# SONE VALLEY PORTLAND CEMENT CO. LTD v. THE GENERAL MINING SYNDICATE PVT. LTD

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 359
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-24
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, R. S. Sarkaria, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sone-valley-portland-cement-co-ltd-v-the-general-mining-syndicate-pvt-ltd-6919
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Bi/tar Lund Reforms Act, 1950-ss. 4(a) alnd IO-Lessee of mines-:-lf a
tenure-holder or intermediary under the Act.
lntuprl'tation-Amendment of a section-If could be used to interprtt an
earlier provision in the Act.
The proprietor of large tracts of land leased blocks of land to the lessees
at a stipulated rate of royalty and rent.
The lessees sub-leased the land to
the appellant who undertook to pay the less'ees the same royalty and rent
payable by them to the proprietor.
They also agreed to pay an additional
royalty to the head-lessee.
The sub-lease gave an option to th'<! appellant to•
make payment of royalty directly to the head lessor in terms of the head
)ease.
The lessees transferred their rights, title and interest in the head lease
and sub-lease to the respondent.
By virtue of a notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
the estate belonging to the head' lessor passed to and became vested. in the
State.
Another notification issued under s. 3A of the Act declared that all
intermediary interests in certain districts had passed to and became vested in
the State.
In exercise of its option under the sub-lease the appellant paid rent and
royalty directly to the head lessor andi the additional royalty to the head lessee
(respondent) but stopped payment of additional royally to the respondent in
terms of the sub-lease, from July 1, 1958.
On August 8, 1959· Controller of
Mines and Leases for India passed an order enhancing the royalty payable
to the State and in cl.(9) of the order it was stated that "royalty will be payable
to State Government by the appellants in accordance with s. 9 of the Mines
and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and dead rent accarding
to the order passed in these proceedings." The respondent filed a suit claiming
arrear~ of additional royalty.
The High Court decreed the suit.
A
B
c
D
E
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that (i) since the respondent was
merely a tenure-holder aμd all it~ rights, title and interest as such extinguished
alongwith the interes~ of the erstwhile proprietor with the coming into• forcei
F
of the 1950-Act it was the appellant as·,a sub-lessee that became a direct Jessee
of the State and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to claim additional
royalty.
(ii) since the enhanced royalty was payable by the respondent which
was paid by the appellant, the appellant was entitled to reimbursement to the
extent it paid the amount as agent of the respondent.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (1) (a) A
combined reading of ss.4(a) and 10 of the 1950cAct
G
leaves no room for doubt that the interests of the head lessee were Jeft un-·
affected by the notifications. (369 DJ
(b) The1 respondent could not be said to be a tenure-holder as
corite~:n
P!ated by the
1950-A~t as it had neither acquired from the head lessor by
Vlrtue of the lease a nght to hold the land. for the purpose of collecting rent
nor a right to hold the land for bringing it under cultivation by ·establishing
tenants on it. The right of the respondent as a head lessee of the mines and·
minerals also .di(! hot cease and the appellant did not acquire the status of' a
Jesse~. Accordmg to s. 4(a) of 1950-Act on the publication of the .notifications
the mterests of the propnetor or tenure holder comprised
in ·such
estate
or tenure inclusive of such right of a lessee of mines and minerals com]lrised
7-1104-SCI/76
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.Rin such estate or tenure vest absolutely ih the State free from encumbrance:Y.
and such proprietor or tenure.holder has to cease to have any interest in such
estate or tenure other than the interest expressly saved by or under the provi·
sions of the Act. The last words of s. 4(a) of the Act, namely, .. other than·
the interest expressly saved by or uhder the provisions of the Act'' unequivocally show that those interests which are expressly saved are not affected or
impaired by the notifications.
According to s.10 which itself

## Text

_Characters 0–39,552 of 41,621. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39552 for what follows._

I
359
SONE VALLEY PORTLAND CEMENT CO. LTD.
v.
THE GENERAL MINING SYNDICATE PVT. LTD.
August 24, 1976
[ H. R. KHANNA, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Bi/tar Lund Reforms Act, 1950-ss. 4(a) alnd IO-Lessee of mines-:-lf a
tenure-holder or intermediary under the Act.
lntuprl'tation-Amendment of a section-If could be used to interprtt an
earlier provision in the Act.
The proprietor of large tracts of land leased blocks of land to the lessees
at a stipulated rate of royalty and rent.
The lessees sub-leased the land to
the appellant who undertook to pay the less'ees the same royalty and rent
payable by them to the proprietor.
They also agreed to pay an additional
royalty to the head-lessee.
The sub-lease gave an option to th'<! appellant to•
make payment of royalty directly to the head lessor in terms of the head
)ease.
The lessees transferred their rights, title and interest in the head lease
and sub-lease to the respondent.
By virtue of a notification under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
the estate belonging to the head' lessor passed to and became vested. in the
State.
