# Mohammad Yunus Hasan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 1016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-02
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-yunus-hasan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43621
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused appellant running away from the place of occurrence and they had chased him and also
seen the prosecutrix tying up her Nara (string) in bleeding condition.

23. The defence of the accused appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to
partibandi of the village has no leg to stand because there is nothing on record to show that there
was any enmity of the accused appellant with the Bahnoi of the prosecutrix and moreover, the
prosecutrix was an unmarried girl and no near relative would make a false case of rape against
anyone in which the future of the unmarried girl as well as the reputation of the family remains at
stake and is adversely affected.

24. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case is fully proved and
the trial Court has committed no error in convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant. The
appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

 25. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial
Court against the accused/appellant Raj Kumar are affirmed.

 26. The accused appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody by the trial court
concerned and he shall be sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence. After sending the
accused/appellant to jail his sureties and surety bonds shall stand discharged.

 27. Office is directed to return the lower court record expeditiously along with a copy of this
judgment for necessary action.

 28. Compliance report be sent by the Trial Court within two months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.

Writ C No.- 2558 Of 2016

Mohammad Yunus Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Javed Husain Khan, Gulrez Khan, W.H. Khan
4 All. Mohammad Yunus Hasan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1017
Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C.

Proceedings

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State authorities to extend his
mining lease dated 29.01.2006 for a period of 2 years, 10 months, and 12 days from 29.01.2016, and to
restrain the creation of any third-party rights over the mining area during this period. The petitioner also
sought compensation for alleged loss resulting from the curtailment of his lease. The lease was originally
granted under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and was for a period of ten years. A showcause notice was issued in 2008 alleging illegal mining, which led to cancellation of the lease by the Collector,
Banda, in 2009. The petitioner's appeal was partly allowed in 2011, remitting the matter to the Collector, who
later cleared the charge of illegal mining, subject to payment of royalty. The petitioner then applied for
extension of the curtailed period of the lease, but the State authorities refused, citing changes in rules and
procedures following Apex Court directives, and dismissed his appeal. The writ petition challenged the refusal
to extend the lease, relying on Rule 68 of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and certain judgments
of the Supreme Court and this High Court.

Procedure

Lease granted to petitioner on 29.01.2006 for 10 years under Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
Show-cause notice issued on 11.09.2008 alleging illegal mining.
Collector, Banda, cancelled the lease on 26.02.2009; petitioner appealed to the Commissioner.
Appeal allowed in 2011; Collector's order remitted for fresh consideration.
Collector's subsequent order on 01.07.2011 cleared charges but required payment of Rs. 18,144/- as royalty.
Petitioner complied on 04.11.2011.
Petitioner applied for extension of curtailed lease period on 02.12.2011; no order passed.
Petitioner applied to State Government citing Apex Court judgments for extension.
Court examined Rule 68 of Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and concluded that extension could not
be granted because statutory procedure under Chapters II & IV of the Rules must be followed, and changed
law regarding lease grants prevented automatic extension.
Writ petition dismissed, but petitioner allowed to seek compensation from State or civil court.

Penal Sections / Statutory Provisions

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 68 (Relaxation in special cases), Chapters II & IV
(Lease grant procedure).
Relevant Supreme Court precedents: Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P., J.P. Yadav Vs. Kanhaiya Singh.

Case Law / Principles

Deepak Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2012) 4 SCC 629 - Direction for statutory
amendments and strict compliance in lease grants.
Nar Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. (2013) (2) ADJ 166 & Sukhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2014)
11 ADJ 89 - Pending applications after 31.05.2012 to be treated as fresh under Chapter IV.
Provash Chandra Dalui & another Vs. Biswanath Banerjee & another, AIR 1989 SC 1834 -
Distinction between extension and renewal of lease.
State of U.P. Vs. Lalji Tandon (2004) 1 SCC 1 - Extension vs. renewal of lease; extension requires
covenant in original lease, renewal requires new deed.
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Head Notes

The writ petition emphasizes that extension of a mining lease must be governed by statutory provisions and
cannot be granted merely on the ground of compensating loss caused by earlier curtailment. Rule 68 of the
Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, confers discretionary power to the State Government in the interest
of mineral development, not for compensating individual lessees. Post-Apex Court directives and amendments
to the Rules prohibit automatic extension of leases beyond their contracted term. The Court clarified that
while the petitioner's loss is acknowledged, the remedy lies in approaching the State for compensation or
filing a civil suit, rather than issuance of mandamus for lease extension.

