Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["Saligram Khirwal VS Union Of India - 2003 6 Supreme 818"]- ["SALIGRAM KHIRWAL vs UNION OF INDIA . - Supreme Court"]- ["N. Phani Kumar VS Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Industries and Commerce - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 378"]- ["P. Venkateshwara Rao VS Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government of India - Karnataka"]
In the complex world of mining law in India, the death of a mining lease holder often raises critical questions for their legal representatives (LRs). Can LRs step into the shoes of the deceased without filing a fresh application? Specifically, can a legal representative get lease rights under 25A of mineral concession rules without making application upon death of lease holder? This is a common query among families, businesses, and legal practitioners dealing with mineral concessions under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
This blog post breaks down Rule 25A, its precise scope, relevant case law, and practical steps. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and rules; it is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Rule 25A, introduced via GSR 129(E) on 20th February 1991, addresses scenarios where an applicant for a mining lease or renewal dies during the process. It creates a 'deeming fiction' to ensure continuity. The rule states:
(1) Where an applicant for grant or renewal of mining lease dies before the order granting him a mining lease or its renewal is passed, the application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease shall be deemed to have been made by his legal representative. (2) In the case of an applicant in respect of whom an order granting or renewing a mining lease is passed, but who dies before the deed referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 31 is executed, the order shall be deemed to have been passed in the name of the legal representative of the deceased. Saligram Khirwal VS Union Of India - 2003 6 Supreme 818N. Phani Kumar VS Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Industries and Commerce - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 378
This provision prevents abatement (lapse) of pending applications due to death, allowing LRs to inherit the application seamlessly without a new filingKalinga Mining Corporation VS Union of India - 2007 0 Supreme(Ori) 652Prabhavati Bai VS Union of India - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 536. However, its scope is strictly limited to the pre-grant or pre-deed execution stageSaligram Khirwal VS Union Of India - 2003 6 Supreme 818.
The query specifies the death of a lease holder, implying someone holding an executed lease (post-Rule 31 deed execution). Rule 25A does not cover this:
Historical context reinforces this: Pre-1991, under 1949 Rules (Rule 28(3)), death led to refund to LRs, implying rejection of continuation Saligram Khirwal VS Union Of India - 2003 6 Supreme 818. Rule 25A is clarificatory but tied to applicants, not holders M. P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. VS SANJEEV BHASKAR - 2013 4 Supreme 653.
Main Legal Finding: No, LRs cannot acquire lease rights under Rule 25A without application or intimation upon the death of a lease holder. Abatement principles apply absent specific action EKLERA CHINA CLAY WORKS ANDTHRI OTHERS VS ASHWIN AND COMPANY - 1975 0 Supreme(Del) 224.
Where no specific rule like 25A exists, proceedings abate on death:
No such provision has been made as regards an applicant for a mining lease or a revision petitioner... principle of abatement applies. EKLERA CHINA CLAY WORKS ANDTHRI OTHERS VS ASHWIN AND COMPANY - 1975 0 Supreme(Del) 224
Rights under a mining lease are personal unless they survive by law. For executed leases, LRs must take proactive steps like substitution or fresh applications M. P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. VS SANJEEV BHASKAR - 2013 4 Supreme 653. In one case, after the original lessee's death, legal heirs were not substituted in a miscellaneous application, leading to abatement; they had to file fresh claims, but third-party rights intervened after a decade M. P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. VS SANJEEV BHASKAR - 2013 4 Supreme 653.
Courts have consistently narrowed Rule 25A:
Substitution and Intimation Required: Even under 25A, the State must be notified for LR recognition. Question of the power of attorney acting on behalf of the grantee as legal representative would arise only when intimation of the death of the grantee is given to the State Government State of Odisha VS Government of India - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 941State of Odisha VS Government of India - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 1105. Without notice, presumption of continuation fails State of Odisha VS Government of India - 2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 941.
No Automatic Survival for Holders: The right to mining lease does not survive after death of the original lessee. Legal heirs have to make fresh application for grant of the lease M. P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. VS SANJEEV BHASKAR - 2013 4 Supreme 653. Rule 25A was inserted nine years post-death in one case, but rights did not retroactively vest without survival M.P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. vs SANJEEV BHASKAR ..
Consent and Transfer Rules: Post-death transfers require State consent under Rule 37. Consent from the legal heir of the deceased lessee is mandatory for transferring mining leases Phani Kumar N. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh by its Principal Secretary to Industries and Commerce Hyderabad - 2014 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22. The court upheld that as long as the lease stood in the lessee's name till death, LRs are entitled to succession, but transfers need explicit consent Phani Kumar N. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh by its Principal Secretary to Industries and Commerce Hyderabad - 2014 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22.
Property Rights Angle: Some cases note leases as survivable property rights vesting in heirs, but regulatory compliance (intimation, substitution) is mandatory SALIGRAM KHIRWAL vs UNION OF INDIA ..
Renewal applications by LRs post-death are treated separately, not automatically under 25A for holders State Of Assam VS Om Prakash Mehta - 1972 0 Supreme(SC) 606.
Other rules like Rule 27(5) confirm determination risks if LRs aren't substituted promptly M. P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. VS SANJEEV BHASKAR - 2013 4 Supreme 653.