Another notification issued under s. 3A of the Act declared that all
intermediary interests in certain districts had passed to and became vested in
the State.
In exercise of its option under the sub-lease the appellant paid rent and
royalty directly to the head lessor andi the additional royalty to the head lessee
(respondent) but stopped payment of additional royally to the respondent in
terms of the sub-lease, from July 1, 1958.
On August 8, 1959· Controller of
Mines and Leases for India passed an order enhancing the royalty payable
to the State and in cl.(9) of the order it was stated that "royalty will be payable
to State Government by the appellants in accordance with s. 9 of the Mines
and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and dead rent accarding
to the order passed in these proceedings." The respondent filed a suit claiming
arrear~ of additional royalty.
The High Court decreed the suit.
A
B
c
D
E
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that (i) since the respondent was
merely a tenure-holder aμd all it~ rights, title and interest as such extinguished
alongwith the interes~ of the erstwhile proprietor with the coming into• forcei
F
of the 1950-Act it was the appellant as·,a sub-lessee that became a direct Jessee
of the State and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to claim additional
royalty.
(ii) since the enhanced royalty was payable by the respondent which
was paid by the appellant, the appellant was entitled to reimbursement to the
extent it paid the amount as agent of the respondent.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (1) (a) A
combined reading of ss.4(a) and 10 of the 1950cAct
G
leaves no room for doubt that the interests of the head lessee were Jeft un-·
affected by the notifications. (369 DJ
(b) The1 respondent could not be said to be a tenure-holder as
corite~:n
P!ated by the
1950-A~t as it had neither acquired from the head lessor by
Vlrtue of the lease a nght to hold the land. for the purpose of collecting rent
nor a right to hold the land for bringing it under cultivation by ·establishing
tenants on it. The right of the respondent as a head lessee of the mines and·
minerals also .di(! hot cease and the appellant did not acquire the status of' a
Jesse~. Accordmg to s. 4(a) of 1950-Act on the publication of the .notifications
the mterests of the propnetor or tenure holder comprised
in ·such
estate
or tenure inclusive of such right of a lessee of mines and minerals com]lrised
7-1104-SCI/76
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.Rin such estate or tenure vest absolutely ih the State free from encumbrance:Y.
and such proprietor or tenure.holder has to cease to have any interest in such
estate or tenure other than the interest expressly saved by or under the provi·
sions of the Act. The last words of s. 4(a) of the Act, namely, .. other than·
the interest expressly saved by or uhder the provisions of the Act'' unequivocally show that those interests which are expressly saved are not affected or
impaired by the notifications.
According to s.10 which itself is in the nature
of a non-0bstante provision overriding other provisions of the Act; every lease·
of mines ahd minerals comprised in the notified estate or tenure or any part
thereof which may be subsisting immediately before the datel of vesting has
to be treated, with effect from the date of. ve51:ing, as a lease from the State
Government to the holder of the said Subsisting lease for the residue of the.
term of that lease and such holder acquires the right to retain possess·on of
the leasehold property for that period. In other words. in place of every conJractual lease which might have been subsisting immediately before the date of
vesting of the estate or tenure a statutory lease on practically identical terms and
conditions came into being. [368 F-H, 369 A-C]
· Bilzar Mines Ltt!. v. Union of India [1967] 1 S.C.R. 707, Chhatu Ram Hori[
Ram Private Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Anr .. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 881; A.I.R. 1969 S.C:
177, M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Rourke/a v. Sn1t. Kalyani Banerjee & Ors.
[1973] 3 S.C.R. 1 01.nd State of Bi/lar & Anr. etc. v. Khas Karanzpura Collieries
Ltd. etc. [1977] 1 SCR. 157 followed.
.
·.
.
(c) The introduction of s.IOA in the 1950-Act indicates that the law as it obtained prior to the amendment was not intended to have the effect of divesting
a lessee of his interests in a lease of mines or minerals which subsisted immediately before the vesting of a notified estate or tenure. (369 F]
(2) In view of the order passed by the COntroller that the appellant agreed to·
pay the enhanced royalty the burden of ·payment is to be borne by the appellant
and the question of its being reimbursed by the respondent does not arise. [371
DJ
(3) The contention that it is not permiss~ble to interpret a statute by referenceto what has been said in subsequent statutes with reference to the situation obtaining before the introduction of the amendment is not well founded. Sometimes light may be thrO\\'Il upon the meaning of an Act by taking into consideration 'Parliamentary expositions• as revealed by the later Act which amends the
earlier one to clear up any doubt or_ ambiguity. This principle has to be followed
where, a particular construction of the earlier Act will render the Tater incorP'Orated Act ineffectual or otiose or inept. [370 A]
Krikness v. John Hudson &: Co.; [1955] A.C. 696 (HL), Yogendta Nath
Naskar v. CJ.T. Calcutta, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 142, Cape Brandy Syndicate v. l.R.C.
