Chattisgarh High Court
Ultratech Cement Limited(Hirmi ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 November, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(C) No. 3216 of 2019
Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, A Company Incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office at Aluminum Sadan, Core-
6, Scope Office Complex, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 And Plant At Balco
Nagar, Korba and Mines At Balco Mainpat Sarguja, Through Its Authorized
Signatory Gaurav Saini, AGM(Legal).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary Revenue and Disaster
Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur.
2. Collector, District Sarguja (Mineral Department), Ambikapur.
3. Deputy Director (Mining) and Mining Officer, Sarguja Ambikapur.
---- Respondents
AND
W.P.(C) No. 3961 of 2019
Ultratech Cement Limited (Hirmi Cement Works) A Company registered under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 'B'
Wing, Ahura Centre, 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri, (East) Mumbai -
400093 (Maharashtra) and a Cement Plant/Unit at Hirmi Cement Works Hirmi,
Pin 493195 District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, Through Its
Authorized Representative.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Deparment of Mineral
Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bawhan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur
Chhattisgharh.
2. Secretary Department of Revenue and Disaster Management
Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. The Collector (Mining Branch), District Balodabazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
4. The Mining Officer Collectorate, Balodabazar District Baloda Bazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
(In W.P.(C) No. 3216 of 2019)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
(In W.P.(C) No. 3961 of 2019) with Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
08/11/2021
1. Both the petitions are heard and decided together by this common order
as the similar cause of action has been arisen in both the petitions.
2. W.P.(C) No. 3216 of 2019 has been brought with prayer to quash the
impugned demand notice dated 24.06.2019 demanding surface rent for
period of 2012 to 2019 being perverse, arbitrary and illegal and also for
declaration that the notification F-6/36/Seven-1/2011 dated 27.12.2011
is non est in the eyes of law.
3. W.P.(C) No. 3961 of 2019 has been brought making prayer for quashing
the impugned demand letter letter dated 03.06.2019 and 01.07.2019.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners in both the
cases that the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on exercise of
powers under Section 59, 60, 71 and 98 read with Section 258 (2) of the
Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In Short 'the Code, 1959'), framed Madhya
Pradesh Land Under Mining Leases Quarry Leases Assessment Rules,
1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1987'). These rules were
challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Satna
Stone and Lime Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors,
reported in 1988 M.P.L.J. 489. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh
High Court has in the judgment held the Rules, 1987 as unreasonable,
invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was on
this basis, this Court considered and granted interim relief by order
dated 16.09.2019 and 07.11.2019 respectively.
5. It is further submitted that the respondents/State, then in an arbitrary
manner made publication of notification dated 27.12.2011 making
amendment in the Rules, 1987 regarding which, the decision in the case
of Satna Stone and Lime Co. Ltd. (supra) is in force. Therefore, both
the petitions were filed challenging the demand notices. It is submitted
that in the later development, by the notification No. F-6-36/Seven-
1/2011 dated 31.01.2020, the earlier notification dated 27.12.2011 has
been repealed, hence, in such situation the demand notice, which are
being challenged in both the petitions do not survive any more, hence,
both the petitions be disposed off.
6. Learned State counsel submits that subsequent to the publication of
notification dated 31.01.2020, the grievances of the petitioners stands
redressed, therefore, the petitions do not survive, as both the petitions
have become infructuous.
7. Considered on the submissions. The demand notices for recovery of
surface rent was issued against the petitioners on the basis of the
notification dated 27.12.2011, which was issued under the provisions of
Rules, 1987. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has in
case of Satna Stone and Lime Co. Ltd. (supra) already declared
Rules, 1987 as ultra vires. In the subsequent development notification
dated 27.12.2011 has been repealed by the notification dated
31.01.2020. Hence, the demand notice issued against the petitioners do
not have any force or authority as there is no rule or law prevailing to
make such demand. Hence, these notices do not survive and no
recovery can be made on the basis of the notices, which are under
challenge in both the petitions. There appears to be no requirement of
passing any orders.
8. With these observations, both the petitions are disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Balram
