Jharkhand High Court
M/S Araanya Mines Private Limited Near ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
----
W.P. (C) No. 3773 of 2025
M/s Araanya Mines Private Limited near Ramgarh Gymkhana
Club, Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. -Ramgarh, District-
Ramgarh represented through its Authorized Signatory
namely Pramath Nath Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of
Late Hem Chandra Mahto, resident of K.D. Siding Road, P.O.
and P.S. Khalari, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
2.The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and
Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.Inspector General of Registration, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District Ranchi.
5.The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology,
having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda,
P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
6.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Collectorate Building, Block-C, Medininagar, P.O. and P.S.
Palamu, District Palamu.
7.The District Mining Officer, Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Palamu
& District-Palamu.
8.The District Sub-Registrar, Medininagar, Palamu, P.O. and
P.S. Palamu & District Palamu. ... Respondents
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
with
----
JSW Steel Ltd., a Company Incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 (Presently Companies Act, 2013),
having its registered office at JSW Center, Bandra Kurla
Complex, P.Ο. & P.S. Bandra East, District Mumbai, and it
Project Office at B-236, Ground Floor, Road No. 3, Ashok
Nagar, P.O. Ashok Nagar, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi,
through its authorized signatory, Arindam Sinha, son of Late
Dilip Kumar Sinha, aged about 45 years, resident of Flat No.
502-B, Building No. 87, Meghna CHS, Tilak Nagar, Chembur
West, P.O. Chembur, P.S. Tilaknagar, District Mumbai.
...Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having
its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and
Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. &
P.S. - Dhurwa, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Inspector General of Registration, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. The, Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and
Geology, at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology,
having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate,
Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
7. The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh,
P.S. Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
8. The District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh,
P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
Respondents.
with
----
M/s Fairmine Carbons Private Limited, a Company
Incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, having its
registered office at 401, 4th Floor, Crosswindz Building, 41,
Court Road, P.O. GPO and P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi
through its Director Sri Rajiv Shekhar, aged about 56 years,
son of Late Chandra Shekhar Prasad, resident of Flat No.
703, Sri Ram Krishna Enclave, Green Park Area, Lane Near
Manya Palace, Morabadi, P.O. and P.S. Morabadi, District
Ranchi. ...Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and
Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Inspector General of Registration, Department of Revenue,
Registration and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. Medininagar,
P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
7. The District Mining Officer, Medininagar, P.O.
Medininagar, P.S. Medininagar, District- Palamau,
Jharkhand.
8. The District Sub-Registrar, Palamau, P.O. Medininagar,
P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
Respondents.
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II
--------
CAV on 25/09/2025 Pronounced on 16/10/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
1. Since the issues involved in the instant batch of writ
petitions are identical, therefore, at the request of learned
counsel for the parties, all these matters have been tagged
together. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Prayer made in the writ petitions:
2. These writ petitions have been filed, under Article 226 of
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
the Constitution of India, for the relief(s) as quoted as under:
3. The prayer as made in WP(C) No. 3773 of 2025 reads
as under:
For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s)
particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated
24.05.2025 as contained in memo no.849 dated 02.06.2025
(Annexure-20) passed by the Court of Deputy Commissioner,
Palamau in Case No. 01/2024-25 whereby and whereunder,
the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.
14,79,95,652/- as deficit stamp duty and registration fees in
relation to the registered Mining Lease dated 30.12.2022
granted to the petitioner over an area of 126.90 hectares land
in Lohari Coal Block situated at Thana Pandwa, District
Palamu.
4. The prayer as made in WP(C) No. 6572 of 2024 reads
as under:
(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing
letter no. 13/ Nibandhanvividh Patrachar-02/2021 52
dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure-14) whereby and
whereunder the Inspector General Registration,
Department of Revenue, relying upon its earlier
communication vide letter no. 13/Nibandhanvividh
Patrachar 02/2021-67/A/Ni dated 08.02.2023
(Annexure-14/1), has directed all the Deputy
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Commissioners in the State of Jharkhand to initiate
proceedings for recovery of deficit stamp duty payable for
registration of mining leases by including "Final Price
Offer" and "contribution payable to District Mineral
Foundation (DMF)" for computation of the "Annual
Average Rent" for determination of Stamp Duty.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing
letter no.1263/Mining dated 26.10.2024 (Annexure-16)
whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer,
Hazaribagh has advised the District Land Registrar to
collect stamp duty in respect of registration of lease deed
for the Moitra Coal Block after inclusion of "Final Price
Offer" and "DMF" amount in the "Annual Average Rent"
amount that forms the basis for determination of stamp
duty.
(iii)For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing
letter no.1274/Mining dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure-17)
whereby and whereunder the District Mining Officer,
Hazaribagh has directed the petitioner to make the
payment the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.
38,16,53,160/- as well as Rs. 28,62,39,870/- payable as
deficit registration fees within 15 days as per the
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
computation chart issued by the District Sub-Registrar
vide letter no. 1874 dated 30.10.2024 after inclusion of
"Final Price Offer" and "DMF" amount.
5. The prayer made in WP(C) No. 272 of 2025 is as under:
(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing
of letter no. 548 dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-3) whereby
and whereunder the District Sub-Registrar, Palamau,
Medininagar has informed the District Mining Officer,
Palamau that Stamp Duty to the tune of Rs.
13,12,63,051/- (Rupees Thirteen Crores Twelve Lakhs
Sixty-Three Thousand and Fifty-One Only) has been
computed by including "Final Price Offer" and "DMFT" for
execution of mining lease in favour of the petitioner for an
area of 116.80 Hectares.
(ii). For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s) particularly a writ of certiorari for quashing
of letter no.2052/Mining dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure-4)
whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner,
Palamau has directed the petitioner to make the payment
of the stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 13,12,63,051/-
(Thirteen Crores Twelve Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand and
Fifty One) for execution of the mining lease in favour of
the petitioner.
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
(iii). Upon quashing of the aforesaid letters dated
14.08.2024 and 01.10.2024, for issuance of an
appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly writ
of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to
forthwith refund the excess stamp duty to the tune of Rs.
9,11,40,900/- (Nine Crores Eleven Lakhs Forty Thousand
and Nine Hundred) as well as Rs. 6,83,55,675/- paid as
Registration Fees by the petitioner under protest for
execution of mining lease dated 07.10.2024 executed in
favour of the petitioner for an area of 116.80 Hectares
situated at Village Pandwa (Thana No. 198) and Rajhara
(Thana 132) in Pandwa and Nawabazar Circle, District-
Palamau along with the interest @ 18% per annum till the
date of payment.
Factual Aspect:
6. Since the issue involved in these batch of writ petitions
are similar, as such for the sake of convenience, the brief
facts of the first case of the batch matter, i.e., in W.P. (C) No.
3773 of 2025, is referred as under:
7. It is the case of the petitioner that a „Coal Mine
Development and Production Agreement‟ was signed between
the Hon'ble President of India through the Nominated
Authority and the petitioner, in pursuance of which a Vesting
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Order 104/30/2015/ΝΑ dated 22.04.2015 was issued by the
Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India.
8. It is further case of the petitioner that there was no
Forest land in Lohari Coal Mine area and the land was settled
to Raiyat by the State Government for agriculture and
residential purpose and are being used for same. The name of
settled Raiyat has been recorded in Register II and they are
depositing rent to the State.
9. The State Government directed to complete the
Revisional Survey, which was notified in the year 1977.
Revisional Survey work was completed and no forest land was
found. The land schedule of Lohari Coal Mine communicated
by Circle Officer, Pandwa and submitted for necessary action
before the authorities concerned.
10. The petitioner states that the Divisional Forest Officer,
Medininagar issued letter no 254, dated 15.01.2018 for
compliance of 1st stage clearance stating therein the direction
of MoEF as under:
"In view of above effecting the change in the legal status
of the land recorded as Jungle Jhar in revenue records,
without prior approval of the Central Govt. is illegal and
violative of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. The
Concerned Department may be directed to immediately
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
restore the legal status of such land to Jungle
jhar/forest land".