(1921] 2 K.B. 403 referred to.
·
In the instant case resort can be had to the provisions of s. fOA introduced irr
1964 \\'hile interpreting s. 10 of the 1950-Act with referen~c: to the situation obtaining- at the relevant time before the introduction of s. tOA. The estate com-·
prised in the head lease which was assigned to the respondent notionally stood
leased by the State from the date of vesting to the holder of the subsisting lease
and the resrondent became'. entitled to retain possession of the lea~ehold property.
[370D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
1968.
Civil Appear No.
1250. of
(From the Judgment and Order dated 17-4-1967 of" the Calcutta
High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 255/69).
D. V. Patel, H. K. Puri, S. K. Gupta, P. Dayal and M. C. Dhingra,
for the Appellant. -
·
• _.
P. K. Chatterjee, and G. S. Chatterjee, fol! the Respom:fent. ·
'
SOKE VALLEY PORTLAND V. GENERAL
MINING SYNDICATE 3 61
1'
(Jaswant Singh, J.)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal by
certificate
granted under
Article 133 (1) (a) and ( c) of the Constitution
which is
direc~ed
against the judgment and decree dated March. 25,. 1968 of the I-~1gh
Court of Calcutta in Appeal No. 255 of 1963 raises unportant questions
relating to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (Act XXX of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as
'the B.L.R. Act') as also of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms)
Rules, 1956 providing for the modification and alteration of terms and
conditions of the mining leases granted prior to the commencement of
the Mines and _Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948
(Act 53 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act') and of
the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
(Act 67 of 1957) (hereinafter referred lo as 'the 1957 Act') which
replaced the 1948 Act on June 1, 1958.
The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are : By an
indenture of lease dated July 31, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the
'head lease'), Raja Bishambharnath Sabi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Raja') who was the sole proprietor of large tracts of land known as
the Sonepura estate in Paragana Rohtas in the district of Shahbad in
Bihar de_mised certain blocks of land situate in villages
Jaintipur,
Nimhath, Deodand and Dhanwanti, District Shahbad together
with
quarries of lime stone (known as Chunhatta Lime Stone Quarries)
lying thereunder for a period of 40 years commencing from Ist day ofAugust, 1927, and ending on 31st day of July, 1967, with an option
to continue for a further period of 25 years, in con&ideration of a
'salami and fine' of Rs. 8,200 /- unto Karunaranjan Dutt and J ugalchandra Dutt (hereinafter referred to as
'Dutts').
By
the
said
indenture, the head lessees inter alia undertook to pay to the Raja
during the first 15 years of the said period of 40 years of the lease
i.e., from the Ist day of August, 1927, to 31st day of July, 1942,
roy~lty at the rate of annas -/10/- (ten) =62 paise for every 100
cubic feet i.e., roughly at 15-!- paise per ton of solid lime
stone,
quarried, raised, got, used or taken out from the demised premises
and for the remaining 25 years of the lease i.e. from the Ist day of
August, 1942, to 31st day of July, 1967, royalty at the rate of annas
-/15/- \fifteen). =94 paise instead ~f annas -/10/- (ten) for every
100 cubic feet 1.e. roughly at 24 pa1se per ton of solid lime stone,
quarried, ra~sed, got, used or taken out from the demised . premises.
The aforesaid royalty was made payable quarterly i.e.
after every
thre~ months on the fixed dates specified in the indenture of lease.
The head lessees also undertook to pay yearly rent of annas -/6/
(six) per acre subject to the maximum of Rs. 100/- for so much of
the surface land as was to be entered upon, used or occupied bv them
f~r the purpos~ of placing, stocking and beeping stones or waste matenals and rubbish etc. The lease deed further provided as follows :-
--{
. "That th~ :LESSEES' shall be at liberty and competent
w1th0ut obtammg any further consent of the "LESSOR" to
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
assign and transfer this lease or sublet 'or part with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof to any
person, firm or company whether inco~orated or otherwise
and no mutation fee or Nazarana or premmm shall be c.harged
by the 'LESSOR' in case of such transfer or subletung !or
the first time, but in case of subsequent transfer or sub-lettmg
a fee of Rupees five hundred (500/-) shall be payable to
B
the 'LESSOR' for each such occasion.
.
·
c
D
E
F
G
H
If the rents and royalties hereby reserved or any part
thereof or any other
moneys hereunder
payable by the
'LESSEES' to the 'LESSOR' shall remain unpaid for three
months after the same shall become due and payable the
'LESSEES' shall pay interest thereon at the rate of twelve
(12) per cent per annum calculated from the due date until
payment. If the same shall remain unpaid for three years
consecutively or if there be any breach of. any of the conveyants and agreements herein contained and on the part of
the 'LESSEE' to be performed and observed then this lease
shall be liable to be forfeited under an order of a competent
•·
· court besides any other relief hereunder and under the law
then prevailing."
.
