RANCHI, India, Dec. 26 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 26:
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents to extend the period of mining lease granted to the petitioner in terms of the order of sanction contained in Memo No. 287 dated 04.03.2016 issued under signature of the District Mining Officer, Koderma, (respondent no. 3) in respect to the land being Plot Nos. 672,691,671,673 and 690 (Part), measuring an area 0.64 acres, situated under MauzaNawada, P.S. Markachcho within District- Koderma, by giving the benefits of the period elapsed with effect from 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016, during which the matter concerning to renewal of the aforesaid lease of the petitioner remain pending.
Brief facts of the case
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under:-
It is a case of the petitioner, who is one of the partners of Vinayak Minerals, a firm granted a mining lease for stone quarrying on 0.64 acres of land, comprising Plot Nos. 672, 691, 671, 673, and 690 (Part) in Mauza-Nawada, P.S.-Markachcho, DistrictKoderma. The lease was originally granted for a term of 10 years, from 30.11.2003 to 29.11.2013. During this period, the petitioner adhered to all rules and regulations, including the regular payment of royalty to the Government. The petitioner refers to the extract of the lease deed granted from 30.11.2003 to 29.11.2013 in support of this.
3. Before expiry of the lease, the petitioner applied for renewal on 21.06.2013, which was duly acknowledged by the District Mining Officer, Koderma. After receiving all necessary reports and verifying the same, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the renewal on 18.02.2014, extending the lease for another 10 years (from 30.11.2013 to 29.11.2023). However, due to delay in executing the lease deed, the lease was deemed revoked as per the statutory rules.
4. The petitioner challenged the order of deemed revocation before the Mines Commissioner in Rev. Case No. 59 of 2014. On 27.08.2014, the Mines Commissioner allowed the revision, setting aside the order of revocation and directing the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order within 60 days. Despite this order, the matter remained pending, and finally, on 15.02.2016, the Deputy Commissioner renewed the mining lease for a term of 10 years. The petitioner was informed of this renewal through Memo No. 287 dated 04.03.2016.
5. In compliance with the directions in the memo, the petitioner deposited the prescribed surface rent and dead rent for the entire period of lease, which expired on 28.11.2023. The lease deed was executed on 04.04.2016, but strangely, the term of the lease was not mentioned in the agreement, despite the fact that the renewal order was passed on 15.02.2016 and the lease deed was executed on 04.04.2016, the sanctioning order assigned the lease term as effective from the expiry of the previous lease (29.11.2013), extending for another 10 years, valid until 28.11.2023. This period of 29.11.2013 to 04.04.2016, during which no valid lease existed, was retrospectively included in the lease, causing the petitioner significant hardship.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqCEOhSXHETQ9GbrYUJPGNbIN7Hcwm99Llff%2Fv2adbJWI&caseno=WPC/2841/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010153902024&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