11. The petitioner vide letter no AMPL/D-33/2017-18, dated
18.01.2018 submitted representations to the Divisional
Forest Officer, Medininagar, giving copy to the Nominated
Authority and other authorities vide letter dated 19.01.2018.
The DFO, Medininagar returned the said representation
without any consideration vide letter no.882, dated
12.02.2018. The petitioner did not receive any response to
the submission submitted to the Government Authorities.
The respondent-authorities also did not change the legal
status of such land to Forest land.
12. Subsequently, a Writ Petition being WPC 1406 of 2018
was filed before this Court for settlement of the issue of
Deemed Forest by issuance of writ/order/direction
commanding upon the Divisional Forest Officer, Medininagar
to consider and dispose of the representation of the AMPL
bearing Ref. No. AMPL/D-33/2017-18 dated 18.01.2018
which has been returned unattended. The said writ petition is
stated to be still pending before this Court.
13. As the matter of Deemed Forest was not resolved, the
Monitoring Committee in its 3rd meeting held on 19.04.2018,
suggested that the part mining is in non-forest land.
- 10 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
14. In compliance to the direction given during the meeting,
the petitioner explored the possibility of mining excluding the
forest area and requested vide letter no. AMPL/03/2018-19
dt-05.06.2018 for necessary consent with the direction of
formalities/modalities to be complied by us to proceed for
part mining lease excluding the said forest. The matter has
also been placed before the Chief Secretary, State of
Jharkhand during review meeting dated 11.06.2018. In the
minutes of meeting finalized on 18.07.2018, following
direction were given-
"UA submitted that they are interested to get separate
mining lease for non-forest area. Accordingly, UA was
directed to file separate application of mining lease with
modified Mining Plan, EC and other statuary clearances"
15. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner
issued work order for preparation of Revised Mining Plan and
Mine Closure Plan on 30.07.2018. The Circle Officer, Pandwa
issued certified Land Schedule of Non-Forest area of Lohari
Coal Block on 12.10.2018. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the
Application for grant of part mining lease in non-Forest land
i.e. area of 126.90 hectares land in Lohari Coal Block by
enclosing requisite fee, revised Land Schedule, revised
Revenue Map and other documents.
- 11 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
16. The District Mining Officer, Palamau issued
acknowledgement (Form D) vide Sl. No. 2/2018 dated
13.10.2018. Revised Mining Plan & Mine Closure Plan for
non-forest land has been submitted to Ministry of Coal for
approval on 16.11.2018.
17. The District Mining Officer, Palamu vide letter no
1857/M dated 20.12.2018 requested Divisional Forest Officer
for issuance of NOC for further processing of mining lease.
18. The Divisional Forest Officer vide letter no. 5490 dated
28.12.2018 directed the Circle Officer Pandwa to provide CS
land schedule and Khatian of applied non-forest area. The
Circle Officer, Pandwa provided the desired documents vide
letter no. 315 dated 25.05.2019. Further, the Divisional
Forest Officer has issued NOC vide letter no. 2675, dated
25.07.2019.
19. The Approval of Revised Mining Plan and Mine Closure
Plan (non-forest area) granted vide letter no. 34011-23-2018-
CPAM (FTS-341327), dated 10.07.2019. The MoEFCC issued
amended Environment Clearance for mining on 126.90
hectares non-forest land vide No. J.11015/756/2007-IA-II(M)
dated 30.09.2020.
20. The Government of Jharkhand in its meeting held on
30.03.2022 decided to grant a mining lease over 126.90
- 12 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
hectares of non-jungle Jhar land out of the 405 hectares of
Lohari Coal Mine in favour of the petitioner.
21. Thereafter the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines &
Geology vide letter no. 815, dated 11.04.2022 communicated
the grant of Mining Lease and execution thereof to the
Deputy Commissioner, Palamu.
22. On completion of the formalities regarding the execution
of the mining lease the Sub-Registrar sent the calculation of
the amount of Stamp Duty to the Deputy Commissioner,
Palamu vide a letter 412 dated 06.07.2022.
23. According to the aforesaid calculation the amount of
Stamp Duty was assessed at Rs. 85,15,500/- only. The
District Mining Officer, Palamau vide letter 1969/M dated
13.07.2022 directed to submit Stamp paper of value Rs
85,15,500/- as per calculation of Sub-registrar vide letter no.
412/ dated 06.07.2022.
24. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letter AMPL/D-23/2022-
23 dated 04.08.2022 submitted 2 copies of complete sets of
Mining Lease Deed and requested for its execution so that the
process of mining operation could be commenced at the
earliest.
25. Thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Palamau vide
letter 2193/M dated 05.08.2022 returned the copies of the
lease deed and directed the petitioner to comply with 5 points
- 13 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
mentioned therein which includes the submission of a Non-
Judicial Stamp of Rs. 85,15,500.00 attached with the Mining
Lease Deed (Form 'K'), a copy of the Coal Mine Development
and Production Agreement ('CMPDA') and a copy of the
Vesting Order.
26. The petitioner vides letter AMPL/D-24/2022-23 dated
06.08.2022 submitted 2 copies of the Mining Lease Deed
after compliance of all the points including a Stamp Paper of
Rs 85,15,500/-and other relevant documents like the Vesting
Order and the Coal Mine Production and Development
Agreement, as directed in the aforesaid letter 2193/M dated
05.08.2022 of the District Mining Officer, Palamau.
27. The District Sub-Registrar, Palamu, on the suggestion of
the Joint Inspector General Registry, Department of Revenue,
Registry and Land Reform on the basis of Item 35 (a)(iv) and
35 (c) of Schedule 1A, Indian Stamp Act,1899 for calculation
of Stamp Duty, sent a revised calculation of Stamp Duty now
assessed to 51,41,47,209.00 after inclusion of the "Premium
Amount" for registration of Mining Lease Deed vide letter 752/
dated 05.12.2022 and in furtherance of the aforesaid letter of
the District Sub-Registrar's revised calculation of the Stamp
Duty, the District Mining Officer, Palamu, vide letter 3102/M
dated 05.12.2022, enclosing a copy of the aforesaid letter of
the District Sub-Registrar, directed the petitioner to submit
- 14 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
the revised stamp duty assessed after the inclusion of the
"Premium Amount".
28. The petitioner vides its letter AMPL/D-43/2022-23
dated 21.12.2022 to the District Mining Officer, Palamu,
objected the demand of the revised Stamp Duty assessed at
51,41,47,209.00 and requested the District Mining Officer,
Palamu to execute the Mining Lease Deed on the earlier
calculation.
29. The petitioner states that the District Mining Officer,
Palamu vide letter 3369/M dated 21.12.2022 directed the
petitioner to submit an undertaking that it will pay the Stamp
Duty and other expenses on Premium Amount if the
Government so directs in future.
30. The petitioner submitted the aforesaid undertaking by
way of an Affidavit vide letter AMPL/D-46/2022-23 dated
22.12.2022. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid
undertaking did not amount to waiver of objections relating
to all or any illegal and unlawful demands. The aforesaid
undertaking was to comply the limited extent of lawful and
legal demands.
31. The District Sub-Registrar vide letter 804/ dated
22.12.2022 sent a revised Stamp Duty calculation to the
District Mining Officer and the Stamp Duty was assessed at
Rs 85,15,818.48/- as per the earlier calculation and for
- 15 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
coming to this conclusion only the amount of Royalty,
Surface Rent, Security Amount and Preliminary Expenditure
were taken into consideration.
32. In furtherance of the aforesaid letter, the District Mining
Officer, Palamu vide letter no. 3373 dated 22.12.2022
directed the petitioner to submit the Stamp Duty as
calculated in the aforesaid letter by Sub-Registrar.
33. On 30.12.2022 the Mining Lease Deed was registered
upon paying the Stamp Duty charges and Registration Fee
charges calculated on the basis of the aforesaid letter no. 804
dated 22.12.2022, which totaled to Rs. 1,49,04,900/-.
Thereafter on 04.01.2023 the Registered Mining Lease Deed
was received by the petitioner.
