| Headnote |
t Bengal before the High Court was dismissed with the direction to the Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce and Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised offi cer to execute a mining lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2, sole proprietor of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – s. 10-A – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 – Concession Rules, 2016 – r.61 and Proviso – Directions issued to the government of West Bengal to execute a mining lease in favour of respondent no.1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih:Held: It is the stand of the appellants – State of West Bengal, that they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question and to this extent, they have no diffi culty in executing the mining lease – This being the stated stand, which has also been affi rmed, there should be no diffi culty in granting of mining lease for the said area to the Respondent No. 1-M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih – So, it is directed that the government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for 20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 – The claim of the Respondent No. 1 towards the balance area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and dismissed. [Paras 20 and 22]Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 –sub-section (1) to Section 10-A Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 – Object and purpose of amendment – Application of exceptions or the saving clauses in three kinds of situations:Held: The object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through auctioning – This is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 mandates that all applications received prior to 12.01.2015 shall become ineligible – The exceptions or the saving clause applies to three kinds of situations specifi ed in sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 – The fi rst category is where an application has been received u/s. 11-A of the MMDR Act,1957 – The second category is where a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted the permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease and the State Government is satisfi ed that the permit holder or the licensee has complied with the requirements specifi ed in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 – The reason for protecting this class of cases is on account of the fact that they had altered their position by spending money on reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations – Accordingly, the principle of legitimate expectation is applied – The third category is where the Central Government had already communicated their previous approval or the State Government had issue Letter of Intent for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the Amendment Act 2015 – The raison dêtre, it is observed therein, is that certain rights had accrued to these applicants inasmuch as all necessary procedures and formalities had been complied with and only formal lease remains to be executed. [Para 14]Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 –Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 – A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions – Whether approval of the Central Government required or not: Held: Though in the present case, post notifi cation No. S.O. 423(E) dated 10.02.2015, Dolomite was notifi ed as a minor mineral and hence, the approval of the Central Government was not required for the reason that the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions, including the requirement to submit consent letters of the owners of the land in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease deed, or there was to be a stipulation that a condition to this eff ect would be incorporated in the draft lease – Therefore, the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional, and is subject to fulfi lment of the conditions therein. [Para 16]West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – sub-section (10) to section 2 and sub-section (2A) to section 4 – Raiyat Land – Meaning – Rights of Raiyat in respect of land:Held: Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for mining – Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not be able to use the land – In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2 of the WBLR Act, 1955, a Raiyat means a person or an institution holding land for any purpose whatsoever – However, the rights of Raiyat in respect of the land in terms of sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit any other person to quarry sand from his holding, dig or use, or permit any person to dig or use, earth or clay of his holding for the manufacture of bricks or tiles except with previous permission in writing of the State Government – In case of breach of the condition, the prescribed authority may, after giving notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to show cause, can levy a monetary penalty. [Para 17]West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – s. 4B – Preservation of character of land:Held: Section 4-B of the WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates that every Raiyat holding any land shall maintain and preserve such land in a manner that the area is not diminished or its character is not changed or the land is not converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or previously held except with the previous permission of the Collector in writing. [Para 17]Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – s. 14 Y – A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land, subject to certain conditions, including the requirement to submit consent letters of owners of the land in question (Raiyats) – Another stipulation mentioned therein was the need for permission u/s. 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955 for holding the required land and furnishing of Conversion Certifi cate for plots of land from the appropriate authority in terms of s.4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955:Held: The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955, cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land Reforms Offi cer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land was recorded as ‘Dungri’ – The reason is that Raiyat land is not for mining – Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and the classifi cation of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory – Further, whether the consent letter of the owners of the land in question (Raiyats) obtained by the Respondent No. 1still hold good, would be relevant as there could be a change of hands on account of transfer, inheritance, etc – Connected with this are the legal issues – First, whether the Respondent No. 1 had altered its position post the issue of the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, but before enforcement of the Concession Rules, 2016, to get the benefi t of Rule 61 of the Concessions Rules, 2016? – It is necessary to ascertain the facts and then alone one can adjudicate and decide the question whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to the benefi t of the proviso to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 – This has not been verifi ed and ascertained – An issue would arise on whether the application fi led by the Respondent No. 1 way back in 1998 would still hold good as at the time, when the application was fi led, approval of the Central Government was required – Another diffi culty is that WBMDTCL has not been impleaded as a party, though it was always contesting the claim made by the Respondent No. 1 – However, these issues are not being examined in the light of the directions issued – Further, that the remand order cannot be passed at this distinct point of time. [Paras 18 and 19] |