On October 12, 1928, the head lessees i.e. Dutts executed a sublease of the aforesaid blocks of land and quarries of lime stone for
the residue of the period of the aforesaid indenture of lease dated ·
July, 1927 except the last day thereof for a consideration of Rs, 5,000/-
in favour of the appellant. The appellant undertook to pay to Dutts
the same
royalty
and rent as were payable
by
Dutts to the
Raja during the period of the aforesaid head lease in respectof
lime stone quarried (except for ballast or building
purposes). In
addition, the appellant undertook to pay to the head lessees during
. residue of the first 15 years of the said period of 40 years royalty
of annas -/16/- (sixteen) for every 100 cubic feet of solid lime stone
quarried, raised, got or used or taken out from the demised premises
and for the remaining 25 years thereafter of the said period for each
such quantity, royalty of annas -/11/- (eleven). The sub-lease gave
option to the appellant to make payment to the head lessor directly
of royalties in terms of the aforesaid head lease whether the head
lessees were to make default or not in making payment of the same.
On February 15, 1929, Dutts transferred by a deed of assignment all
their rights, title and interest under and by virtue of the ·aforesaid
indenture of head lease and the sub-lease dated October 12, 1928 to
the respondent. The appellant had due notice of the said assignment
and accepted the respondent as its lessor in place of Dotts.
· On September 8, 1948, the Central Legislature passed the 1948
Act under Entry 36 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Government
of India Act, 1935.
Section 5 of the Act empowered the Central
Goveffifl!e':'~ to make rules for regulating .the grant of mining leases or ·
for prohib1tmg the grant of such leases m respect of any mineral or
in any area. Section 7 of the Act empowered the-Central Government
to m:i~e rules for t~e .purp~s~ of modifying or· altering the terms and
conditions of any eXJsting mmmg lease granted prior to the commencement of the Act, so as to bring such lease into conformity with the
\
1 '
- j
'(
SONE VALLEY PORTLAND V. GENERAL
MINING SYNDICATE 363
(Jaswant Singh, J.)
rules made under section 5. In exercise of the powers conferred on it
A·
by section 5 of the Act, the Central Government made ~he Mineral
Concession Rules, 1949. Both the 1948 Act and the Mmeral Concession Rules 1949 came into force on October 25, 1949. The provisions of the' Mine;al Concession Rules, 1949, did not apply to leases
or sub-leases granted prior to October 25, 1949.
On September 25, 1950, the B.L.R. Act came into force.
This
Act as apparent from its prea111;ble was enacted for . the purpose of
tran~ference to the State of the mterests of the propnetors and tenure
holders in land and of mortgagees . and lessees of such interests including interest in mines and mineral etc. Sections 3 and 3 A of the
B.L.R. Act which dealt with vesting of estates or tenures in the State
provided as follows :-
"3. ( 1) The State Government may from time to time,
by notification declare that the estates or tenures
of a
proprietor or tenure-bolder, specified in the notification have
passed to and become vested in the State ..... .
3.A. (1) Without prejudice to the provision in the last
preceding section, the State Government may, at any time, by
notification, declare that the intermediary interests of all intermediaries in the whole qf the State have passed to and
15ecome vested in the State.
(2) It shall be lawful for the State Governni.ent, if it so
thinks fit, to issue, from time to time, a notification of the
nature mentioned in sub-section ( 1) in respect of the intermediary interests situate in a part of the State spe.:ified in
the notification and, on the publication of such notification,
all intermediary interests situate in such part of the State
shall have passed to and become vested in the State. . ..... "
On November 14, 1951, the estate of Sonepura belonging to the
Raja passed to and became vested in the State oti Bihar by virtue of
notification No. 83 IR/ZAN dated Noveinber 6, 1951 issued by the
Governor of Bihar in exercise of the power conferred on him by subsection (1) of the above quoted section 3 of the B.L.R. Act.
On January l, 1956, the Governor of Bihar issued notification
No. EVII-102/56-ILR reading as under :-
. "No. EVII-102-56-ILR
:
Whereas a
proclamation
announcing the intention of the State Government to take
over -all the intermediary interest in the district of Shahbad
Patna,.
s.aran, _Muzafferpur,
Bhagal-Sonthal Paraganas,
Ranchi, Smghbhum
Manbhum and excluding. Manbhum
Sadar Sub-Division was
published under notification No.
4381 LR dated the 18th August, 1955, as required by subsection (1) of section 3 (B) of Bihar Land Reforms Act
1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950).
'
Nov.:, therefore, in .exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section 3A of the said Act. the Govern111;ent of B_ihar is pleased to "declare that all ~uch intermediary interests in the said districts (excluding Manbhum Sadar
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
sub-Division) have passed to and become vested in the State
with effect from the date of this Notification."