34. But to the utter surprise to the petitioner, a letter was
served upon him being letter no. 13/Nibandhanvividh
Patrachar-02/2021 67/A./Ni dated on 08.02.2023 whereby
the Inspector General, Registration, gave direction to the
Deputy Commissioner, Palamu that for calculation of Stamp
Duty of a mining lease deed the "Premium Amount" is also to
be added as per item no. 35 sub clause (c) of the Stamp Act,
1899.
35. The District Mining Officer, Palamu vide letter 353/M
dated 15.02.2023 directed the petitioner to submit the
revised stamp duty of Rs. 51,41,47,209/- after inclusion of
- 16 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Premium Amount and further in reference to the Deputy
Commissioner's letter no. 122, dated 10.02.2023 wherein and
whereby it was directed that no mining operations could be
done before the deposition of stamp duty on Premium
Amount, reproduced the relevant direction in the aforesaid
letter.
36. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid letter
dated 15.02.2023, filed W.P.C No. 1909 of 2024 before this
Court, which was allowed vide order 28.06.2024 by quashing
the letters dated 08.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 and further
liberty was given to the petitioner company to commence the
mining operations at Lohari Coal Mines forthwith if it has
obtained statutory clearances for doing so.
37. The Additional Registrar, Palamau filed a case being
Case No. 01/2024-25 under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 before the Court of Commissioner, Palamau for
recovery of deficit stamp duty and registration fees of Rs.
14,79,95,652/-from the petitioner.
38. The basis for computation of the aforesaid amount was
the Report dated 01.06.2023 submitted by the Principal
Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand wherein it was
observed that the stamp duty must be computed on the total
amount of royalty and final price offer.
- 17 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
39. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector, In-Charge
District Law Branch, Palamau issued notice dated
01.10.2024 upon the petitioner as to why the amount
specified in the notice be not recovered and further directed
the petitioner to submit its reply along with supporting
documents.
40. The petitioner vide letter dated 07.10.2024 submitted its
reply before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. The
petitioner requested to provide the opinion of Learned
Advocate General which has been mentioned in the notice
dated 01.10.2024. But, it is alleged that in spite of request
made by the petitioner, the respondents did not provide the
opinion of Learned Advocate General regarding recovery of
the amount mentioned in notice under Section 47A of Indian
Stamp Act.
41. Thereafter, the respondent State being aggrieved by the
order dated 28.06.2024 passed in WPC No. 1909 of 2024,
preferred SLP being Diary No. 2935/2025 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 24.02.2025
disposed of the petition by setting aside the order passed by
this Hon'ble Court on the limited ground that liberty should
have been given to the State authorities to proceed afresh
against the petitioner.
- 18 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
43. During course of hearing, it was informed by the State
that fresh notice dated 01.10.2024 was issued to the
petitioner.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the
petitioner to submit its response to the notice dated
01.10.2024 within period of 1 month after giving opportunity
of personal hearing to the petitioner.
45. The petitioner submitted its additional written
submissions on 26.03.2025 before the Court of Deputy
Commissioner, Palamau in Case No. 01/2024-25.
46. The Court of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide order
dated 24.05.2025 as contained in memo no. 849 dated
02.06.2025 passed in Case No. 01/2024-25 has directed the
petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 14,79,95,652/-as
deficit stamp duty and registration fees in relation to the
registered Mining Lease dated 30.12.2022 granted to the
petitioner over an area of 126.90 hectares land in Lohari Coal
Block situated at Thana Pandwa, District Palamu.
47. The District Mining Officer, Palamau, Medininagar vide
letter no. 1724 dated 20.06.2025 informed the petitioner
about order dated 24.05.2025 as contained in memo no. 849
dated 02.06.2025 passed in Case No. 01/2024-25 regarding
payment of Rs. 14,79,95,652/- as deficit stamp duty and
registration fees.
- 19 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
48. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached
this Court making prayer for quashing the order dated
24.05.2025 as contained in memo no.849 dated 02.06.2025
passed by the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in
Case No. 01/2024-25 whereby and whereunder, the
petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.
14,79,95,652/- as deficit stamp duty and registration fees in
relation to the registered Mining Lease dated 30.12.2022
granted to the petitioner over an area of 126.90 hectares land
in Lohari Coal Block situated at Thana Pandwa, District
Palamu.
49. So far as factual aspect involved in writ petition
being W.P.(C) No. 6572 of 2024 is concerned, the petitioner
herein participated in a bidding process for allocation of
Moitra Coal block and on being successful the same was
allocated to them. Accordingly, an agreement being ‗Coal
Mines Development and Production Agreement' [CMDPA] was
executed on 17.03.2015.
50. It is the case of the petitioner that though mining lease
was granted to the petitioner on 31.10.2019 by the
respondents-authorities, but the mining lease deed pursuant
thereto has not been executed by the State Government.
51. The District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh vide letter no.
864 dated 14.07.2022 informed the petitioner about the
- 20 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
computation of stamp duty and registration fees payable for
execution of mining lease in relation to Moitra Coal Block
admeasuring 293.54 hectares.
52. The said computation was provided in the letter no.179
dated 05.02.2020 issued by the District Sub-Registrar,
Hazaribagh wherein the stamp duty was calculated to be Rs.
7,09,84,760/- and registration fees was fixed as Rs.
5,32,38,570/-.
53. But in the meantime, the petitioner was served with
seven show cause notice from the Ministry of Coal for not
meeting the time schedule under the ‗efficiency parameter' of
the CMDPA, which the petitioner challenged by filing writ
petitions being WPC No. 1126 of 2020; WPC No. 1127 of 2020
and WPC No. 1128 of 2020 which were heard together and
vide order dated 06.12.2022 the impugned show cause
notices were set aside and writ petitions were disposed of.
54. Thereafter on 26.08.2022, the petitioner submitted
representation to the DMO, Hazaribagh requesting for
execution of mining lease attaching therewith copy of stamp
duty and other documents, as required but mining of lease
deed was not executed by the respondents-authorities.
55. In the meantime, the Inspector General, Registration,
Department of Revenue, Jharkhand issued letter dated
21.05.2024 directing all the Deputy Commissioners of the
- 21 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
State of Jharkhand to initiate proceedings for recovery of
deficit stamp duty payable for registration of mining leases by
including ‗Final Price Order' and ‗DMF' for computation of the
Stamp Duty.
56. Pursuant thereto, the District Mining Officer,
Hazaribagh, vide letter no. 1263 dated 26.10.2024 requested
the District Sub-Registrar to complete the stamp duty and
registration fees on the mining lease deed for the Moitra Coal
Block after inclusion of "Final Price Offer" and "DMFT"
amount.
57. Accordingly, letter no.1274/Mining dated 30.10.2024
was issued by the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh
directing the petitioner to make the payment the deficit
stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 38,16,53,160/- as well as Rs.
28,62,39,870/- payable as deficit registration fees within 15
days as per the computation chart issued by the District Sub-
Registrar vide letter no. 1874 dated 30.10.2024 after
inclusion of "Final Price Offer" and "DMF" amount.
58. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court
for quashing the orders impugned as referred above by filing
W.P.(C) No. 6572 of 2024.
59. So far factual aspect involved in WPC No. 272 of
2025 is concerned, similar factual aspect is involved wherein
the subject matter of mining lease for an area of 116.80
- 22 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
hectares situated at Village Pandwa (Thana No. 198) and
Rajhara (Thana No. 132) in Pandwa and Nawabazar Circle,
Palamau is involved.
60. In this case, the District Sub-Registrar, Palamau,
Medininagar has informed the District Mining Officer,
Palamau vide letter no. 548 dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-3)
that Stamp Duty to the tune of Rs. 13,12,63,051/- (Rupees
Thirteen Crores Twelve Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand and
Fifty-One) has been computed by including "Final Price Offer"
and "DMFT" for execution of mining lease in favour of the
petitioner for an area of 116.80 Hectares.
61. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
has directed the petitioner vide letter no.2052/M. dated
01.10.2024 (Annexure-4) to make the payment of the stamp
duty to the tune of Rs. 13,12,63,051/-(Thirteen Crores
Twelve Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand and Fifty-One) for
execution of the mining lease for the land in question.