Facts

Mining lease granted to petitioner on 29.01.2006 for 10 years.
Show-cause notice issued in 2008 alleging illegal mining; lease cancelled in 2009.
Appeal partly allowed in 2011; charges cleared after royalty payment.
Application for lease extension denied by State authorities.
Petitioner challenged refusal through writ petition.
Apex Court judgments and amendments to Rules prevent automatic extension.

Contentions

Petitioner requested extension of curtailed lease period under Rule 68.
Argued that denial caused financial loss.
Relied on Supreme Court judgments and earlier High Court decisions to support extension.
Contended State authority acted illegally in refusing extension.

Analysis

Rule 68 Interpretation: Confers discretionary power to grant leases in interest of mineral development; not
for compensating lessee loss.
Changed Legal Framework: Post-2012 amendments prevent automatic extension; fresh leases must follow
Chapter IV.
Extension vs. Renewal: Extension requires prior covenant; no provision exists in petitioner's lease. Renewal
requires a new deed.
Remedy for Loss: Loss due to cancellation may be pursued via compensation from State or civil
proceedings, not writ for extension.
Judicial Precedents: Apex Court and High Court judgments clarified statutory compliance for lease
extension/renewal.
Equity Consideration: Court acknowledged loss but emphasized legal compliance over compensatory
extension.

Conclusion

The writ petition seeking extension of mining lease was dismissed. The Court held that statutory provisions
under Chapters II & IV of Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and post-2012 legal changes prohibit
automatic extension. Rule 68 cannot be invoked to grant extension merely to compensate for curtailed lease
period. The petitioner is left with the option to seek compensation from the State Government or file a civil
suit. The decision reaffirms that extensions of leases must comply with statutory procedure and cannot be
based on loss suffered by lessees alone.
4 All. Mohammad Yunus Hasan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1019
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
&.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by Mohammad Yunus Hasan for a writ of mandamus
commanding the State authorities to extend the mining lease of the petitioner dated 29.1.2006 for a
further period of 2 years 10 months and 12 days commencing from 29.1.2016 and not to create any
third party rights in respect of mining area in question for this period.

2. Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that in the alternative the petitioner may be provided compensation for the loss
which has been caused to him because of illegal curtailment of the period of lease, which was
granted in favour of the petitioner, because of the wrongful action of the State authorities.

3. Facts in short leading to the writ petition are as follows:-

4. Petitioner before this Court was granted a lease for excavation of minor minerals on
29.1.2006 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The
lease was for a period of 10 years. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.9.2008,
alleging therein that the petitioner has done illegal mining to the extent of 756 cubic meters.
Petitioner submitted a reply. Respondent no.4 i.e. the Collector, Banda made an order on
26.2.2009, cancelling the lease of the petitioner. Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal
before the Commissioner, which appeal is stated to have been allowed vide order dated 24.1.2011
and the matter was remanded to the Collector to decide afresh.

5. After remand, by means of the order dated 1.7.2011, the Collector Banda held that the
charge of illegal mining was not established. However, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum
of Rs.18,144/-, as royalty with the State Government. The petitioner is stated to have complied with
the order, by depositing the said amount on 4.11.2011.