On September 4, 1956, the Gover_nfi!.ent of Indi~ made rules under
section 7 of the 1948 Act for mod1fymg or altermg the terms and
conditions of the existing leases, being Mining Leases (Modification
of Terms) Rules, 1956. Clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rules defined
"existing mining lease" as meaning a mining lease granted before
October 25, 1949 and subsisting at the commencement of the 1956
Rules but not including any such lease in respect of (i) natural gas,
(ii) petroleum; (iii) coal, or (iv) any minor mineral within the meaning of clause ( c) of section 3 of the Act.
The 1948 Act was replaced by the 1957 Act which came into force
on June 1, 1958. Section 9 of the 1957 Act provided as follows :-
"9. Royalties in respect of mining leases :-
( 1) The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or in any law in force at
such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any mineral
removed by him from the leased area after such commencement, at the rate for the time being specified in the Second
. Schedule in respect of that mineral.
(2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after
the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect
of any mineral removed by him from the leased area at the
rate for the time being specified in the Second Schedule in
respect of that mineral.
(3) The Central Government may, by notification in the
official gazette, amend the Second Schedule so as to enhance
or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be
specified in the notification :
-
Provided that the Central Government shall not-
( a) fix the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral so as
to exceed twenty per cent of the sale price of the
mineral at tb.e pit's head, or
(b) enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral
G
more than once during any period of four years."
H
This section was amended in 1972 by Act No. 56 of 1972. The
amended section in so far as it is relevant for our purpose runs as
follows :-
"9. ( 1) The holder of a mining lease granted before the
comll?-ence~ent o~ this Act shall, notwit~standing anything
contamed m the ms~rument of lease or m any law in force
at such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any mineral
removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager,
employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the based area after
\
f
•.
;or'
:SONE VALLEY PORTLAND V. GENERAL
MINING SYNDICATE
365
(Jaswant Singh, !.)
-""-
such co~encement at the rate for the time being specified
in the Second Sched~le in respect of that mineral.
(2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the
commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any
mineral removed or consumed by him or by his agent,
munager employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased
.area at the rate for the time .being specified in the Second
Schedule in respect of that mineral.
(2A) ..
(3) The Central Government may, by notification in the
official Gazette, amend the Secqnd Schedule so as to e~hance
or reduce the rate at which royalty shall be payable m respect of any mineral with effect from such date as may be
specified in the notification :
Provided that the Central Government shall not enhance
the rate of royalty in respect of any mineral more than once
duriag any period of fpur years."
Section 29 of the Act provided for the effective continuance of
the rules made ,or purporting to have been made under the 1948 Act
in so far as they related to matters provided for in the former Act and
were not inconsistent therewith.
A
B
c
D
By the Bihar Amendment Ordinance No. 3 of 1964 ,which was
subsequently replaced by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act
'(Bihar Act 4 of 1965), the B.L.R. Act was amended by introduction
.of section 10-A which runs as follows :-
E
"10-A. Vesting of interest of lessee of mines or minerals
which is s_ubject to a sub-lease.
( 1) The interest of every
lessee of mines or minerals which is subject to a sub-lease
shall, with effect from such date as may be notified in this
behalf by. the State Government in the Official Gazette, vest
in the State and thereafter the sub-lessee whose lease is not
subject to any further sub-lease shall hold his lease directly
under the State Government and the
provisions of subsections (2) and (4) of section 10 shall, 'mutatis mutandis'
apply t~ his lease.
(2) No _!;_uh-lessee of mines or minerals holding under a
fessee whose interest vests in the State Government under
s~b-section ( 1) shall be entitled to claim any damages from
G
his lessor on the ground that the terms of the lease in respect
of the _mines or minerals have become incapable of fulfilment by the operation of this section."
Purporting to act under the M~n~ng Leases (Modificat\on of Terms)
Rules, 1956, the Controller of Mmmg Leases, an officer appointed by
the c;entral Government for the purpose of implementing the rules,
H
by his order dated August 8, 1959 enhanced the royalties payable
under the aforesaid lease dated July 31, 1927 to 37 Naya Paise per
ton.
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
A
In exerdse of its option under the sub-lease dated October 12.
· 1928, l:he appellant paid rent and royalty pa)'.able by tlie head less~e.
in respect of the aforesaid Chunhatta quarnes under th~ aforesaid
indenture of lease dated July 31, 1927, directly to the Raia upto the
date immediately preceding the date of the aforesaid vesting of the
interest of the Raja in the State of Bihar under the B.L.R. Act. After
the date of the vesting of the interest of the Raja in the State of Bihar
B
the appellant started paying directly to the State the said royalty at.
the rate of 24 paise per ton.
The appellant also continued payi~g
additional royalty at the rate of 17 paise per ton to the respondent m
terms of the sub-lease dated October 12, 1928 but stopped doing so
from July 1, 1958. The respondent thereupon brought a suit on July
10, 1961 being suit No. 1104 of 1961 on the original side of the High
Court at Calcutta claiming a decree for (1) Rs. 25,181.27 as arrears.