62. Pursuant thereto, mining lease dated 07.10.2024 was
executed between the petitioner and Governor of the
Jharkhand for the mining area in question.
63. In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner has
approached this Court making prayer for quashing of the
aforesaid letters dated 14.08.2024 and 01.10.2024, and for
issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith
- 23 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
refund the excess stamp duty to the tune of Rs.
9,11,40,900/- (Nine Crores Eleven Lakhs Forty Thousand
and Nine Hundred) as well as Rs. 6,83,55,675/- paid as
Registration Fees by the petitioner under protest for
execution of mining lease dated 07.10.2024 executed in
favour of the petitioner for an area of 116.80 Hectares
situated at Village Pandwa (Thana No. 198) and Rajhara
(Thana 132) in Pandwa and Nawabazar Circle, District-
Palamau along with the interest @ 18% per annum till the
date of payment.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners:
64. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)
has submitted that the instant matter relates to non-
operationalization of a duly executed and registered mining
lease over the land in question, due to purported
miscalculation and the consequent deficit in the payment of
stamp duty and registration charges.
65. Submission has been made that the stamp duty on
mining lease should be computed only on the basis of royalty
in terms of proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 which is in conformity with Form ‗K' in the Mineral
Concessions Rules, 1960, which forms part of the lease deed.
66. In this regard, submission has been made that contour
of ‗Mining Lease' has been discussed by the nine-judges
- 24 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Vs.
Steel Authority of India & Anr. [(2024) 10 SCC 1],
wherefrom it is evident that ‗Mining Lease' is governed by the
provisions of the MMDR Act,1957 and not governed by the
provisions of Transfer of Property Act,1882. Even the period
of lease, the terms and conditions of lease; the transfer of
proprietary rights in the minerals have to be in accordance
with the provisions of MMDR Act and the Rules made
thereunder.
67. Further submission has been made that the judgment
referred by the learned Advocate General rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu
Vs. Dar Dass Dey & Co., [(1979) 3 SCC 106] has also been
dealt with in the case of Mineral Area Development
Authority & Vs. Steel Authority of India & Anr.(supra)
and thereby it has been held at paragraph-93 that under a
lease deed for mining operations, the owner transfers the
interests in minerals to the lessee in lieu of the payment of
rent, which usually take the form of royalty.
68. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically
argued that the provision, which is attracted for
determination of the stamp duty payable on Mining Lease is
proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899, which
says that in the case of lease of a mine in which royalty or a
- 25 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
share of the produce is received as the rent or part of the
rent, it shall be sufficient to have estimated such royalty or
the value of such share, for the purpose of stamp-duty. Thus,
it is evident that stamp duty is either payable on royalty or a
share of the produce.
69. Further submission has been made that contention of
the respondent-State that ‗Final price offer' can be termed to
be ‗share' is without any basis. ―Final price offer‖ of coal has
been defined in the tender document as Applicable ―Floor
Price‖ for electronic auction shall be the highest Initial Price
Offer received from the Technically Qualified Bidders and
submission has been made that ‗final price offer' cannot be
said to be share of coal produced and received as rent or part
of rent. Even if the ―final price offer‖ is payable in parts per
year, the same cannot be construed as payment towards rent.
70. Further submission has been made that MMDR Act,
1957 recognizes only two kinds of rent i.e., dead rent and
surface rent, which are payable in terms of the provisions
thereunder, and thereby submission has been made that
neither the MMDR Act nor the Coal Mine (Special Provision)
Act, 2015 or for that matter any other statute including the
Indian Stamp Act provide that the ―Final Price Offer‖ can be
termed to be a rent payable on the share of the produce of the
mineral.
- 26 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
71. Further submission has been made that the terms
‗royalty' and ‗share of the produced is received as rent' have
definite meanings and connotation, therefore, no other
meaning can be subscribed to them under the garb of
interpretation.
72. It has been submitted that for the purpose of calculating
the stamp duty the relevant factors have to be strictly
provided and the consideration of ―premium amount‖ for
calculating stamp duty has neither been provided in the
Indian Stamp Act nor in the Mineral Concession Rules.
73. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
emphatically argued that while dealing with the issue
regarding computation of stamp duty on mining lease, several
High Courts have taken the view that the stamp duty must be
computed on the basis of royalty. The Hon'ble Madras High
Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Versus State of
TN: 2022 SCC Online Mad 3927 at paragraph 16, 17, 23
and 24 has observed that anticipated royalty is taken as
basis for the determination of the stamp duty. Further, the
Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Birla Corp. Ltd.
Versus State of M.P.; 2022 SCC OnLine MP 1848 at
paragraph 18 and 28 has observed that proviso to section 26
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for computation of
stamp duty on mining lease on the basis of royalty.
- 27 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
74. Further this Court while dealing with the issue
regarding computation of stamp duty on mining lease in N.S.
& Co. Versus State of Jharkhand, 2002 SCC OnLine Jhar
675 has observed that the royalty must be basis for
computation of stamp duty on mining lease in terms of
proviso to section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act.
75. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the stamp duty is payable on the instrument which in
the instant case would be mining lease and transaction on
mining lease cannot form the basis for computation of stamp
duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh
Mishrimal Jain Versus Avinash Vishwanath Patne: 2025
SCC OnLine SC 329 has observed that the stamp duty is on
the instrument and not on the transaction.
76. Therefore, submission has been made that the
impugned order suffers from patent illegality since whatever
stamp duty has been paid at the time of entering into mining
lease deed, that is based upon the amount of royalty which is
the only basis for computing the stamp duty and registration
charge, as per proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 which provides that in case of lease of mine in which
royalty or share of produce is received as rent or part of rent,
it shall be sufficient to have estimated such royalty or the
value of such share, for the purpose of stamp duty.
- 28 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
77. It has further been submitted that since herein the
instrument which has been created by virtue of entering into
agreement is also in the nature of indeterminate and as such
the same has rightly been assessed on the basis of proviso to
Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 based upon the
royalty.
78. It has been contended that the decision which has been
taken by the authority by putting reliance upon Para 35(C) of
Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as prevalent in
Jharkhand is absolutely incorrect since Para 35 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899, is having no bearing with the issue of
stamp duty so far as the indeterminate instrument having
been created by virtue of lease deed is concerned.
79. It has been contended that the ground which has been
taken of requirement of mining lease as provided under
Clause 5.1.1(a) is concerned, the same is also not applicable
since the same provides of the government approval's
including mining lease for commencement of mining
operation such coal mines and since the mining lease has
been created herein and as the mining lease has been defined
under Section 3(c) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which is in form K
as referred in Rule 31 of the MCR,1960 and if the form ‗K'
would be taken into consideration as per condition stipulated
in clause 9 therein it has been provided that for the purpose
- 29 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
of stamp duty the anticipated royalty from the demised land
is to be deposited. Therefore, the requirement of entering into
mining lease, which is only on the basis of form K and as per
the format given therein, the stamp duty is to be paid on the
basis of anticipated royalty and not over the said amount of
royalty.
80. Learned counsel has further submitted that the ‗mining
lease' has been defined in the MMDR Act, 1957 as under
Section 3(c) a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking
mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such
purpose. Therefore, once the mining lease has been granted
under the provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 then there cannot
be any doubt that the Form under the MCR, 1960 will only be
applicable for the purpose of entering into the agreement and
the stamp duty is to be deposited in terms thereof, as referred
under clause no. 9 of Form K.
81. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment rendered in Mineral Area Development Authority
& Vs. Steel Authority of India & Anr., (supra) wherein it
has been observed that the lease is to be entered into under
the MMDR Act, 1957 and once the lease is being entered
under the self-content Code of MMDR Act, 1957 and the
extracted mineral and the lease has been granted only for the
purpose to extract the mineral and not over the land in
- 30 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
question hence the stamp duty is required to be given on the
basis of royalty only which the petitioner has already
deposited hence there is no reason of demand said to be
differential amount.
82. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that in view of the aforesaid submissions, the impugned
orders challenged in WPC No. 6572 of 2024 and WPC No.
3773 of 2025 be quashed and set aside and the excess stamp
duty and registration fees paid under protest in WPC No. 272
of 2025 be refunded forthwith.
Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for
respondents-State:
83. Per Contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents-State has taken the following grounds defending
the orders passed by the authority concerned.
84. The contention which has been raised that Section 26 of
the India Stamp Act is applicable it is not in dispute but if
proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act will be taken
into consideration there the reference of not only ‗royalty‟ is
there rather the ‗share of the produce received as rent or part
of the rent‟ is also there and therefore, even on the basis of
proviso as contained under Section 26 of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, the stamp duty is required to be deposited/paid on
the basis of share of the produce.
- 31 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
85. The reference of proviso to Section 26(a) has also been
made wherein it has been provided that when the lease has
been granted by or on behalf of the Government, at such
amount or value as the Collector may, having regard to all
the circumstances of the case, have estimated as likely to be
payable by way of royalty or share to the Government under
the lease.
86. Learned Advocate General relying upon the aforesaid
provision i.e., Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 along
with its proviso has submitted that it also speaks with
respect to the share which is to come from lease hold area in
terms of the agreement between the State and the petitioners.
Therefore, argument has been advanced that the share
means whatever amount which is to be extracted upon which
amount of royalty is to be assessed and as per calculation as
provided under the statute the entire amount will be the
consideration amount which itself is available in the Coal
Mines Development and production agreement [CMPDA]
wherein under Clause 1.1.27 so far it relates to WP(C) No.
6572 of 2024, the ‗Final Price Offer' has been defined as an
amount equal to INR 1,512 (Indian Rupees One Thousand
Five Hundred and Twelve) per Tons of Coal, based on which
the Successful Bidder was declared successful in the tender
process for the Coal Mine. Hence, ‗Final Price Offer' mean
- 32 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
share of revenue payable to the Government per Tonne of
coal, based on which the successful bidder was declared
successful in the tender process for the coal mine.
87. It has been contended that final price offer said to be
base price of Rs. 1,512 per Tonne of coal is the basic price for
the purpose upon which the petitioner has agreed at the time
of declaring successful in the bid is to be multiplied from the
total estimated quantity of the mineral which is to be
extracted and it will only be said to be consideration amount
and the same has been referred in the lease deed. Hence, the
stamp duty is required to be deposited on the basis of
consideration amount that is the share of the government of
the said total amount as reflected in the lease deed itself is
required to be paid on such consideration amount.
88. It has been contended that the stamp duty has been
paid on the basis of royalty but actually it ought to have been
paid on the basis of total consideration amount and hence
differential amount has been raised.
89. It has been submitted that ‗Final Price Offer' forms part
of consideration for grant of mining lease and the final price
offer is a consideration in the nature of premium /share of
value land for the mining lease executed for more than 20-30
years. Stamp duty is chargeable under Para 35(C) Schedule
1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 as prevalent in Jharkhand.
- 33 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
It has been submitted that under the new regime for
allocation of the coal mines after the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma
vs. Union of India, (2014) SCC 516, all the coal block
allocations were cancelled and there were fresh allocations
after the fresh auction under the Coal Mines Special
provisions Act, 2015 and the Coal Auction Rules, thereafter,
the mines were allocated under the competitive bid where the
bidder became successful after quoting a price i.e.
consideration based on a total reserve of the coal and its
annualized value. Thus, based on the total coal reserve and
the market value per ton, the bid is taken as percentage
share of the value of coal which the bidder has to pay to the
Government per month.
90. The ground has been taken that the provision of
Transfer of Property Act,1882, is also bearing in the instant
case since the lease has exclusively been defined in the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under Chapter V as under
Section 105 of the Act, which means --a lease of immoveable
property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made
for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in
consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a
share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be
rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the
- 34 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on
such terms.
91. Submission has been made that in the said provision
the Lessor, lessee, premium and rent has been defined. The
transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the
lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money,
share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the
rent.
92. The argument, therefore has been made that
immediately after entering into the lease an instrument has
been created and the said instrument will be construed to be
within the meaning of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, by which, the immovable property has been
transferred for the time being to enjoy such property, in
consideration of the price paid or promised.
93. The consideration amount has been referred in the lease
deed and as such stamp duty is to be paid on the basis of
total consideration amount as per the provision of Section
105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
94. Submission has been made that similar issue fell for
consideration before he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co.
reported in (1979) 3 SCC 106, wherein it has been clearly
held that minerals rights is granted under the MMDR Act for
- 35 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
a period of 30 years and even if there is no right, title or
interest passed to the petitioner in the land, the extraction of
the mineral is share of value of the land and the lease
granted to the surface of the land and the mineral below or
above the surface alone or of the mineral alone is a lease.
95. Thus, submission has been made that ‗mining lease' is a
lease under The Indian Stamp Act,1899 and Transfer of
Property Act,1882, and is a consideration therefore the ―Final
Price to the offer as accepted by the successful
bidder/petitioner in which he agrees to pay not only royalty
but also share of the produce of the land which is in
accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian
Stamp Act and therefore if considered in terms of the lease
granted for 30 years the provisions of Para 35(C) of Schedule
I A of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 as prevalent in Jharkhand,
is applicable.
96. Learned counsel for the respondents-State in support of
his submission has also relied upon the judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand
& Ors Vs. Harpal Singh Rawat [(2011) 4 SCC 575] in
particular paragraph 7, 8 and 10 thereof.
97. Learned Advocate General based upon the aforesaid
grounds has submitted that the petitioners do not deserve
- 36 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
any relief(s), as sought for from this Court, hence, the writ
petitions are fit to be dismissed.
Response by learned counsel for the petitioners:
98. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ
petitioners, in response to the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate General regarding applicability of Section
105 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882, has submitted that
it is not fit to be accepted, since whatever instrument has
been created by way of lease deed was created under the
MMDR Act, 1957 wherein mining lease has been referred.
99. It has been contended that since the lease has been
mentioned exclusively in the MMDR Act, 1957, hence there is
no reason to go into the provision of Section 105 of the
Transfer of Property Act and therefore contention has been
raised regarding the applicability of the Transfer of Property
Act,1882, upon which the reliance has been placed by
learned Advocate General by raising the point that both the
judgments i.e. Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu (Supra) and
State of Uttarakhand & Ors Vs. Harpal Singh Rawat
(Supra) were prior to judgment rendered in the case of
Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Steel
Authority of India & Anr. (supra) and further Sri
Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu (Supra) is on the issue of West
Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.
- 37 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Analysis
100. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the pleadings made in the writ petitions as also the
counter affidavits filed in respective writ petitions.
101. On appreciation of the argument advanced on behalf of
parties, the following issues arises for consideration-
(I) Whether for the lease entered for the purpose of
mining operation, can the provision of Transfer of
Property Act be said to be applicable.
(II) Whether the stamp duty is to be calculated on the
basis of ‗royalty' as per proviso to Section 26 of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 or the Stamp duty is
to be calculated on the basis of Clause of ‗Final
Price Offer' as agreed in Coal Mines Production
and Development Agreement [CMPDA] construed
to be share of the government being
indeterminate.
Re: Issue no. I
102. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that Mining Lease is governed by the MMDR Act,
1957 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has no
application has been formulated as Issue No.(I) and is being
considered herein.
- 38 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
103. Before appreciating the said issue, it would be apt to
discuss herein the definition of lease which has been defined
in various enactment of law but herein since we are dealing
with the applicability of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (herein
referred as Act 1882) in the case of Mining Lease as
stipulated in MMDR Act 1957, therefore it would be relevant
to discuss herein the definition of ―Lease‖ as enshrined in the
Act 1882.
104. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as
under chapter V deals with ‗leases of immovable property'
wherein it has been stipulated that the lease of immoveable
property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made
for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in
consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a
share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be
rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the
transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on
such terms.
105. For ready reference, Section 105 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 is quote as under:
"105. Lease defined.--A lease of immoveable property is a
transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain
time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of
a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops,
service or any other thing of value, to be rendered
periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the
transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms."
