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

1963 Supreme(MP) 64

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
UNITED COLLIERIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ENGINEER IN CHIEF, SOUTH EASTERN RLY. - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 86 Of 1963
Decided On : 05/03/1963

Advocates Appeared:
R.J.BHAVE, R.S.DABIR, V.S.DABIR

The rights and obligations of parties under a mining lease are governed by the terms of the lease deed. Any dispute arising out of the lease is a contractual dispute and cannot be litigated in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

MINING LEASE - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS - CONSTRUCTION OF LEASE DEED - ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS - ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, a mining company and its managing agent, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the State Government, the Collector of Surguja, the Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja, and the South Eastern Railway Administration to secure and preserve their rights granted under a mining lease. The petitioners alleged that the respondents had begun constructing a railway track on a portion of the leased area without obtaining authority from the Government, illegally cut down a substantial portion of the reserved forest, and opened some portions of the earth exposing coal, which was removed by the Railway administration. They claimed that their rights under the lease had been violated and sought a prohibitory direction restraining the respondents from interfering with their rights.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners' rights under the lease were subject to the restrictions and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and the liberties, powers, and privileges reserved to the State Government. The action of the respondents in constructing the railway line was in accordance with the terms of the lease and did not violate the petitioners' rights. The Court further held that the dispute between the parties was a contractual dispute and could not be litigated in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents' action in constructing the railway line violated the petitioners' rights under the mining lease? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for any violation of their rights under the lease?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the terms of the mining lease and held that the liberties, powers, and privileges granted to the petitioners were subject to the restrictions and conditions mentioned in the lease deed and the liberties, powers, and privileges reserved to the State Government. The Court found that the action of the respondents in constructing the railway line was in accordance with Clause 2 of Part IV and Clause 16 of Part VII of the Schedule to the lease and did not violate the petitioners' rights. 2. The Court held that the dispute between the parties was a contractual dispute and could not be litigated in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the action of the respondents was not an act done in the exercise of sovereign powers or under any statutory provision, but was an action taken under the terms of the lease. Therefore, the petitioners' remedy was to sue for breach of contract and not to seek relief under Articles 226 and 227.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

DIXIT, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a command to the State Government, the Collector of Surguja, the divisional Forest Officer, Sur-guja, and South Eastern Railway Administration and its Engineer-in-chief at Manindragarh to secure and preserve the rights of the petitioners granted to them under a mining lease by the State of Madbya Pradesh and to ensure the continued enjoyment of those rights by the petitioners and their quiet possession. The petitioners also pray for the issue of a prohibitory direction restraining the respondents from interfering in any way with the petitioners' rights under the lease.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are very simple. By an indenture of lease concluded between the first petitioner, the United Collieries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company), and the State Government on 9th April 1962 the company was granted for a period of thirty years, commencing from 3rd January 1946, a coal mining lease in respect of lands described in Part I of the Schedule to the indenture, known, as the North Chirimiri Colliery in the district of Surguja, "together with liberties, powers and privileges to be exercised or enjoyed" mentioned in Part II of the Schedule, subject to the restrictions and conditions as to the exercise and enjoyment of such liberties, powers and privileges specified in part III of the Schedule and subject to the liberties, powers and privileges mentioned in Part IV of the Schedulereserved to the State Government. The other petitioner is the Managing Agent of the Company. The petitioners claim that under the lease they are the absolute assignees of the rights of the State Government, have a restricted right to enter upon the reserved forest with the previous sanction in writing of the Divisional Forest Officer and to fell, cut and use timber trees in accordance with the terms of the lease and the conditions which the Government may impose and own surface rights also, and that they are entitled to the active protection of the lessor, the State Government, and its officers in the enjoyment of the rights, liberties and privileges granted to them under the lease. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the engineer-in-chief of the South Eastern Railway and the South Eastern Railway administration, without obtaining any authority from the Government have begun constructing a railway track on a portion of the leased area; that in carrying out this project they have illegally cut down a substantial portion of the reserved forest on their area of lease and have also opened some portions of the earth exposing some fifty tons of coal which has been removed by the Railway administration, their contractors and labourers; that the railway line when completed will make the functioning of the petitioners' aerial ropeways impossible; that the petitioners have already driven galleries underground; that they are entitled to the right of support of the surface and the laying of the railway line on it has endangered safety in the working of the mines; and that by this act of the railway authorities their rights under the lease of excavating the mineral without let or hindrance from any outside authority has been seriously hampered. The petitioners further say that they brought their grievance to the notice of the collector and the Divisional Forest Officer of Sur-guja district but obtained no redress. They have, therefore, invoked the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 praying that the directions stated earlier be issued to the respondents.

( 3 ) IN the returns filed on behalf of the respondents, the lease relied upon by the petitioners has been admitted. It has also been admitted that the South Eastern railway Administration is laying railway, line on a portion of the leased area. It is, however, denied that under the lease the petitioners are absolute assignees of the rig











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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