# Sri Kishan Lal v. Ist Additional

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-03-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41124 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-kishan-lal-v-ist-additional-40091
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Mines and Mineral Rules Rule-72-Grant
of lease for excavating building stone,
gitti, bolder and mild stone-renewal
application of erstwhile lease holders
rejected- application for grant of fresh
leave invited and granted in favour of
petitioner - cannot be questioned unless
it
exceed
the
limit
of
restriction
contained in rule 10.

Held- Para 8

Vinod Kumar was the first applicant in
pursuance of the notification dated
01.03.2001 but since he did pursue the
matter further, the grant in favour of
Ram Jai Shri cannot be questioned or set
aside. Bharat Lal was not left with any
surviving interest in the area. There is no
bar in holding several mining leases in
the district except the restriction in Rule
10 which provided that the maximum
area for mining else should not cover a
total area of thirty acres. There is
nothing on record to show that the total
area covered or held by petitioner
exceeds thirty acres.
Case Law discussed:
2000(I) AWC-433

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Ram Jai Shri V. State of U.P. and others
321

(v) Sri Kishan Lal Vs. Ist Additional
District Judge, Saharanpur 1983 (2) ARC
453. U.C. Srivastava, J.

(vi) Maqsood Ali Vs. Shamsher
Khan, 1983(2) ARC 319- K.C. Agarwal,
J.

(vii) Thakur Prasad alias Bholanath
Vs. Gur Prasad, AWC 1979 183-K.C.
Agrawal, J.

15. As already indicated earlier in
our order the aforesaid judgments have no
relevance to the question referred to us.

Writ petition is yet to be decided by
the learned Single Judge.

16. Our answer to the question
referred to us is that order 15 Rule 5 Code
of Civil Procedure does not contemplate
that when Court decides the question of
liability of payment of rent in future, the
same should be treated as the admitted
rent due within the meaning of the
expression contained under order 15 Rule
5 Code of Civil Procedure.

Papers returned with our answer for
decision
of
the
Writ
Petition
by
appropriate bench.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41124 of 2002

Ram Jai Shri,

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.G. Padia
Sri Prakash Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.P. Singh
S.C.

Mines and Mineral Rules Rule-72-Grant
of lease for excavating building stone,
gitti, bolder and mild stone-renewal
application of erstwhile lease holders
rejected- application for grant of fresh
leave invited and granted in favour of
petitioner - cannot be questioned unless
it
exceed
the
limit
of
restriction
contained in rule 10.

Held- Para 8

Vinod Kumar was the first applicant in
pursuance of the notification dated
01.03.2001 but since he did pursue the
matter further, the grant in favour of
Ram Jai Shri cannot be questioned or set
aside. Bharat Lal was not left with any
surviving interest in the area. There is no
bar in holding several mining leases in
the district except the restriction in Rule
10 which provided that the maximum
area for mining else should not cover a
total area of thirty acres. There is
nothing on record to show that the total
area covered or held by petitioner
exceeds thirty acres.
Case Law discussed:
2000(I) AWC-433

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Dr. R.G. Padia assisted by
Sri Prakash Padia for petitioner and Sri
S.P. Singh for respondent No. 4 as well as
learned Standing Counsel for rest of
respondent.