- 39 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
106. It is evident from the aforesaid definitions that lease of
the lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a right to
enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or
implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or
promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other
thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified
occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the
transfer on such terms.
107. Thus, Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right
to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or
implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or
promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other
thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified
occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the
transfer on such terms.
108. The provision defines ―lessor‖, ―lessee‖, ―premium‖, and
―rent‖. The ―transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is
called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the
money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is
called the rent‖. The expression ―rent‖ widely to mean any
payment for the use or occupation of land or building
including the payment by a lessee in respect of the use or
occupation of any land or building.
- 40 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
109. Further, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act,
speaks about how leases made, it says that a lease of
immoveable property from year to year, or for any term
exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made
only by a registered instrument.
110. It needs to refer herein that ―lease‖ has also been
defined under Section 2(16), of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
for ready reference the same is quoted herein below-
Section 2 (16)-
(16) Lease-"lease" means a lease of immovable
property, and includes also--
(a) a patta;
(b) a kabuliyat or other undertaking in writing, not being
a counter-part of a lease, to cultivate, occupy, or pay or
deliver rent for, immovable property;
(c) any instrument by which tolls of any description are
let;
(d) any writing on an application for a lease intended to
signify that the application is granted;
111. Hence, under Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, inclusive definition of ‗lease' is given which means a
lease of immovable property.
112. Hence, expression ‗lease' used in the Section 2(16) of the
Indian Stamp Act,1899, has to be understood as per Chapter
V Section of 105 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which
deals with ‗leases of immovable property', in which section
105 defines ‗lease'.
- 41 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
113. The definition under both the provisions is having no
difference since if the provision of Section 105 of the T.P. Act
will be taken into consideration wherein the lease has been
defined that a lease of immoveable property is a transfer of a
right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express
or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or
promised, whereas under Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp
Act says that lease means a lease of immovable property, and
includes also-- (a) a patta; (b) a kabuliyat or other
undertaking in writing, not being a counterpart of a lease, to
cultivate, occupy, or pay or deliver rent for, immovable
property; (c) any instrument by which tolls of any description
are let; (d) any writing on an application for a lease intended
to signify that the application is granted.
114. This Court, on scrutiny of both the definitions in the
statutes has found that there is no substantial difference of
definition in between them since the lease as per the Transfer
of Property Act is a transfer of right to enjoy such property
while under the Indian Stamp Act, the reference of
instrument has also been included by bringing the Patta;
Kabuliyat or other undertaking in writing, not being a
counterpart of a lease, to cultivate, occupy, or pay or deliver
rent for, immovable property etc. have been included. But in
sum and substance, both the provisions provide that effect of
- 42 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
the lease of immovable property would be transfer of right to
enjoy such property made for a certain time.
115. It needs to refer herein that according to Section 3(26)
of the General Clauses Act, 1897, immovable property is
defined to include land, benefits to arise out of land, and
things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth.
116. Further, Section 2(6) of the Registration Act defines
immovable property to include land, buildings, hereditary
allowance, rights of way, lights, ferries, fisheries, or any other
benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to earth, or
permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the
earth, except for standing timber, growing crops, and grass.
117. Admittedly, mineral is also a benefit arising out of land.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar, 1993 Supp
(3) SCC 290, has observed that the right to carry out mining
operations to extract minerals under a mining lease is a right
to enjoy immovable property within the meaning of Section
105 of the T.P. Act, for ready reference the relevant paragraph
is being quoted as under:
6.-- Therefore, it is a right to enjoy immovable property
within the meaning of Section 105 more so when, as in
the instant case, it is coupled with a right to be in
occupation or enter into possession for a specified
period. Section 3(d) of the Act defines „mining
- 43 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
operations‟ to mean any operation undertaken for the
purpose of winning any minerals. It is true that no right,
title or interest has been created in the contractor over
the mining area. But he has been permitted to remove
and use the minor minerals in the execution of the
works as its (sic his) right to enjoy immovable property
spoken of in Section 105 which means the right to enjoy
the property in the manner in which that property can
be enjoyed.
118. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co.,
(supra) has observed that specified mineral and to remove
and appropriate that mineral, is a ―right to enjoy immovable
property‖ within the meaning of Section 105 of the T.P. Act.
For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted as under:
37. A right to carry on mining operations in land to
extract a specified mineral and to remove and
appropriate that mineral, is a "right to enjoy immovable
property" within the meaning of Section 105; more so,
when -- as in the instant case -- it is coupled with a
right to be in its exclusive khas possession for a
specified period. The "right to enjoy immovable property"
spoken of in Section 105, means the right to enjoy the
property in the manner in which that property can be
enjoyed. If the subject-matter of the lease is mineral
land or a sand-mine, as in the case before us, it can
only be enjoyed and occupied by the lessee by working
it, as indicated in Section 108, Transfer of Property Act,
which regulates the rights and liabilities of lessors and
lessees of immovable property.
119. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the 9-judges
Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mineral Area
- 44 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Development Authority & Anr.(supra), has also taken note
of application of Section 105 of the Act 1882.
120. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Apex Court at
paragraph-86 has observed that it is important to understand
the meaning of ‗lease' in the general legal sense to appreciate
their application to mineral operations and at paragraphs -
87 the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with ‗lease' as defined in
Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and at
paragraph-88, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the
right to carry out mining operations to extract minerals under
a mining lease is a right to enjoy immovable property within
the meaning of Section 105. For ready reference the relevant
Paragraph-86,87 and 88 of the said case i.e. Mineral Area
Development Authority & Anr.(supra) are being quoted
herein below -
"86. The expressions "lease" and "licence" have been
used in the context of mining operations in the
Constitution and in the MMRD Act. Therefore, it is
important to understand the meaning of these
expressions in their general legal sense to appreciate
their application to mineral operations.
87. A "lease" connotes a transfer of a right of
enjoyment in immovable property for a certain time in
lieu of consideration. [Mulla on the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 (13th Edn.).] Section 105 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 defines a lease of immovable
property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property,
made for a certain time, express or implied, or in
perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised,
- 45 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing
of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified
occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who
accepts the transfer on such terms. [Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, Section 105.] The provision defines
"lessor", "lessee", "premium", and "rent". The
"transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called
the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the
money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered
is called the rent". This Court has interpreted the
expression "rent" widely to mean any payment for the
use or occupation of land or building including the
payment by a lessee in respect of the use or occupation
of any land or building. [State of Punjab v. British
(India) Corpn. Ltd., 1963 SCC OnLine SC 218 : (1964) 2
SCR 114, para 15]
88. According to Section 3(26) of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, immovable property is defined to include
land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached
to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything
attached to the earth. [ General Clauses Act, 1897,
Section 3(26).] Section 2(6) of the Registration Act
defines immovable property to include land, buildings,
hereditary allowance, rights of way, lights, ferries,
fisheries, or any other benefit to arise out of land, and
things attached to earth, or permanently fastened to
anything which is attached to the earth, except for
standing timber, growing crops, and grass. [
Registration Act, 1908, Section 2(6).] A mineral is also a
benefit arising out of land. The right to carry out mining
operations to extract minerals under a mining lease has
been held by this Court to be a right to enjoy
immovable property within the meaning of Section 105.
[State of Karnataka v. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar,
1993 Supp (3) SCC 290, para 6; Tarkeshwar Sio
Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co., (1979) 3 SCC 106,
para 37]‟‟
(emphasis supplied)
- 46 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
121. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
the lease as referred under Section 3 (c) of the MMDR Act,
1957 will be construed to be lease granted for the purpose for
mining operation but it needs to refer herein that the
definition of lease which has been referred in the MMDR Act
is prefix to the word ‗mining' followed by the word ‗lease.
122. It requires to refer herein that there is no dispute that
the MMDR Act, 1957 is self-contained code for the purpose of
development and regulating, the mining of mines and
minerals, depending upon the various provisions as
contained in the said Act 1957 and the Rules framed by the
State Government within the power conferred to the State
Government and when the moment the State Government
takes decision to transfer the right in favour of the party then
the same will be said to be within the meaning of Section 105
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in view of explanation
furnished under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act
wherein the word lessor, lessee, premium and rent has been
mentioned.
