A mining lessee is statutorily and contractually obligated to pay surface rent for the utilization of land for mining operations in addition to royalty. A party failing to plead material facts or adopting contradictory positions before the Court is disentitled to equitable relief under Article 226.

Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This matter came before this Bench on 21.01.2026, when learned counsel for the petitioner applied for an adjournment. Although we were reluctant to grant an adjournment, we did so with a view to affording the petitioner an additional opportunity and adjourned the matter to the 11^th of February 2026 at 2:15 PM for final disposal, subject to any overnight part-heard matters. Our reluctance to adjourn was because the matter is more than 20 years old, and we had clarified that priority would be accorded to such long-pending matters.

3. On the 11^th of February 2026, the matter was argued, but the arguments could not be concluded. Therefore, the matter was posted on 18th February 2026 at 2:15 PM under the caption “part heard.” On this date, the matter was again taken up. The arguments concluded on this date, and the judgment was reserved.

4. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the quashing of demand notices dated 02.01.2004 and 29.01.2004 (Annexures 1 and 2 at pages 21 and 22 of the paper-book) issued by the District Mining Officers at Dhanbad and Bokaro respectively, whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay surface rent along with interest under Rule 27(1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, for the use of State Government land in the process of sand mining under the sand mining leases in respect of river ghats/beds in the districts of Dhanbad and Bokaro.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

5. Mr Mehta first contended that the impugned demand notices violate the principles of natural justice and fair play. He argued that, prior to their issuance, the petitioner was neither served with a show- cause notice nor afforded any opportunity to show that no amount was payable in respect of surface rent. He submitted that a demand of this nature carries serious civil consequences for the petitioner. Consequently, in the absence of adherence to the principles of natural justice, such a demand is liable to be set aside. He further stated that the demand notices are vague and lack the necessary particulars. Relying on Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and Others , reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427, Mr Mehta submitted that the impugned notices deserve to be quashed.

6. Mr. Mehta further submitted that Rule 27(1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and Rule 29(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 , framed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, expressly provide that surface rent shall not exceed the land revenue specified by the State Government in the lease. He submitted that the demands in the impugned notices bear no relation to land revenue. Instead, he submitted that the respondents have demanded surface rent at commercial rates, relying on D.O. Letter No. 6842 dated 30.09.1965, which concerns the assessment of rent determined by the Divisional Commissioner, Dhanbad, at the rate of Rs. 30/- per acre for urban and semi-urban areas in 1962. He submitted that such a demand is, therefore, ex facie ultra vires Rule 27(1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

7. Mr. Mehta submitted that the expression “land revenue” referred to in Rule 27(1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, constitutes the fair r