Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

&

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

MAT 1304 of 2025

with

CAN 2 of 2025

Dilip Mondal

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

For the appellant : Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborti,

Mr. Pallav Chatterjee,

Mr. Monajit Chakraborti, Advs.

For the respondent no. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Saha,

Mr. Raju Mondal, Advs.

For the State : Mr. Chandi Charan De,

Ld. Addl. Govt. Pleader, Mr. Anirban Sarkar, Adv.

Heard on : November 27, 2025. Judgment on : November 27, 2025.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed in a writ petition whereby the petitioner’s challenge to the refusal of the petitioner/appellant’s claim for extension of a mining lease deed was turned down by the respondent authorities.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in terms of the then prevalent notification dated May 23, 2017, the successful bidders who had deposited 1/3^rd of the bid money might be allowed to commence mining operations and a lease deed may be executed.

3. Clause 2 of the said notification provides that the balance amount of money shall be payable in three instalments with a gap of maximum of 45 days each from the date of first instalment, which shall in no case exceed the lease period or the closure of mining operation.

4. In the present case, the balance amount was paid by the appellant within the said period i.e. the tenure of the lease and was duly accepted by issuance of no-dues certificate by the respondent authorities.

5. However, in spite of the same, by an intimation dated September 24, 2019, the Additional District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Purba Bardhaman instructed the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to “stop challan” against the lessee (the present appellant) in the then upcoming season until and unless instruction was given from the end of the Additional District Magistrate.

6. It is contended by the appellant that due to such stop order, for the period between September, 2019 and April 22, 2022 (when the amount was ultimately cleared off by the appellant), the appellant was prevented from conducting mining operations on the leasehold land.

7. Accordingly, the appellant contends that the appellant is entitled to extension of the period of lease for the period which was lost between September, 2019 and April, 2022 due to no fault of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on Clause 5 of the sand mining lease deed entered into between the parties in pursuance of the tender, being successful in which the appellant was granted the mining lease, which is a force majeure clause.

9. It is submitted that there was no fault on the part of the appellant in the mining work being stopped for the relevant period and, as such, by invocation of the said clause, the period of the delay should be added to the period fixed by the lease.

10. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent no. 2 / designated nodal agency only became so designated in the year 2021, by operation of the Rules which came into force that year.

11. However, it is pointed out that the lease of the appellant was executed much earlier and as such, it is submitted, the said Rules should not be applicable.

12. Furthermore, it is argued that the 2021 Rules do not bar specifically the extension of the lease period.

13. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant argues that Section

25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, which was in force at the relevant point of time as well, any rent, royalty, tax, fee or other sum due to the Government under the said Act or the Rules made thereunder or under the terms and conditions of any reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease may, on a certificate of such officer as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf