Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. G. SOHANI, K. M. AGARWAL
M/s.SATNA STONE AND LIME CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 980 Of 1988
Decided On : 05/07/1988
LAND REVENUE - Assessment - Mining Leases - Liability - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 25 of 1987) - Madhya Pradesh Land under Mining Leases Quarry Leases Assessment Rules, 1987 - Validity - Petitioners holding mining leases under written contracts in Form K referred to in R. 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (for short, the "m. C. Rules'') for mining various minerals in different parcels of land in various villages. By the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 25 of 1987), (for short, the "amending Act"), certain amendments were made in S. 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (for short, the "mplr Code" or the Code"), and then the Madhya Pradesh Land under Mining Leases Quarry Leases Assessment Rules, 1987, (for short, the "new Assessment Rules"), were framed. The Amending Act was published on 28-5-1987, whereas the new Assessment Rules were published on 4-12-1987 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazettee (Extraordinary) of the even dates. After the amendment in Section 59 of the MPLR Code and on the basis of the rates given in new Assessment Rules, assessments of lands under various mining leases of the petitioners were made for the purpose specified in the newly inserted item (e) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 59 of the Code. After such assessments, demand notices were issued against the petitioners, which are impugned in all the petitions on various grounds. Held, the impugned amendment in Section 59 (1) of the Code by the Amending Act was within the legislative competence of the State legislature in the light of Entry 45 of the State List. The new Assessment Rules were liable to be struck down as invalid, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The impugned assessment of land revenue and the demand notices were liable to be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners holding mining leases under written contracts in Form K referred to in R. 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (for short, the "m. C. Rules'') for mining various minerals in different parcels of land in various villages. By the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 25 of 1987), (for short, the "amending Act"), certain amendments were made in S. 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (for short, the "mplr Code" or the Code"), and then the Madhya Pradesh Land under Mining Leases Quarry Leases Assessment Rules, 1987, (for short, the "new Assessment Rules"), were framed. The Amending Act was published on 28-5-1987, whereas the new Assessment Rules were published on 4-12-1987 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazettee (Extraordinary) of the even dates. After the amendment in Section 59 of the MPLR Code and on the basis of the rates given in new Assessment Rules, assessments of lands under various mining leases of the petitioners were made for the purpose specified in the newly inserted item (e) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 59 of the Code. After such assessments, demand notices were issued against the petitioners, which are impugned in all the petitions on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned amendment in Section 59 (1) of the Code by the Amending Act was within the legislative competence of the State legislature in the light of Entry 45 of the State List. The new Assessment Rules were liable to be struck down as invalid, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The impugned assessment of land revenue and the demand notices were liable to be quashed.
Issues: Whether the impugned amendment in Section 59 (1) of the Code by the Amending Act was within the legislative competence of the State legislature?
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned amendment in Section 59 (1) of the Code by the Amending Act was within the legislative competence of the State legislature in the light of Entry 45 of the State List. The new Assessment Rules were liable to be struck down as invalid, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The impugned assessment of land revenue and the demand notices were liable to be quashed.
Final Decision: All these petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Although the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 25 of 1987) is declared to be within the legislative competence of the State Legislature, the Madhya Pradesh Land under Mining Leases Quarry Leases Assessment Rules, 1987, are struck down as unreasonable, invalid and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the various assessment orders made and demand notices issued against the petitioners in the various petitions, including those in the present petition, for payment of land revenue in respect of lands given to them under their respective Mining Leases for mining purposes, are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of these petitions and leave the parties to bear their costs as incurred The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioners.
( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of the following writ petitions :- (1) M. P. No. 955/88, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State and another; (2) M. P. (No. 229/88, M/s. Birla Jute and Ind. Ltd. v. Union of India, and others; (3) M. P. No. 504/88, Bharat Food India Ltd. v. Union of India; (4) M. P. No. 1166/88, Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. and another v. State and another; (S) M. P. No. 500/88, Raymond Cement Works v. Union of India and others; (6) M. P. No. 943188, Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State and others; (7) M. P. No. 1260/88, Steel Authority of India v. State and another; (8) M. P. No. 1267/88, Cement Corpn. Of India v. State and another; (9) M. P. No. 889/88, Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. State and another; (10) M. P. No. 1109/88, M/s. D. P. Rai v. State and another; (11) M. P. No. 1112/88, M/s. J. A. Trivedi Brothers v. State and another; (12) M. P. No. 1167/88, M/s. Pacific Mineral Pvt. Ltd. v. State and another; (13) M. P. No. 1173/88, M/s. Eastern Mineral Mine Owners v. State and others; (14) M. P. No. 277/88, Century Textiles and Ind. Ltd. v. State and others; (15) M. P. No. 282/88, Century Textiles and Ind. Ltd. v. State and others; (16) M. P. No. 661/88, M/s. Navratan Mal Gugalia and others v. State and others; (17) M. P. No. 662/88, Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (18) M. P. No. 663/88, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (19) M. P. No. 1178/88, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (20) M. P. No. 1201/88, M/s. Sheilesh Kumar v. State and others; (21) M. P. No. 1282/88, Darjeeling Dooars Plantations Ltd. v. State and others; (22) M. P. No. 40/88, Hiralal Rameshwar Pd. and others v. State and others; (23) M. P. No. 424/88, Associated Cement Co. v. State and others; (24) M. P. No. 1255/88, Association Cement Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (25) M. P. No. 916/88, Hiralal Remeshwar Pd. v. State and others; (26) M. P. 885/88, Jaiprakash Ind. Ltd. v. State and others; (27) M. P. No. 3056/87, M. P. Lime Manu Asso. v. State and others; (28) M. P. No. 443/88, M/s. Mysore Cement Ltd. v. State and another; (29) M. P. No. 509/88, Pannalal Bajaj v. State and others; (30) M. P. No. 510/88, Satyawan Agarwal v. State and others; (31) M. P. No. 536/88, Managanese Ore. (India) Ltd. v. State and another; (32) M. P. No. 614/88, M/s. Sheoratanlal Gulabchand Agarwal and others v. State and others; (33) M. P. No. 740/88, Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (34) M. P. No. 859/88, Diamond Mining Project v. State and another; (35) M. P. No. 862/88, National Mineral Development Corpn. v. State and another; (36) M. P. No. 957/88, National Mineral Development Corpn. v. State and another; (37) M. P. No. 1010/88, Shaligram Parita v. State and another; (38) M. P. No. 1011/88, Preeti Enterprisers v. State and others; (39) M. P. No. 1160/88, M/s. Narsinghdas Jankidas Mehta v. State and others; (40) M. P. No. 1168/88, M/s. Shri Krishandas Tikaram and another v. State of M. P. ; (41) M. P. No. 1177/88, Krishindas Tikaram v. State and others; (42) M. P. No. 1185/88, M/s. Shri Krishandas Tikaram and others v. State and others; (43) M. P. No. 1322/88, M/s. Chopra and Sons Co. and others v. State and others; (44) M. P. No. 1322/88, Dyers Stones Lime Co. (P) Ltd. and others v. State and others; (45) M. P. No. 1324/80, G. K. Maitra v. State and others; (46) M. P. No. 1394/88, Cement Corpn. of India v. State and another. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, hold mining leases under written contracts in Form K referred to in R. 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (for short, the "m. C. Rules'') for mining various minerals in different parcels of land in various villages. By the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 25 of 1987), (for short, the "amending Act"), certain amendments were made in S. 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (for short, the "mplr Code" or the Code"), and then the Madhya Pradesh Land under Mining Leas
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