123. As it has been discussed hereinabove that Hon'ble Apex
Court itself has taken recourse to Section 105 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 to explain the meaning of ‗lease' in the
mining operations, which is dealt with in Paragraph-86,87
and 88 of Mineral Area Development Authority &
- 47 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Anr.(supra), then also the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that Mining Lease is governed by
the MMDR Act,1957 only and the Transfer of Property
Act,1882 has no application, is not fully justified.
124. Hence, Issue No, (i) is decided against the petitioners.
Re: issue no. II
125. The Issue No. II is whether the stamp duty is to be
calculated on the basis of ‗royalty' as per proviso to Section
26 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 or the Stamp duty is to be
calculated on the basis of Clause of ‗Final Price Offer' as
agreed in Coal Mines Production and Development Agreement
[CMPDA] construed to be share of the government being
indeterminate is considered herein.
126. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
stamp duty on the mining lease should be computed only on
the basis of royalty in terms of proviso to Section 26 of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899. To substantiate his submission
learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court delivered in case of Mineral Area Development
Authority & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India & Anr.
[(2024) 10 SCC 1]. The learned counsel has also relied on the
judgment of India Cements Ltd. (Supra), Birla Corp. Ltd.
(Supra) and N.S. & Co.(supra).
- 48 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
127. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing
for the State has submitted that petitioners participated in
the bidding process for allocation of different coal block and
being successful in the bidding, agreement called ‗Coal Mines
development and Production Agreement '[CMDPA] was
executed between the petitioners company and the
Government. The agreement contains ‗Final Price Offer'
clause and ‗Final price Offer' forms part of consideration for
grant of mining lease in nature of premium/share of value of
land for the mining lease executed for more than 20-30 years,
hence, stamp duty is chargeable under Para 35(C) of
Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as prevalent in
Jharkhand.
128. Learned Advocate General has also relied on Section
105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, section 2(16) and
proviso to section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899. Learned
Advocate General has also relied on the judgments of Sri
Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu(supra) and State of
Uttarakhand & Ors(supra).
129. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer
statutory provisions under MMDR Act,1957 and the Indian
Stamp Act,1899.
130. In the MMDR Act,1957, lease has not been defined,
rather definition of ‗leased area', as under Section 3 (ac) and
- 49 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
‗mining lease' as under Section 3(c) has been defined.
Definition of ‗leased area', as under Section 3 (ac) and ‗mining
lease' as under Section 3(c) is quoted herein below-
Section 3 (ac)-
‗Leased area' means the area specified in the mining
lease within which the mining operations can be
undertaken and includes the non-mineralized area
required and approved for the activities falling under
the definition of ―mine‖ as referred to in clause (i)
Section 3(c)
―Mining lease‖ means a lease granted for the purpose
of undertaking mining operation, and includes a sub-
lease granted for such purpose.
131. It would be apt to refer ―royalties‖ in respect of mining
lease which has been stipulated under section 9 of the
MMDR, Act, 1957, and sub section 1 and 2 and the same are
being quoted hereunder -
"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 or consumed by him or
by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-
lessee 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 or consumed by him or by his
agent, manager, 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.
132. Royalty payable under the mining lease is also
- 50 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
provided under part V of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960
read with Form K. In Part V apart from payment of royalty,
payment of dead rent, surface rent and water rent are to be
made. In Part-V it is provided that where the holder of such
mining lease becomes liable under section 9 of the Act of
1957, to pay royalty for any mineral removed or consumed
from the leased area, he shall be liable to pay either such
royalty or the dead rent in respect of that area, whichever is
higher.
133. Now, coming to the exact meaning of royalty, this Court
finds that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mineral
Area Development Authority & Anr, at paragraph-99 has
said that royalty is generally understood as compensation
paid for rights and privileges enjoyed by the grantee. It has its
genesis in the agreement entered into between the grantor
and grantee. The Hon'ble Apex Court further dealt with case
of H.R.S. Murthy v. Collector of Chittoor, (1964) 6 SCR
666: AIR 1965 SC 177 and D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State
of Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20, wherein the meaning of
term ‗Royalty' has been discussed.
134. In H.R.S. Murthy(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the royalty connotes the payment made for the materials
or minerals won from the land.
135. In D.K. Trivedi & Sons (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court
- 51 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
while explaining distinction between ‗royalty' and ‗dead rent',
at paragraph-39 laid down that since the mining lease
confers power upon the lessee the right not merely to enjoy
the property as under an ordinary lease but also to extract
minerals from the land and to appropriate them for his own
use or benefit, in addition to the usual rent for the area
demised, the lessee is required to pay a certain amount in
respect of the minerals extracted proportionate to the
quantity so extracted and such payment is called ―royalty‖.
Paragraph-39 of the D.K. Trivedi & Sons (Supra) case is
quoted herein below-
"39. In a mining lease the consideration usually moving
from the lessee to the lessor is the rent for the area leased
(often called surface rent), dead rent and royalty. Since the
mining lease confers upon the lessee the right not merely to
enjoy the property as under an ordinary lease but also to
extract minerals from the land and to appropriate them for
his own use or benefit, in addition to the usual rent for the
area demised, the lessee is required to pay a certain
amount in respect of the minerals extracted proportionate
to the quantity so extracted. Such payment is called
"royalty". It may, however, be that the mine is not worked
properly so as not to yield enough return to the lessor in the
shape of royalty. In order to ensure for the lessor a regular
income, whether the mine is worked or not, a fixed amount
is provided to be paid to him by the lessee. This is called
"dead rent." "Dead rent" is calculated on the basis of the
area leased while royalty is calculated on the quantity of
minerals extracted or removed. Thus, while dead rent is a
fixed return to the lessor, royalty is a return which varies
with the quantity of minerals extracted or removed. Since
- 52 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
dead rent and royalty are both a return to the lessor in
respect of the area leased, looked at from one point of view
dead rent can be described as the minimum guaranteed
amount of royalty payable to the lessor but calculated on
the basis of the area leased and not on the quantity of
minerals extracted or removed. In fact, clause (ix) of Rule 3
of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977,
defines "dead rent" as meaning "the minimum guaranteed
amount of royalty per year payable as per rules or
agreement under a mining lease". Stipulations providing for
the lessee‟s liability to pay surface rent, dead rent and
royalty to the lessor are the usual covenants to be found in
a mining lease."
(emphasis supplied)
136. Now, coming to the issue, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has argued that stamp duty is to be calculated on
the basis of ‗royalty' as per proviso to Section 26 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899.
137. It requires to refer herein that Section 26 of the Indian
Stamp Act,1899, applies when the value of the subject matter
is indeterminate and proviso to section 26 directly deals with
the lease of mine, for ready reference Section 26 of the Indian
Stamp Act 1899 is being quoted herein which reads as under:
―26. Stamp where value of subject-matter is
indeterminate. --Where the amount or value of the subject-
matter of any instrument chargeable with ad valorem duty
cannot be, or (in the case of an instrument executed before
the commencement of this Act) could not have been,
ascertained at the date of its execution or first execution,
nothing shall be claimable under such instrument more than
the highest amount or value for which, if stated in an
- 53 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
instrument of the same description, the stamp actually used
would, at the date of such execution, have been sufficient:
[Provided that, in the case of the lease of a mine in which
royalty or a share of the produce is received as the rent or
part of the rent, it shall be sufficient to have estimated such
royalty or the value of such share, for the purpose of stamp-
duty, --
(a) when the lease has been granted by or on behalf of 2
[the Government], at such amount or value as the Collector
may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case,
have estimated as likely to be payable by way of royalty
or share to 3 [the Government] under the lease, or
(b) when the lease has been granted by any other person,
at twenty thousand rupees a year,
and the whole amount of such royalty or share, whatever
it may be, shall be claimable under such lease:]
Provided also that where proceedings have been taken in
respect of an instrument under section 31 or 41, the amount
certified by the Collector shall be deemed to be the stamp
actually used at the date of execution.