C
offoyalty from July 1, 1958, to August 7, 1959 the date immediately
preceding the date on which the Controller enhanced
the royalty
payable to the State to 37 paise; (2) Rs. 32,223.64 as arrears of
royalty at the rate of annas -/11/- (eleven) from August 8, 1959 to
March 31, 1961; (3) Rs. 1,444.00 on account of defu;it payment for
the overdue period in respect of royalty for the quarters ending June
30, 1957, September 30, 1957, December 31, 1957 and June 30,
D
1958. lt also claimed interest on the aforesaid amounts at the rate
of 12 per cent per annum.
The respondent based his claim on the
ground that notwithstanding· the issues of the aforesaid notification
under section 3 of the B.L.R. Act, its interest as a lessee under the lease
which continued to subsist did not vest in the State of Billar and it
became and still continued to be a lessee under that State from the
E
F
G
date of the aforesaid notification under section 3 of the B.L.R. Act.
The appellant contested the suit averring inter alia that while the·
position of Dutts in respect of the. mines under the aforesaid blocks
of land was that of the tenure holders under the Raja, its own positioll"
was that of the lessee in possession and that from November 14, 1951---
the date of vesting of the Sonepura estate in the State of Bihar-the
proprietary right of the Raja in the aforesaid mine ceased to exist and
the respondent became an intermediary in respect thereof directly under
the State of Bihar from tqe said date and the appellant continued to be
a lessee in possession under the respondent. The appellant denied
that the interest of the respondent in the mine was that of the lessee
or that from the date of the aforesaid notification under 'Section c3 of
the B.L.R. Act, the respondent became a lessee of the said mine
directly under the State and averred that it continued to ·be the lessee
in possession of the said mine under the respondent as before. The
appellant furtl1er aVJCrred that in any event the respondent's right to
receive additional royalty from the former in terms of the aforesaid
sub-lease dated October 12, 1928 ceased to exist ~rom January l,
1956, when the interest of the latter as tenure holder in the Chun"
hatta Lime Stone Quarries came to vest in the State. The appellant
further averred that due to ignorance of the publication of the notification dated January 1, 1956 and bonafide mistake arising therefrom,
it continued paying additional royalty to the respondent in terms of
the sub-lease dated October 12, 1928 for the period beginning from
January l, 1956, to the end of June, 1958, which the latter had no-
\ \
I
SONE VALLEY PORTLAND V. GENERAL
MINING SYNDICATE
367
(Jaswant Singh, J.)
right to receive and was refundable to it with interest thereon at the
rate of six per cent. The appellant alternatively pleaded that assuming without admitting that the interest of the respondent in
the
Chunhatta quarries did not vest in the State of Bihar either by notification dated November 14, 1951, or under notification dated January
1, 1956, and that the respondent continued to be a lessee under the
lease dated July 31, 1927, even then the appellant was, under
the
sub-lease dated October 12, 1928, liable to pay roy)lltY only at the
rate of annas -/15/- (fifteen) per 100 cubic feet as provided in the
lease dated July 31, 1927, and an additional royalty of annas -/11/-
(eleven) per 100 cubic feet aggregating Rs. 1/10/- per 100 cubic
feet equal to 24 Na ya Paise plus 17 Na ya Paise per ton (calculating
100 cubic feet as equivalent to 4 tons) for the period commencing
from August 1, 1942 to May 31, 1958 that the respondent being
a holder of the mining lease within the meaning of section 9 of the
1957 Act was liable to pay royalty at the rate o.f 37 Naya Paise per
ton in respect of the minerals removed from the said quarries from
June 1, 1958, and since payment to •the tune of Rs. 61,684.40 on that
account upto March 31, 1961 had been made by the appellant as
an agent of the respondent to safeguard its position and enjoym"ent of
the leasehold property, the former was entitled to be reimbursed to
that extent.
In conclusion, the appellant aimed to set off the aforesaid sum of Rs. 61,684.40 and
subsequent payments of royalty
against the roy3:lty that might be payable to the respondent under
the sub-lease dated October 12, 1928, in respect of the
minerals
removed from the leased quarries from June 1, 19 5 8 up to March 31,
1961 and thereafter.
The appellant, however, admitted that it had
paid the additional royalty to the respondent as stipulated in the sublease dated October 12, 1928, upto June 30, 1958 only.
By hi~ judgment dated July 23, 1963, Sankar Prosad Mitra, J. of
the High Court of Calcutta to whom the suit had been assigned
passed a. decree in favour of the respondent to the extent of
Rs. 47,9~4.10 as the principal sum, and Rs. 8,887.90 on account of
interest, holding inter alia that the respondent was not an intermediary or tenure holder in respect of the estate in suit under B.L.R.