6. The petitioner on 2.12.2011 made an application for extending the term of the lease for the
period it stood curtailed under the earlier order of the District Magistrate. No order was passed on
his said application. The petitioner therefore approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner is
stated to have passed an order holding therein that the appeal was not maintainable. The order so
made by the Commissioner is not under challenge before us. However, the petitioner made an
application before the State Government with reference to the judgments of the Apex Court in the
case of Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 833, and in the case of J.P.
Yadav Vs. Kanhaiya Singh and others being Civil Appeal No.8621 of 2013 (arising out of
S.L.P.(C) No.16316 of 2006) decided on 19.9.2013 for extension of the period of lease as per the
prayer noted above.
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner for grant of
extension of the term of lease, be directed to be considered and granted in terms of the prayer
clause of the writ petition.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the term for which the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner
has expired on 28.1.2016. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefits of the
lease during the period of its subsistence, except for the period when the lease deed was cancelled
under the order of Collector. The procedure and the conditions in the matter of grant of lease in
respect of minor minerals has gone a sea change under the directions of the Apex Court as per
judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 4
SCC 629.

10. The State of Uttar Pradesh in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of
Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) has affected various
amendments in the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 being amendment nos.35th, 36th and
37th. These amendments have been taken note of by Division Benches of this High Court in the
case of Nar Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013((2) ADJ 166 as also in the case of
Sukhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (11) ADJ 89 wherein it has been held that all the pending
applications as on 31.5.2012, shall stand rejected and fresh leases can only be granted now under
Chaper IV of the Rules, 1963.

11. The aforesaid judgments in the case of Nar Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others
(supra) as well as in the case of Sukhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. (supra) were subjected to challenge
before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has dismissed the special appeals filed against the same
[Ref. Civil Appeal No.4 of 2016 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.28249 of 2015) decided on
4.1.2016]. The judgments therefore stand on record. The logical conclusion of the aforesaid
judgments is that with the enforcement of the Government Order dated 31.5.2012, the grant of
fresh leases as well as renewal of leases has to be done only in accordance with the provisions
contained in Chapter IV of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), J.P. Yadav Vs. Kanhaiya Singh and others
(supra) as well as to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No.1829 of 2015, decided on 18.3.2015). According to
petitioner, Rule 68 of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 confers a power upon the State
Government to grant extension of the lease for certain reasons in the cases where the period of
earlier lease granted in favour of leasee had been curtailed.

13. Since, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner revolves around the interpretation
of Rule 68 of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, it would be appropriate for this Court
to deal with the said provisions itself at the first instance.
4 All. Mohammad Yunus Hasan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1021

14. Rule 68 of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 read as follows:-

"68. Relaxation of rules in special cases.- The State Government may, if it is of opinion
that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary so to do, by order in writing and for
reasons to be recorded authorised in any case the grant of any mining lease or the working of any
mine for, the purpose of winning any minerals on terms and conditions different from those laid
down in these rules."

15. From a simple reading of the aforesaid Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, it is apparent
that it confers a discretionary power upon the State Government i.e. "if it is of the opinion that in
the interest of mineral development it is necessary so to do, by order in writing and for reasons to
be recorded, authorize in any case the grant of any mining lease or the working of any mine for, the
purpose of winning any minerals on terms and conditions different from those laid down in the
Rules".

16. In our opinion the crucial words under Rule 68 are "in the interest of mineral
development". Rule 68 does not confer a power upon the State Government, to extend the term of
the lease beyond the contracted period, without following the procedure prescribed under Chapter
II & IV of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The main object of Rule 68 is to provide
special power to the State Government in the interest of mineral development and not to
compensate the loss if any caused to a lease holder because of an order of the competent authority
terminating the lease for whatever reasons it may be.

17. Rule 68 cannot be read in the manner to suggest that the State Government, without
forming any opinion that it is in the interest of mineral development to grant leases, can extend the
term of an expired lease on the ground that certain loss has been caused to the lease holder because
of curtailment of the term of the lease granted.

18. Even otherwise, we may record that the terms and conditions on which the lease was
earlier granted to the petitioner in the year 2006, have now gone a sea change, as already noticed in
the judgments in the case of Nar Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and Sukhan
Singh Vs. State of U.P. (supra).

19. We are more than satisfied that in the facts of the case, it would not be fair and just to
direct any extension of the term of the lease in favour of the petitioner, for the period it stood
curtailed because of the order of District Magistrate referred to above.