2. Sri Bharat Lal-respondent no. 4
was granted a mining lease for excavating
building stone, gitti, bolder and mild
stones in respect of plot no. 485 (area 5
acres)
for
a
period
beginning
on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
322
01.07.1994 up-to 01.07.1999. He applied
for renewal under Rule 5 of The Uttar
Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963 (in short the Rules) on
30.10.1998, and deposited Rs.1000/- as
renewal fees on 16.10.1998. The renewal
application was registered on 30.10.1998,
it was to be disposed f within four months
and if it was not disposed of within the
said period; the mining lease is deemed to
have been renewed for six months from
the date of its expiry to commence from
the date of expiry of the original lease
deed. It appears that no action was taken
of his application and as such Bharat Lal
approached State Government, under
Rule 78, upon which a direction was
issued on 19.05.1999 to the District
Magistrate to decide the application
expeditiously. In the meantime, the State
Government introduced a new mining
policy vide Government Order dated
16.03.1999 providing for auctions. Apart
from the exceptions provided with regard
to excavating lime stones, morang, sand
etc. this Government Order applied
Chapter-IV for settlement by auction to
the entire area where ever minor minerals
were found in the State. The policy
provide in para 7 that, such orders under
which lease or permit are granted shall
continue, till expiration of the period of
lease, but as soon as the permit expires,
declaration shall be issued under Rule 23
(1) of the Rules for granting lease by
auction, or by tender or by auction-cumtender system, and the period of lease
shall be fixed as far as possible so that the
else in respect of river bed minerals shall
expire in the month of September, and for
in situ rock type mineral to expire
according to financial year. The new
mining policy was upheld by this Court in
Uma Crushing Stone Vs. State of U.P.
and
others
reported
in
2000
(1)
A.W.C.433. The Court is informed that
special leave petition against the aforesaid
judgment is pending.

3. The District Magistrate by his
order dated 31.05.1999 rejected the
application of Bharat Lal for renewal on
the ground that by Government Order
dated 16.03.1999 the State Government
has provided for auction/auction-cumtender system under Rule 23 (1) for the
areas which became available after the
enforcement of the policy. The order was
communicated to Sri Bharat Lal on
02.06.1999. He did not challenge the
same. This order, as such, rejecting his
renewal application become final.

4. A notification was issued on
01.03.2001
under
Rule
72
inviting
application in respect of the areas for
which renewal has not been accepted,
after new Mining Policy was enforced,
including subject plot no. 485 (area 5
acres) in village - Patti Kala, Tehsil -
Chunar,
District-Mirzapur.
This
notification dated 02.01.20003 has not
been challenged by Bharat Lal. In the
meantime by Government Order dated
30.12.2000 the Mining Policy dated
16.03.1999 was withdrawn, and the old
policy with regard to grant of mining
leases in Chapter-II was made applicable,
and that all those existing leases which
were
continuing
in
pursuance
of
auction/auction-cum-tender system, were
provided to continue until the areas
became available under Rule 24 be
withdrawn from auction system to grant
of lease under chapter-II. Para 6 of this
Government Order dated 30.12.2000
provided
that
looking
into
the
geographical position of area and taking
into account the technical opinion of the
Director Mines and Minerals, the period
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Ram Jai Shri V. State of U.P. and others
323
of lease shall be ordinarily 3 to 5 years
and the renewal shall also be made for the
same period, but where the lessee has not
applied under Rule 6-A for renewal of
lease, the area shall be related to be
vacant and shall be notified under Rule 72
for grant of lease areas.

5. In pursuance of the notification
under Rule 72 dated 01.03.2001, four
applications were received for grant of
lease whereas Sri Vinod Kumar applied
on 13.02.2001, petitioner Ram Jai Shri
applied on 31.02.2001, respondent no. 4
Bharat Lal applied on 02.04.2001 and that
one Sri Rangi Lal applied on 11.05.2001.
The District Magistrate granted lease to
Sri Ram Jai Shri Vide his Order dated
19.06.2001. In the meantime Bharat Lal;
respondent No. 4 against applied for
renewal on 17.05.2001. Aggrieved against
the grant of lease to petitioner Ram Jai
Shree, Bharat Lal filed an appeal No.
200A of 2001 and Vinod Kumar filed
appeal
No.
292
of
2002
before
Commissioner, under Rule 77 of the
Rules, The appeal filed by Bharat Lal was
allowed
by
the
Commissioner,
Vindhayachal Division, Vindhyachal, and
while setting aside the order dated
19.06.2001 in favour of Ram Jai Shree,
the application for renewal for Bharat Lal
was accepted, and the record was returned
back for registration of renewed lease in
favour of Bharat Lal. The appeal filed by
Vinod
Kumar
was
dismissed
with
observation that in case he want mining
lease in respect of plot no. 486 he may
make application under the Rules. The
Revision has been dismissed by Special
Secretary
Department
of
Industrial
Development, on 19.09.2002 upholding
the order of the Commissioner, on the
ground that on the date of application for
renewal the area was not made available
under the new mining policy dated
16.05.1999 and the District Magistrate
was required to decide his application for
renewal which was wrongly rejected by
him.

