Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal, JJ.
M.P. Bricks Company v. The State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petitions No. 3601 of 2021, 3989 of 2021, 4612 of 2021, 8432 of 2021, 29036 of 2021, 7540 of 2021, 8852 of 2022, 8908 of 2022, 11326 of 2022, 12994 of 2022, 13031 of 2022, 22343 of 2022, 28800 of 2022, 10292 of 2023, 17878 of 2023, 23517 of 2023, 30602 of 2023, 30604 of 2023, 15958 of 2024, 26838 of 2024, 27180 of 2024, 35707 of 2024, 1232 of 2025, 41601 of 2025, 43275 of 2025, 47658 of 2025 and 47967 of 2025 (Jabalpur); Decided on 28.1.2026
¼1½ x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ¼e-ç-½ & fu- 29 & vfuok;Z ÒkVd dh olwyh & i;kZoj.k lacaèkh vukifRr d¢ vÒko esa iV~Vk ifjpkfyr ugÈ fd;k tk ldk & vfuok;Z ÒkVd dh olwyh d¢ fy, ek¡x lwpuk&i= tkjh fd;k x;k & 1996 d¢ fu;e¨a esa vfuok;Z ÒkVd ls NwV çnku djus dk d¨Ã micaèk ugÈ & çkfèkdkfj;¨a }kjk vfuok;Z ÒkVd dh olwyh d¢ lacaèk esa ikfjr ek¡x vkns'k U;k;laxr ,oa mfpr gSaA ¼iSjk 5½
¼2½ [kku v©j [kfut ¼fofu;eu v©j fodkl½ vfèkfu;e] 1957 & èkkjk 15¼1½ rFkk ¼3½ & e-ç- x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 & fu- 29 & fu;e¨a dk ykxw g¨uk & jkT; ljdkj d¨ LokfeLo rFkk vfuok;Z ÒkVd d¢ lacaèk esa fu;e¨a esa la'k¨èku djus dh 'kfä gS & jkT; ljdkj }kjk cuk, x, fu;e ykxw gksrs gSaA 1986 ¼lIyh-½ ,llhlh 20 vuqlfjrA ¼2024½ 10 ,llhlh 1 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
¼3½ [kku v©j [kfut ¼fofu;eu v©j fodkl½ vfèkfu;e] 1957 & èkkjk 9d ¼la'k¨fèkr½ & vfuok;Z ÒkVd v©j LokfeLo & ls vfÒçsr & LokfeLo v©j vfuok;Z ÒkVd esa Li"V lqfÒUurk gS & LokfeLo mRikfnr [kfut¨a d¢ ewY; ;k ek=k ij vkèkkfjr ifjorZu'khy çHkkj gS & vfuok;Z ÒkVd U;wure okf"kZd lank; gS & tc LokfeLo lanRr fd;k tkrk gS rc èkkjk 9d d¢ vèkhu vfuok;Z ÒkVd dk micaèk çofrZr g¨xk v©j iV~Vkèkkjd }kjk LokfeLo d¢ :i esa U;wure vfuok;Z ÒkVd dk lank; fd;k tkuk g¨rk gSA ¼iSjk 20] 21 ,oa 25½
¼4½ [kku v©j [kfut ¼fofu;eu v©j fodkl½ vfèkfu;e] 1957 & èkkjk 9 rFkk 9d & n¨u¨a èkkjkv¨a esa lqfÒUurk & èkkjk 9d i`Fkd~ èkkjk gS & bls èkkjk 9 d¢ lkeF;Zdkjh micaèk d¢ :i esa ugÈ iढ+k tk ldrk & èkkjk 9d d¢ n¨ igyw gSa & igyk LokfeLo dh U;wure çR;kÒwfr gS v©j nwljk vfuok;Z ÒkVd dk lank; gS & tgk¡ iV~Vkèkkjh iV~Vk fu"iknu d¢ ,d o"kZ d¢ Òhrj iV~Vk ifjpkfyr djus esa vlQy jgrk gS ogk¡ vfuok;Z ÒkVd vfèkj¨fir djus d¢ fy, èkkjk 9d v©j e-ç- x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 d¢ vèkhu micaèk gSa & ,sls ekey¨a esa èkkjk 9d dh vuqlwph rhu d¢ vuqlkj vfuok;Z ÒkVd olwyh ;¨X; gSA ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22½
¼5½ [kku v©j [kfut ¼fofu;eu v©j fodkl½ vfèkfu;e] 1957 & èkkjk 9d & e-ç- x©.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 & fu- 30¼5½ ls ¼10½ & ;k [knku iV~Vk feyus d¢ ckn vfuok;Z ÒkVd lank; ;¨X; gS] tc iV~Vk okyh laifÙk dk dCtk u feyus ;k iV~Vk ifjpkfyr djus d¢ fy, l{ke çkfèkdkjh ls visf{kr vuqefr u feyus dh otg ls iV~Vk d¨ ifjpkfyr ugÈ fd;k tk ldk & tc rd iV~Vk lekIr ugÈ g¨ tkrk] rc rd iV~Vkèkkjh vfuok;Z ÒkVd lank; djus dk nk;h gS] Òys gh iV~Vk pkyw g¨ ;k u g¨ & ;kfpdk,¡ [kkfjtA 1992 ,llhlh vkWuykbu jkt- 612] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 38462 lu~ 1989 fu.kÊr fnukad 20-7-1990] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 8953 lu~ 2022 fu.kÊr fnukad 1-9-2022] fjV ;kfpdk 3433 lu~ 2022 rFkk 2023 ,eih,yts 476 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 28½
(1) Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R. 29 -- recovery of dead rent -- lease could not be operated in absence of environmental clearance -- demand notice issued for recovery of dead rent -- no provision of granting exemption of dead rent under Rules of 1996 -- demand orders regarding recovery of dead rent passed by authorities are just and proper. [Para 5]
(2) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -- S. 15(1) and (3) -- M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R. 29 -- applicability of Rules -- State Government has power to amend rules relating to royalty and dead rent -- Rules made by State Government are applicable. 1986 (Supp.) SC SCC 20 followed. (2024) 10 SCC 1 distinguished. [Paras 17 & 18]
(3) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -- S. 9A (amended) -- dead rent and royalty -- meaning -- there is clear distinction between royalty and dead rent -- royalty is variable charge based on value or quantity of minerals produced -- dead rent is minimum annual payment -- when royalty is paid then provision of dead rent under section 9A will operate and minimum dead rent as royalty has to be paid by lessee. [Paras 20, 21 & 22]
(4) Mines and Mineral Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -- Ss. 9 and 9A -- distinction between both sections -- section 9A is an individual section -- it cannot be read as an enabling provision of section 9 -- section 9A is two-fold -- first is minimum guarantee of royalty and second is payment of dead rent -- under section 9A and M. P. Mines and Minerals Rules, 1996, provisions exist for imposion of dead rent where lessee fails to operate lease within one year of execution of lease -- in such cases, dead rent is recoverable in accordance with Schedule III of section 9A. [Paras 21 & 22]