Act and its interest did not vest in the State of Bihar as a result of
the aforesaid notification dated November 6, 1951 or the
notifica-·
tion dated January 1, 1956; that the holder of a mining lease as
envisaged by the B.L.R. Act could be a lessee or a sub-lessee; tha-t it
was the lessee or the sub-lessee who removed the minerals from· the
mine that had to pay royalty at the rate spec,:ified in the Second
Schedule to the 1957 Act and as it was the appellant and not the
respondent that removed the minerals· from the quarries during the
relevant period, the provisions of section 9 of the 1957 Act could not
be invoked for realization of royalties from the latter; and that if the
appellant had paid any sum in excess of the sum stipulated in the
indenture of lease dated July 31, 1927, it did so entirely at its own
choice and risk.
The learned Single Judge further held that section
69 of the Contract Act had no application to the facts of the present
case.
The learned Judge, however, disallowed the claim of the respondent so far as the item of Rs. 1144/- was concerned. Aggrieved
A
B
c
D·
E
G
-
··t
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
by this judgment and decree, the appellant preferred an
1appeal before
a Division Bench of the High Court which proved abortive.
While
affirming the findings of the Single Judge, the Division Bench held
that the interest of the respondent did not vest in the State Government at the material time and the appellant continued to be sublessee under the respondent bound by the terms of the sub-lease and
that the liability to pay royalty to the State at 37 paise per ton from
the date of coming into force of the 1957 Act fell on the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Division Bench of
the High Court, the appellant has, as already stated, come up
in
appeal t_o this Court.
Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Patel has advanced two
contentions. He has in the first instance invited our attention to the
definitions of 'intermediary', 'intermediary interest' 'lease',
'tenure'
and 'tenure-holder' contained in clauses (jj), (jjj), (1), (q) and (r)
respectvely of section 2, as also sections 3, 3A, 4 and 9 of the
B.L.R. Act and stressed that as the respondent was merely a 'tenure
holder' and all his rights, title and interest as such extinguished alongwith the interest of the erstwhile proprietor of the suit land i.e. the
Raja with the coming into force of Notification No. 83 IR/ZAN
(supra) on November 14, 1951, and it was the appellant who being
a sub-lessee stepped in as a direct lessee of the mine in question under
the State, the respondent was not entitled to claim with effect from
November 14, 1951, the additional royalty stipulated in the sub-lease
dated October 12, 1928.
He has further urged that assuming that
the respondent enjoyed the status of a head lessee even then, its right,
title and interest as such having become extinct and vested absolutely in the State without the encumbrance of the lease at least from
January l, 1956-the date of Notification No.
EVII-102/56-JLR
(supra), it could not claim the said additional royalty after December
31, 1955. These contentions which appear to be based upon a misconception of the true legal position cannot be accepted.
The respondent could not be said to be a tenure holder as contemplated by
the aforesaid section 2(r) of the B.L.R. Act as he had neither acquired from the Raja by virtue of the lease dated July 31, 1927 a
right to hold the land mentioned therein for the purpose of collecting
rent nor a right to hold the land for bringing it under cultivation by
establishing tenants on it.
The right of the respondent as a head
lessee of the mines and minerals also did not cease and the appellant
did not acquire the status of the lessee as contended by Mr. Patel.
The consequences of vesting of an estate or tenure in the State are
set out in section 4(a) of the B.L.R. Act.
According to this provision, on the publication of the notification under sub-section ( 1) of
section 3 or sub-section ( 1) or (2) of section 3A of the B.L.R. Act,
the estate or tenure mentio,ned in
the
notification including the
interests of the proprietor or the tenure holder comprised in
such
estate or tenure and his interest in all sub-soil including any right in
mines and minerals inclusive of such right of a lessee of mines and
minerals comprised in such estate or tenure vests absolutely in
the
State free from all encumbrances and such proprietor or tenure holder
has to cease to have any interests in such estate or tenure, other than
\
j_
I
SONE \'ALLEY PORTLAND V. GENERAL
MINING SYNDICATE
3 69
(Jaswant Singh, J.)
the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions ,of the Act.
The last words of section 4(a) of the B.L.R. Act wz. "other than
the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of the Act"
are pregnant with the meaning. They unequivocally show that those
interests which are expressly saved by or under the provisions of the
Act are not affeoted or impaired by the aforesaid notific,ations.
Now
according to section 10 of the B.L.R. Act which itself is in the nature
of a non-obstante provision overriding other provisions of the Act,
every lease of mines and minerals comprised in the notified estate or
tenure or any part thereof 'which may
be subsisting immediately
before the date of vesting has to be tre;ated with effect from the date
of 'vesting' as a lease from the State Go~ernment to the holder of the
said: subsisting lease for the residue of the term of that lease and such
holder acquires the right to retain possession of the leasehold property
for that period.
In other words, in place of every contractual lease
which might have been subsisting immediately before the date of vest~
ing of the estate or tenure, a statutory lease on practically identical
terms and conditions comes into being. Thus the combined reading
of section 4(a) and section 10 of the B.L.R. Act leaves no room for
doubt that the interests of the head lessee were left unaffected by the
aforesaid notifications to the extent indicated
above.
