# M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 799
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 5256 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rai-bharat-das-brothers-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48327
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Mines
And
Minerals
(Development And Regulation) Act, 1957;
Section 8A (Ins. w.e.f. 12-1-2015) - In
view of Section 8A w.e.f. 12-1-2015 all
mining leases shall be granted for the
period of fifty years - However Section 8A
(9) provides provisions of s. 8A shall not
apply to a mining lease granted before the
date of commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015, for which renewal
has been rejected, or which has been
determined, or lapsed - lease of the
petitioners expired on January 17, 2013 -
provisions of Section 8-A of the 1957 Act
came into force on January 12, 2015 -
Held - petitioners could not get their
lease, which had already expired, revived -
any leaseholder having suffered lapse,
would be dis-entitled to any benefit of the
amended provisions of the 1957 Act
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
because
of
the
express
exclusion
contemplated in Section 8-A (9) of the
1957 Act

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Common Cause Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 11 SCC
455

## Text

4 All. M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
acquiesced in such taking and waived his
right
to
take
compensation
for
it."
(emphasis supplied)

6. Similar issue came up for
consideration before the Division Bench
of this Court in Dharambir's case (supra)
wherein the writ petitioner claiming
compensation for alleged utilisation of
land for construction of irrigation channel
in the year 1953, filed in the year 2015
after 60 years was dismissed. It was
observed therein that post independence
there being few options form irrigation
available, the inhabitants of the villages
used to offer land to the State free of cost
for providing infrastructural facilities such
as construction of minor or road. Source
of irrigation was more valuable than the
value of land at that time, as it provided
source of livelihood.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and taking the above authorities
into
account,
in
our
opinion,
the
petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
The stand taken by the respondents is that
possession of the land was taken about 4050 years back and no issue was raised by
the then owner or the petitioners at any
stage, except the representation dated
March 8, 2018. The land was earlier
recorded in the name of the deceased
Bireshwari Prasad Narayan Singh, who
admittedly expired on May 16, 2014. It is
not in dispute that the petitioners are
living in Bengaluru, though it is claimed
that Late Bireshwari Prasad Narayan
Singh was living abroad.

8. Moreover, at this stage, after 50
years, no records will be available to
justify any action. The petitioners had
approached the authorities as well as this
Court after huge delay.

9. For the reasons mentioned above,
in our opinion, no case is made out for
interference in the present writ petition for
award of compensation to petitioners. The
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 5256 of 2020

M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Adarsh Bhushan, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Sri
Madan Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Alok Kmar Singh (S.C.).

Civil
Law
-
Mines
And
Minerals
(Development And Regulation) Act, 1957;
Section 8A (Ins. w.e.f. 12-1-2015) - In
view of Section 8A w.e.f. 12-1-2015 all
mining leases shall be granted for the
period of fifty years - However Section 8A
(9) provides provisions of s. 8A shall not
apply to a mining lease granted before the
date of commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015, for which renewal
has been rejected, or which has been
determined, or lapsed - lease of the
petitioners expired on January 17, 2013 -
provisions of Section 8-A of the 1957 Act
came into force on January 12, 2015 -
Held - petitioners could not get their
lease, which had already expired, revived -
any leaseholder having suffered lapse,
would be dis-entitled to any benefit of the
amended provisions of the 1957 Act
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
because
of
the
express
exclusion
contemplated in Section 8-A (9) of the
1957 Act

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

Common Cause Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 11 SCC
455

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J,
& Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed impugning the orders dated September
3, 2019 and September 7, 2019 passed by
respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively, vide
which the claim of the petitioners for
extension of lease beyond 40 years till 50
years, was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners were granted
mining lease of silika sand on January 18,
1973 for a period of 20 years. It expired on
January 17, 1993. They applied for renewal
thereof well within time in terms of Rule
24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules,
1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1960
Rules'). There was deemed renewal of
petitioners' lease for another period of 20
years. It was to expire on January 17, 2013.
Well before expiry of the aforesaid lease
period, the petitioners filed application for
second renewal thereof. While referring to
the provisions of Section 8-A of the Mines
and
Minerals
(Regulation
and
Development)
Act,
1957
(hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1957 Act'), which was
inserted in the 1957 Act with effect from
January 12, 2015 and relying upon a
judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Common Cause Vs. Union of India and
others, (2016) 11 SCC 455, the petitioners
sought to claim that they were entitled to
renewal of lease for a period of 10 years.
The claim of the petitioners was rejected.

3. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioners is based on the
observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Paragraph 37.5 in Common
Cause's case (supra) which, according to
him, provides for renewal of the lease after
the amendment in the 1957 Act with effect
from January 12, 2015.

4. After hearing learned counsel for
the petitioners, we do not find any merit in
the submissions made. The petitioners were
entitled to renewal of their lease in the year
1993 in terms of the provision existing at
that time. The same was renewed and
expired on January 17, 2013. No provision
was referred to, which provided automatic
second renewal of the lease. In fact,
admittedly, the lease of the petitioners
expired on January 17, 2013. They never
raised any grievance, either before the
expiry thereof or subsequent thereto, about
disposal of the application filed by the
petitioners for renewal of lease. What is
evident from the record is that after the
judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Common Cause (supra), the petitioners
again filed application for renewal of their
lease. The impugned order has been passed
thereon.

5. Considering the facts of the present
case where the lease of the petitioners
expired on January 17, 2013 and the
provisions of Section 8-A of the 1957 Act
having come into force on January 12,
2015, in our opinion, the petitioners could
not have got their lease, which had already
expired, revived. The judgement of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court does not come to their
rescue in terms of the observation made in
the last paragraph thereof which provides
4 All. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kuntesh & Ors.
801
that any leaseholder having suffered lapse,
would be dis-entitled to any benefit of the
amended provisions of the 1957 Act
because
of
the
express
exclusion
contemplated in Section 8-A (9) of the
1957 Act.

6. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any merit in the present writ
petition.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 5317 of 2022

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kuntesh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Parv Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Satya Deo Ojha

A. Civil Law - Insurance - Interpretation -
if the words used in the Insurance Policy
give
rise
to
two
alternative
interpretations, one in favour of the
petitioner-insurer and the other in favour
of
the
insured,
the
rule
of
Contra
Proferentum
would
apply
&
the
interpretation,
which
is
against
the
person/insurer, drafting the words or
expressions, applies - Insurance Policy is a
contract
entered
into
between
the
petitioner-insurer & the State Government
-
Though
it
has
been
reached
in
furtherance of the Government Policy yet,
its terms were drafted by the petitionerinsurer - It is those terms that bind it.
(Para 46)

B. Civil Law - Insurance - Group Personal
Accident Insurance Policy - Mukhyamantri
Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna - Issue -
Whether all and/or any bread winner (of
an eligible family) were insured under the
Insurance Policy, or the 'Mukhiya'/head of
the family or the sole bread winner of the
eligible family alone was insured - Held - it
is the risk/contingency of loss of life of
either the 'Mukhiya / head of the family'
or a bread winner (described as 'Roti
Arjak / bread earner') that is insured -
intent of the Government Policy was to
insure all adult active members of an
eligible family who may have had an
earning - coverage clause under the
Insurance
Policy
read
with
the
Government
Policy
is
to
allow
for
coverage of each adult earning hand of an
eligible family (below 70 years of age),
including its 'Mukhiya / head of the family'
- fact that he may or may not be the sole
bread winner, to a lesser or greater
extent, would not be relevant. - in the
unfortunate occurrence of more than one
death during the policy period, the insurer
may be exposed to honour only the first
claim per eligible family (Para 47, 50, 52,
53)

In a road accident one Rahul Kumar, aged
above 18 years, died - father of the Rahul
Kumar namely Rajkumar was the 'Mukhiya /
head of his family' & was alive on the date of
the accident and he had an earning - At the
time of death Rahul Kumar was engaged in
agricultural activity, though along with his father
- His mother made a claim for payment of Rs. 5
lacs under the Insurance Policy - It was
repudiated by the petitioner-insurer for the
reason the 'Mukhiya / head of the family' (of the
deceased), i.e. father of the deceased Rahul
Kumar, was alive on the date of death of Rahul
Kumar - Claimant Preferred claim petition before
the Permanent Lok Adalat - petitioner-insurer
directed to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the claimant -
Argument of insurer was that coverage was
singular & It was extended only to the 'Mukhiya
/ head of the family' who would have been the
bread winner of his family - Held - Rahul was a