6. Dr. R.G. Padia has challenged the
order in appeal as confirmed by the
impugned order passed by the State
Government in revision on the ground
that the application for renewal as filed
beyond the period prescribed under Rule
8 (2) (b). The same could not have been
considered under new mining policy. The
order rejecting the renewal was not
challenged by Sri Bharat La. Further he
did not challenge the notification dated
01.03.2001 under Rule 72 of the Rules
which as become final and that the areas
has become available for fresh grant for
which Bharat Lal had also made an
application which was found to be later in
time than application made by petitioner.
He has also challenged the renewal
application in favour of Bharat Lal on the
ground that he is already a lessee of two
other areas in the name of Bharat Stone
supplier.

7. Sri S.P. Singh, on the other hand,
had defended the impugned orders on the
ground
that
Bharat
Lal
was
not
communicated with the order rejecting his
renewal application. The judgment in
Uma Crushing Stone Co. Vs. State of
U.P. (supra) is still under challenge before
Supreme Court. The application for
renewal was made within time. By the
time applications were invited for fresh
grant under Rule 72, the Mining policy of
1999 was withdrawn by Government
Order dated 30.12.2000 withdrawing the
entire areas of State of U.P. for grant of
mining lease under Chapter-II of the
Rules
which
revived
Bharat
Lal's
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
324
application for renewal. Chapter-II of the
Rules provide for right of tenure of the
lease holder where lease was granted in
accordance with the provisions of the
Rules. The order rejecting the petitioner
application for renewal was passed on a
policy which subsequently withdrawn. He
has also challenged the grant in favour of
petitioner on the ground that he is also
operating a lease in other area of the
district.

8. After considering the submission,
as aforesaid, I find that respondent no. 4
had not challenged the orders dated
31.05.1999
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate
rejecting
his
renewal
application and the notification dated
01.03.2001
under
Rule
72
inviting
applications for grant of lease under
Chapter-II. It is true that by Government
Order dated 31.12.2000 the mining policy
of 1998 vide G.O. dated 16.03.1999 was
withdrawn, but it did not effect those
areas where renewal as not granted during
the period when the policy under G.O.
dated 16.03.1999 was operative, and the
areas became available for fresh grant
vide notification under Rule 72. Bharat
Lal was fully aware of this position and
such he made an application for grant of
lease
in
pursuance
of
G.O.
dated
01.03.2001. His application for renewal
did not survive to be revived by his
application dated 17.5.2001 where the
areas were brought under Chapter II vide
notification under Rule 72, and were
made available for fresh grant of lease.
The application of Bharat Lal for renewal,
therefore, could not survive and could not
be considered. His lease expired on
01.07.1999 and did not have awaited
renewal up-to 17.05.2001, when he
wanted to press his renewal application.
Vinod Kumar was the first applicant in
pursuance of
the notification dated
01.03.2001 but since he did pursue the
matter further, the grant in favour of Ram
Jai Shri cannot be questioned or set aside.
Bharat Lal was not left with any surviving
interest in the area. There is no bar in
holding several mining leases in the
district except the restriction in Rule 10
which provided that the maximum area
for mining else should not cover a total
area of thirty acres. There is nothing on
record to show that the total area covered
or held by petitioner exceeds thirty acres.

9. For the aforesaid reason, the writ
petition is allowed, the impugned orders
dated 28.05.2002 by the Commissioner,
Vindhyachal
Region,
Mirzapur
(annexure-12 to the writ petitioner) and
the order dated 18.09.2002 passed by the
State Government (annexure-16 to the
writ petition) are set aside. There shall be
no order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1997

Basant Singh and others ...Appellants
 (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ramdendra Asthana
Sri Anil Srivastava
Sri A.K. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.