This view
receives support from a catena of decisions of this Court where this
position has been fully recognised and affirmed.
(See Bihar Mines
Ltd. v. Union of India(') Chhatu Ram Horii Ram Private Ltd. v.
State of Bihar & Anr. (2); M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited Rourke/a
v. Smt. Kalyani Banerjee & Ors.( 3 ) and ,,State of Bihar & Anr. etc.
v. Khas Karanpura Collieries Ltd.( 4 ).
A
B
c
D
E
The insertion of section 10-A in the B.L.R. Act by the Bihar
Amendment Ordinance No. 3 of 1964 'which was subsequently replaced by the Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act (Bihar Act
4 of 1965) also indicates that the law as it obtained prior to the ·
aforesaid amendment was not intended to have the effect of divesting
a lessee of his interests in a lease of mines or minerals comprised in
the estate or tenure or part thereof which subsisted immediately before
F
the vesting of a notified estate or tenure.
We must here deal with what has been tried to be impressed upon
us by Mr. Patel in tegard to this aspect of the matter by reading out
to us a passage from Craies on Statute Law. ·The counsel has
strongly urged that since it is not strictly permissible to interpret a
statute by reference to what ihas been said in · subsequent statutes,
G
resort ca~not be had to the provisions of section 1 OA which was introduced m the B.L.R. Act m 1964 while interpreting '.section 10 of
the Act with reference to the situation obtaining at the relevant time
before the introduction of the said seCtion.
We also find ourselve;; unable to accept this contention and to disregard the well settled canon
(I) [1967) I S.C.R. 707.
H
(2) (1968] 2 S.C.R. 881 : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 177.
(3) [1973] 3 S.C.R. 1 .
(4) [1977] I S.C.R. 157.
A
B
('
D
F
G
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
that sometimes light may be thrown upon the meaning 'Of an Act by
taking into consideration ·'parliamentary expositions' a~ revealed
by
the later Act which amends the earlier one to clear up any doubt or
ambiguity. This principle has to be followed where, as in the instant
case, a particular construction of the earlier Act will render the later
incorporated Act ineffectual, or otiose or inept.
(See
Krikness v.
John Hudson & Co. (1).
This view also receives support from
the
decision of this Court in Yogendra Nath Naskar v. C.I.T. Calcutta( 2 )
where approving the authoritative pronouncement in Cape
Brandy
Syndicate v. /.R.C.( 3) that the subsequent legislation may be looked
at in order to see the proper construction to be put upon an earlier
Act where that earlier Act is ambiguous, it was held. that the language
employed in Income Tax Act, 1961 may be relied on as a Parliamentary exposition of the earlier Act (LT. Act, 1922) even on the
assumption that the language employed in Section 3 of the earlier Act
is ambiguous.
It follows from the above discussion that the estate comprised in
the head lease in the instant case which was assigned to the respondent notionally stood leased by the State from the date of vesting to
the holder of the subsisting lease for the remainder of the term of the
lease and the respondent became entitled to retain possession of the
leasehold property.
The first contention of Mr. Patel is, therefore,
repelled.
Mr. Patel has next contended that as the royalty payable to the
lessor was enhanced under the provisions of the 1957 Act read with
the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956, which continued in force by virtue of section 29 of the 1957 Act and the enhanced royalty was payable by the respondent who was the holder of
the mining lease as envisaged by section 9 of the· 1957 Act, the
appellant was entitled to be re-imbursed to the extent of Rs. 61,684.40
which was paid by him as an agent of the respondent. This contention has to be examined with reference to two periods viz. (i) from
July 1, 1958 to August 7, 1959, and (ii) August 8, 1959 to March
31, 1961. It is admitted by the appellant that during the period
intervening between the date when the 1957 Act came into force and
August 8, 1959 when the Controller passed the aforesaid order enhancing the royalty payable to the State, it continued to pay the said
royalty at the old rate of 24 paise per ton and was never required to
pay the same at the enhanced rate of 37 paise. No question of
reimbursement for this period can, therefore, arise.
The position, however, with regard to the second period froin
August 8, 1959, to \March 31, .1961, is not free from difficulty and
has to be examined with reference to the provisions of section 9 cif
the 1957 Act and of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms)
Rules, 1956 as also of the provisions of section 9 of the B.L.R. Act.
Whereas according to counsel for the appellant, it is the re.spondent
which being the holder of lease as contemplated by section 9 of the
1957 Act that has to bear the burden of royalty payable to the State
in accordance with the requirements of Second Schedule to the 1957
(1) [1955] A.C. 696 (H.L.)
(2) [1969) 1 S.C.C. 555. [1969] 3 S.C.R. 742.
(3) [1921] 2 K.B. 403.
·
\
SONE VALLEY PORTLAND V.