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, including the obligation to pay royalty and fixed rents.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Mines Tribunal, Agra, dated 24-11-1977, determining the terms and conditions of the lease under S.107(2) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. I of 1951), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner, Sheobaran Singh, was an intermediary and Zamindar of Villages Ghaskata and Tantpur in tehsil Kheragarh, district Agra, before the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951. On the publication of the notification under S.4 of the Act, all the estates stood transferred to and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Consequences of vesting of an estater in the State are stated in S.6 of the Act. It provides that when the notification under S.4 has been published in the Gazette, then,
(a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries. -
(i) in every estate in such area including land ............, and
(ii) in all sub-soil in such estates including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not, shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances."

3. After the enforcement of U.P. Act I of 1951, the petitioner was asked by the Collector, Agra, to stop quarrying stones in the said village. The petitioners, thereupon, filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was finally allowed an March 18, 1955. The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act. A direction was issued by the High Court to the State Govt. and the Collector, Agra, for considering the application of the petitioner for grant of a lease under S.106 to 108 of the Act. It was also held that the petitioner was entitled to continue the working of the mines in accordance with the provisions of Chap. VI of the Act.

4. In pursuance of the judgement of the High Court, the Collector, Agra sent a letter dated 8-1-1964, offering the terms and conditions of the proposed lease, to the petitioner. Along with this letter, a draft of the mining lease containing the detailed terms and conditions had also been sent. This had offered to give a lease to the petitioner for a period of fifteen years and its terms and conditions were proposed to be in accordance with U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as Rules), framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No. 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act).

5. The petitioner filed an objection dated 17-2-1964 to the Collector against the terms contained in the proposed lease. He also filed a write petition in this Court challenging the validity of the terms and conditions contained in the draft lease. The writ petition was dismissed on 9-2-1965. The High Court, however, held that if the petitioner and the State Government were not able to agree mutually with the terms and conditions on which the lease had to be given to the petitioner, the terms of the lease would be settled by the Mines Tribunal to be appointed under S.110 of the Act. As the terms could not be settled, the Collector, Agra, on 12-10-1966 filed an application under S.107(2) of the Act for settlement of the terms.

6. The application was contested by the petitioner on various grounds, including that since the provisions of the Central Act did not apply and the Rules framed by the U.P. Government under the said Act were also not applicable, the terms and conditions could not be settled in accordance with them. The point's of disa