Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Tata Steel Limited And Another on 3 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 27 of 2008
--------
The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary and others
... Appellants
Versus
Tata Steel Limited and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. G. M. Mishra, Advocate
Mrs. Anindita Mitra, Advocate
For the Intervernor(s) : Mr. S. N. Das, Advocate
Mr. Karamdeo, Advocate
--------
Order No. 54/Dated: 3rd August 2022
I.A. No. 757 of 2013, I.A No. 2484 of 2009 and I.A
No. 2690 of 2010
These interlocutory applications have been filed by the
respondent no.1.
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, the learned Senior counsel assisted
by Mr. G. M. Mishra and Mrs. Anindita Mitra, the learned counsels,
appearing for the respondent no.1 states that the respondent no.1
does not want to press these interlocutory applications.
In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 757 of 2013, I.A
No. 2484 of 2009 and I.A No. 2690 of 2010 are dismissed as not
pressed.
L.P.A No. 27 of 2008
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned Additional
Advocate General-III made a request in the morning for short
adjournment on the ground that the learned Advocate General
shall address this Court in rejoinder. This request was declined for
the reason that this matter has been adjourned on more than
60 occasions and it was substantially heard on 18 th July 2022.
However, with an understanding that after hearing the respondent
no.1 the matter shall be adjourned for 10th August 2022 and some
time would be afforded to both the parties to make their final
submissions.
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, the learned Senior counsel for the
respondent no.1 submits that no disputed questions of fact is
involved in writ petition and the writ Court has rightly passed the
impugned directions.
The learned Senior counsel refers to definition of "mine"
as appearing in section 2(1)(j) of the Mines Act, 1952 and 2(h) of
the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and also dictionary
meaning of the expression "mine" to make his submissions good
that once a mining lease has been granted to the respondent no.1
the surface rights over the entire area covered by the lease shall be
open for utilization by the respondent no.1 and the State of
Jharkhand shall have no right to make any settlement to any
person even under any law over any part of the lands comprised
under the said lease.
The learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.1 has
taken us to various paragraphs and covenants in the Head-Lease,
Supplemental Lease and Lease Deed dated 29th March 1973
executed by the State of Bihar to further submit that a plain
reading of these instruments would demonstrate that surface right
over whole of the lands comprised under the mining lease has been
given to the respondent no.1.
The learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.1
would submit that the State under the garb of exercise of its
powers under Bhudan Yojna Act, 20-point Programme etc. could
not have made settlements over any part of the lease hold area as
long as the lease subsists.
Addressing the Court on a new plea taken by the State
of Jharkhand on applicability of MMDR Act, 1957, the learned
Senior counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that the
restriction of maximum period of mining lease as provided under
section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957 (as amended up to date) is not
attracted in the present case. Rather, if at all any provision is
applicable, the procedure under section 16 could have been
adopted but as a matter of fact as on date no procedure has been
laid down by the Central Government.
Some other related arguments have also been advanced
by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent no.1.
The learned Senior counsel has referred to the
judgments in (i) "Bihar Mines Ltd. v. Union of India" AIR 1967 SC
887, (ii) "M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors."
AIR 1991 Pat 61, (iii) "T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of
India & Ors." (1997) 2 SCC 267, (iv) "Tata Iron & Steel Company
Limited v. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) & Ors." 2005 SCC
OnLine Jhar 298, (v) "Jagdish Mahto v. State of Bihar & Ors." 2006
SCC OnLine Jhar 511, (vi) "Kashi Ram Dehalwar & Anr. v. Union of
India & Ors." 2007 SCC OnLine MP 657, (vii) "Mahabir Kansi v. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors." [L.P.A No. 340 of 2008], (viii) "Nature
Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala & Ors." (2009) 5 SCC 373 and
(ix) "Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India & Others"
(2020) 13 SCC 285.
Mr. S. N. Das, the learned counsel appears for the
intervenor in I.A. No. 4657 of 2013 who has expressed an
apprehension that a person who was a settled Raiyat since
1932-33 is not evicted by virtue of any order/direction passed by
this Court. Mr. S. N. Das, the learned counsel would refer to Rule
72 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to submit that now there
is a statutory provision for paying compensation to the settled
Raiyats.
Mr. Karamdeo, the learned counsel appearing in I.A.
No. 3247 of 2008, who also claimed himself a settled Raiyat since
1932-33 and that he has been paying rent since long, has adopted
the aforesaid submission by Mr. S. N. Das, the learned counsel.
On the request of Mr. Ashutosh Anand, the learned
Additional Advocate General-III, for rejoinder by the State of
Jharkhand, post this matter on 10th August 2022.
Part-heard.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Amit/Tanuj