20. At the same time, we are conscious of the fact that if any loss has been caused to the
petitioner because of any alleged illegality in order of the District Magistrate, he can always
approach the State Government seeking compensation or may file a civil suit for the purpose, but
direction for extension of the term of the lease in the changed scenario, would not be just and
appropriate.
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Counsel for the petitioner had also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of
Provash Chandra Dalui and another Vs. Biswanath Banerjee and another, AIR 1989 SC 1834,
specifically paragraph 12 as well as upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007(102) RD 574, specifically
paragraph 13 wherein the judgment of the Provash Chandra Dalui and another Vs. Biswanath
Banerjee and another (supra) has been applied for the proposition that extension of lease only mean
prolongation of the term of the lease whereas renewal means a new lease, for fresh term.

22. There can be no dispute with regard to the legal position, which has been so explained by
the Apex Court but the right of extension of the lease, must either flow from a statutory provisions
or from the terms of the lease which has been executed between the parties. In the facts of the case,
no such provision has been brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, what is being prayed for
in the facts of the case, is execution of a fresh lease for the period, the petitioner could not operate
his earlier lease because of the order of the District Magistrate.

23. We may also record that under the lease which was executed between the parties, there
was no provision for extension of the term of the lease. At least, no such clause has been brought to
the notice of the Court. The distinction between extension of a lease and renewal of the lease is also
required to be kept in mind. The legal position in that regard stand settled under the judgment in the
case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Lalji Tandon (Dead) through L.R.S., (2004) 1 SCC 1, ref.
Para 13, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-

"13. ...........There is a difference between an extension of lease in accordance with the
covenant in that regard contained in the principal lease and renewal of lease, again in accordance
with the covenant for renewal contained in the original lease. In the case of extension it is not
necessary to have a fresh deed of lease executed, as the extension of lease for the term agreed upon
shall be a necessary consequence of the clause for extension. However, option for renewal
consistently with the covenant for renewal has to be exercised consistently with the terms thereof
and, if exercised, a fresh deed of lease shall have to be executed between the parties............."

24. We are also of the opinion that the judgments of the Apex court in the case of Beg Raj
Singh Vs. State of U.P and others (supra) and J.P. Yadav Vs. Kanhaiya Singh and others (supra) as
also the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
(supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable in the facts of the
present case as also in view of the change in law regarding grant of mining leases subsequent to the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar and other Vs. State of Haryana and others
(supra).

25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to issue any mandamus for
deciding the application of the petitioner, with the prayer for grant of extension of lease.

26. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach the State Government for payment
of suitable compensation, for the alleged loss of business, if any caused to him due to illegal order
4 All. Mahendra Pal Singh Vs State Of U.P.

1023
of the District Magistrate, cancelling his lease earlier. It is always open to the State Government to
examine all aspects of the matter and take a decision in that regard. Otherwise, petitioner is at
liberty to file a civil suit for compensation.

27. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Capital Cases No.- 2966 Of 2015

Mahendra Pal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Vinod Singh

Counsel for Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Proceedings

The appeal arises from conviction in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2011 for offenses under sections 302/201/376
IPC. The appellant was sentenced to death under section 302 IPC, twenty years rigorous imprisonment under
section 376 IPC, and five years rigorous imprisonment under section 201 IPC, all sentences running
concurrently. The appeal challenged both the conviction and the death sentence.

The High Court heard arguments from both sides, evaluated the circumstantial evidence, post-mortem and
forensic reports, last-seen witnesses, and the statements of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. The
primary question was whether the appellant's involvement in the rape and murder of a minor girl aged about
31⁄2 years was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedure

FIR lodged by Hemraj on 31.1.2011 regarding the disappearance of his daughter.
Initial investigation conducted by Lalit Kumar S.I., including recording statements under section 161 Cr.P.C.,
visiting the crime scene, and collecting physical evidence.
Post-mortem performed by Dr. Avinash Kumar confirming ante-mortem injuries, including vaginal laceration
and abrasions.
Arrest of appellant and co-accused Raja Babu on 4.2.2011; recovery of blood-stained earth from appellant's
house.