filed CMA No. 45 of 2013 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant and any other person claiming under it from creating any type of blockage over the suit road and interference with the peaceful use of the suit road by the plaintiff till disposal of the suit.
3. The defendant on appearance filed its show cause though admitting the lease of Roida-I mines in favour of the plaintiff with effect from 31.10.1996, but refuted the existence of the suit road and its use by the plaintiff. It is contended by the defendant that the suit road existed prior to the transfer of the mining lease of Roida-I iron ore mines in favour of the plaintiff, but the same is no more in existence. As the said area upon which the suit road existed is under the operational area to carry out the mining activities as per the mining plan approved by the competent authority, i.e., Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), access through the operational area of Roida-II mines, as claimed by the plaintiff, is not permissible under law. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had no access to the suit road through Roida-II iron ore mines at any point of time since the date of transfer made in October, 1996. Though the plaintiff had made a complaint before the DDM, Joda regarding