(5) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -- S. 9A -- M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 -- R. 30(5) to (10) -- payment of dead rent after grant of quarry lease when lease could not be operated due to non-handover of possession of leased property or because requisite permissions for operating lease were not granted by competent authority -- lessee is liable to pay dead rent until lease lapse, irrespective of whether lease is operational or not -- petitions dismissed. 1992 SCC Online Raj. 612, W.P. No. 38462 of 1989 decided on 20.7.1990, W.P. No. 8953 of 2022 decided on 1.9.2022, W.P. No. 3433 of 2022 and 2023 MPLJ 476 referred to. [Para 28]
ORDER
Mittal, J. -- As all these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are heard and decided concomitantly by this common order. References to annexures and documents are taken from W.P. No. 3601 of 2021 for convenience.
1. The petitioner is challenging the order Annexure P/1 in which the Mining Officer, Hoshangabad has passed order of recovery of dead rent during the period between 2013-14 principle of which has been valued at Rs.4,60,903/-.
2. That facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that, the petitioner had applied for renewal of quarry lease on 25.6.2012 before the respondent No.3 and the same was granted in favour of the petitioner on 26.9.2013 for a period of 10 years, thereafter the petitioner applied for environment clearance before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and the same was granted in favour of petitioner on 25.11.2014. The petitioner was not granted Bhu Pravesh as per provision of M.P. Land Revenue Code after due compliance of all mandatory condition mentioned in the Letter of intent. After due approvals granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner with the intention of operating the QUARRLY LEASE entered the land but in the meanwhile the National Green Tribunal has stayed the operation of mining lease in which environment clearance is not granted. The respondent No.3 has enumerated the condition that the petitioner is restricted to start the work without environment clearance. However, even though he was unable to operate the mining work in the leased area he has paid the dead rent for the period 2012 to 2013. The respondent No.3 has issued the demand notice of dead rent for the period of 13.7.2013 to 13.7.2014 vide order dated 12.3.2015. The possession could have been handed over to the petitioner and prior to starting the mining work the respondent No.3 has demanded the dead rent which is against the order passed by the Central Government whereby the Government of India vide Annexure P/ 6 issued the direction to all States directing that premature determination of dead rent when lessee was not legally allowed to carry out mining activities, the State Government could not demand arrears of dead rent for intervening period. The petitioner against the order passed by the Collector approached the appellate Authority U/s 57 of Rules 1996 wherein the said order of the Collector was affirmed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 has overlooked the clarification issued by the Central Government in the year 2001 whereby the Central Government has clarified that the State Government could not demand the dead rent if the leasee has not operated the mines. The respondent No.3 has completely overlooked the notification and dismissed the claim of the petitioner without applying the mind. The order of recovery of dead rent is arbitrary and unlawful and has been issued without application of mind. The petitioner has questioned the same before the Appellate Authority u/s 57 of Rules of 1996 and after facing rejection the petitioner has moved before the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 6.4.2018 has rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner qua exemption from the dead rent. The petitioner was unable to operate the mining work due to stay order passed by National Green Tribunal. The petitioner is suffering by the inaction on the part of respondents and petitioner is not at any fault as the condition for delaying is beyond the control of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 12.3.2015 and 24.4.2018 in which a demand has been raised for recovery of dead rent between the period 2013 to 2014 is bad in law as provision of recovery of dead rent persists only after the starting the work. The impugned order dated 6.1.2018 is issued in total disregard in overlooking the clarification issued by Government of India.
3. The submission of the respondent is that, in the present petition, the petitioner has heavily relied upon the communication m
The stamp duty or the dead rent is to be charged on the basis of the amount of royalty to be paid, and the proviso to section 26 of the Act of 1899 applicable to the mining lease is required to be re....
The lessee in possession of leased land is liable to pay dead rent under Section 9A of the Mines and Minerals Act, regardless of quarrying activities.
The court affirmed that for mining leases, stamp duty calculations must account for anticipated royalty alongside dead rent per statutory provisions and established practices.
The Mines Tribunal has the authority to determine lease terms for mining operations under statutory provisions, affirming that statutory leases are bound by the same conditions as contractual ones, i....
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