To protect interests:
| Aspect | Rule 25A Coverage | Action for LRs ||--------|-------------------|---------------|| Applicant Death (Pre-Order) | Yes, automatic deeming Saligram Khirwal VS Union Of India - 2003 6 Supreme 818 | Notify State || Pre-Deed (Post-Order) | Yes, deems order in LR name N. Phani Kumar VS Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Industries and Commerce - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 378 | Execute deed/substitute || Existing Lease Holder | No EKLERA CHINA CLAY WORKS ANDTHRI OTHERS VS ASHWIN AND COMPANY - 1975 0 Supreme(Del) 224 | Fresh app/intimation/substitution || Renewal Pending | Possible if applicant Prabhavati Bai VS Union of India - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 536 | Substitute promptly |
In summary, while Rule 25A streamlines for applicants, existing lease holders' LRs face abatement risks without action. Early intervention is crucial to vest rights. Stay informed on MMDR Act amendments and state rules, as mining law evolves.
Disclaimer: This analysis draws from cited documents and is for informational purposes. Mining leases involve state-specific nuances; professional advice is essential.
The Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 were repealed by the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which contained no provision corresponding to Rule 28(3) of the 1949 Rules. ... It was submitted before their Lordships that the legal heirs of the deceased applicant should be assumed to be possessing the same rights which the deceased may have had to obtain the lease which rights would survive to the legal heirs and vest in the....
the lease which rights would survive to the legal heirs and vest in them. ... Under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, Rule 28(3) provided that in the event of death of an applicant before grant of mining lease, Concession Rules, 1949 were repealed by the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 p style="position:absolute;white-space
That action has been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner herein by instituting Writ Petition NO. 22279 of 2012 and this Court held that as long as the lease stood in the name of the lessee, till the date of his death, the legal representative would certainly be entitled to get the succession ... Hence, the contentions canvassed to the contra are without any substance or merit. 26. In the instant case, upon death of Sri Mohd. Abdul Hai, his w....
That action has been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner herein by instituting Writ Petition NO.22279 of 2012 and this Court held that as long as the lease stood in the name of the lessee, till the date of his death, the legal representative would certainly be entitled to get the succession and ... Hence, the contentions canvassed to the contra are without any substance or merit. ... In the instant case, upon death of Sri Mohd.Abdul Hai, his....
Rather by operation of law such application for lease shall be deemed to have been made by the legal representative as per Rule 25A(1) and in cases covered by 25A(2) the lease shall be deemed to have been executed in the name of the legal heirs of the original applicant. ... 19. ... In the meantime, on 1.4.1991 Rules 25A was introduced in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, whic....
Rule 25-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 reads as follows; ... “25A. ... Consequentially, neither the grantee nor his legal representative was able to get clearance from the appropriate authority within the period of lease approved under the grant order. ... Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. ... 1980 and the Mineral Rules, 1960. ... have been made by his legal repr....
Rule 25-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 reads as follows; ... “25A. ... Consequentially, neither the grantee nor his legal representative was able to get clearance from the appropriate authority within the period of lease approved under the grant order. ... Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. ... 1980 and the Mineral Rules, 1960. ... have been made by his legal repr....
After a period of more than 9 years from the death of original lessee, Rule 25A was inserted in the Rules 1960 by GSR 129(E), dated 20th February, 1991, which reads as follows: ... “25A. ... It has to be remembered that, in order to enable a legal representative to continue a legal proceeding, the right to sue or to pursue a remedy must survive the death of his predecessor. ... In view of the aforesaid fact, we hold that after the death#HL_....
of original lessee, Rule 25A was inserted in the Rules shall be deemed to have been made by his legal representative. ... Further Section 25A having inserted nine years after the death of the to continue a legal proceeding, the p style="position:absolute ... for a mining lease.
The present legal framework of MMD Act, 1957, does not permit the auctioning of mineral concessions. Auctioning of mineral concessions would improve transparency in allocation. Government would also get an increased share of the value of mineral resources. ... Apart from the above, it has to be observed that mere making of the application for grant of mineral concessions by the petitioner, does not create any right, much less a vested right, and the ....
Rights under a Lease: Subject to a contract to the contrary, a quarry lease granted under the rules shall confer on the lessee, the right to quarry, carry away, sell or dispose of the minor mineral or minerals specified in the lease deed and found upon under the lands specified therein. Points 1 and 2:we have earlier noticed that in some cases petitioners have challenged the very tender notifications providing the clause of payment of MFF even before they enter into Project agreements/mff agreements with APMDC. Rule 31 deals with conditions of permit or lease and renewal.
Rights under a Lease: Subject to contract to the contrary, a quarry lease granted under the rules shall confer on the lessee, the right to quarry, carry away, sell or dispose of the minor mineral or minerals specified in the lease deed and found upon under the lands specified therein. ( 55 ) RULE 31 deals with conditions of permit or lease and renewal.
Then, Rule 19 of the Mineral Rules provides the necessity of execution of a lease deed even in case of renewal as required under Article 299(1) of the Constitution.
We are of the opinion that as both the Rules of 1960 and the Rules of 1986 cover different fields, apply to major and minor minerals, if the new mineral is found while working a mining lease, being minor mineral, that mineral cannot be included in the lease and the only course open to the lessee will be to apply for separate lease under the Rules of 1986. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the mining lease for 20 years having been started by the Central Government under the Rules framed under Section 13 of the Act, any other mineral which is discover....
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