138. It is evident from proviso to Section 26 of the Act 1899
that if a document is intended to cover an unlimited
monetary value, such as royalty, the stamp duty paid will
determine the maximum amount that can be claimed.
139. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that where the
amount or value of the subject-matter of any instrument
chargeable with ad valorem duty cannot be, or (in the case of
an instrument executed before the commencement of this
Act) could not have been, ascertained at the date of its
execution or first execution, nothing shall be claimable under
such instrument more than the highest amount or value for
- 54 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
which, if stated in an instrument of the same description, the
stamp actually used would, at the date of such execution,
have been sufficient with the proviso that in the case of the
lease of a mine in which royalty or a share of the produce is
received as the rent or part of the rent, it shall be sufficient to
have estimated such royalty or the value of such share, for
the purpose of stamp-duty. When the lease has been granted
by or on behalf of the Government, at such amount or value
as the Collector may, having regard to all the circumstances
of the case, have estimated as likely to be payable by way of
royalty or share to the Government under the lease.
140. The aforesaid provision speaks about the stamp duty in
a case if the subject matter is indeterminate wherein the
stamp duty will depend upon the quantum of royalty or share
to the Government under the lease; meaning thereby the
stamp duty will be required on the basis of royalty or share to
the government under the lease.
141. This Court is considering the reference of the word of
‗share' under Section 26 of the Stamp Act in that way on
consideration of the fact that the share and royalty cannot be
construed to be same rather ―royalty‖ is to be treated
differently to that of the ―share‖.
142. It is settled position of law that in the statute if
reference of any word has been given the same cannot be said
- 55 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
to be meaningless, rather, each and every word has got its
meaning and implication.
143. Further, it also needs to be referred herein that each
and every word contained in the statutory provision has got
its meaning and no word can be said to be meaningless,
reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aphali
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) 4
SCC 378. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being
quoted as under:
"39. ------- No part of a statute is to be taken as superfluous
or redundant. Every word in a statute is to be given a
meaning. A construction which would leave without effect
any part of the language of a statute will normally be
rejected. Every clause of a statute is to be construed with
reference to the context and other clauses of the Act so as to
make, as far as possible, a consistent enactment of the
whole statute."
144. It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that
the Act as a whole should be read and discover what each
section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant
and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act
reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in RBI v. Peerless General Finance
& Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424. For ready
reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under
33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.
They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the
- 56 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither
can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is
best which makes the textual interpretation match the
contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why
it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be
read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by
clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is
looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of
the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the
sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and
appear different than when the statute is looked at without
the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we
must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each
section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant
and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire
Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can
be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be
construed so that every word has a place and
everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition
as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to
what preceded the enactment and the reasonsfor it that the
Court construed the expression "Prize Chit"
in Srinivasa [(1980) 4 SCC 507 : (1981) 1 SCR 801 : 51 Com
Cas 464] and we find no reason to depart from the Court's
construction.
145. The core question is as to whether the subject matter is
indeterminate and even if it is indeterminate can the stamp
duty is to be paid on the basis of royalty only, even if
provision of Section 26 of the Act will be taken into
consideration and why not on the basis of share/premium
said to be consideration amount.
146. Further this Court has already observed that the
meaning of lease in both the statutory provisions i.e., the
- 57 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Indian Stamp Act are
same and hence, by virtue of have the right over the
immovable property if any instrument is being created i.e.,
only on the basis of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is in terms
of provision as referred under Section 105 thereof.
147. At this juncture, it would be apt to go through the terms
and conditions of the Coal Mines Production and
Development Agreement [CDPDA] between the writ
petitioners and State wherein the ‗Final Price Offer' has been
mentioned.
148. The question of stamp duty to be paid on the basis of
royalty or on the basis of share or premium in a case subject
matter if indeterminate is concerned, this Court has adverted
to the terms and conditions of the agreement along with the
final offer price as per the clause in the said agreement i.e.
[CMPDA].
149. ‗Final Price Offer' under Clause 1.1.27 of the Coal Mines
Production and Development Agreement [CMPDA] is Rs.
1,512 per Tonne of coal in respect of W.P.(C) No. 6572 of
2024. Further, ‗Final Offer' under clause 1.1.28 of the
CMPDA is 23.00% share of revenue payable to the
Government per Ton of Coal in respect of W.P.(C) No. 272 of
2025.
- 58 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
150. Further at this juncture it would be purposeful to
appreciate the element of Para 35 (c) of schedule 1A of the Act
1899 prevalent in the State of the Jharkhand. The said ―Para
35 (c) of schedule 1A of the Act 1899 has been annexed by
the respondent as Annexure-A in the Counter affidavit
wherein it has been stipulated that where the lease is granted
for a fine or premium or for money advanced, in addition to
rent reserved, stamp duty will be charged as a conveyance
(no.23) for a consideration (or market value) equal to the
amount value of such fine or premium, or advance as set
forth in the lease, in addition to the duty which would have
been payable on such lease if no fine or premium or advance
had been paid or delivered.
151. It requires to refer herein that the lease, as has been
defined under the Transfer of Property Act, could have been
said to be lease, if the MMDR Act would not have been
brought into effect but the Indian Stamp Act is the sole Act
under which the stamp duty is to be paid and that is the
context also regarding the quantum but there is no contest of
the applicability of the Stamp Duty Act, 1899 rather it has
been argued that Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act
particularly its proviso speaks that stamp duty is to be paid
on the basis of royalty.
- 59 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
152. The said argument could have been accepted if under
proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act, the term
royalty only would have been there. But the word ‗share' is
also there. Then what is the meaning of share. The ‗share' as
provided under Section 26 to its proviso and taking it along
with Section 26(a), it is being clarified that the stamp duty
can be paid on the basis of ‗royalty' or ‗share' to the
government under the lease.
153. Herein, share has not been defined but it will be said to
be share of the government due to effect of transfer of the
right for the time being and thereby it is considered view of
this Court that Section 26 does not say exclusively that the
stamp duty will only be on the basis of royalty rather the
word ‗share' is also there.
154. Further, the "Final Price Offer" has been agreed by the
writ petitioners and based upon the same the entire amount
has been assessed for fresh computation of the Stamp Duty.
The said assessment is based upon the extraction of minerals
even though having no authentic estimate of the extraction of
the mineral as to whether the minerals products will be
extracted to the extent of the amount as is being agreed in
between the parties. Hence, even the amount which has been
agreed by the writ petitioners, as per the agreement, is
- 60 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
indeterminate in absence of knowledge of the actual
extraction of the mineral from the lease hold area.
155. Therefore, the applicability of proviso to Section 26
of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 is there but in the facts and
circumstances of the present writ petitions whether it will be
on the basis of amount of royalty or share is to be
determined.
156. Herein since the land is owned by the State, then can it
be said to be justified that only on the basis of amount of
royalty the stamp duty is to be paid. The State is to share the
land for the time being by entering into the lease by forgoing
the rights for the time being by its transfer in favour of the
lessee (petitioners herein). The lessee has agreed to enjoy the
right over the property for the time being by entering into an
agreement (CMPDA).
157. This Court is to consider in a case where the State has
transferred its right for the time being in favour of writ
petitioners, the lessee, by virtue of said agreement on the
―final price offer‖, as referred in the agreement. The writ
petitioners, in pursuance to the said right conferred by virtue
of the said lease deed, has got right to extract minerals from
the lease hold area.
158. At this juncture it requires to refer herein that the
‗royalty', as has been defined under Section 9 of the MMDR
- 61 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Act, 1957, is the statutory amount which is to be paid to the
State in lieu of the extraction of the minerals and once the
said amount is of the State to be paid for carrying out the
mining operation of the land belongs to the State then it
cannot be said to be justified that only over the said amount
the stamp duty is to be paid.
159. Further, the reference of word ‗share, premium, lessor,
lessee, premium and rent' along with the word ‗transfer,
transferee', has been referred in Section 105 of the Act 1882.
The share and premium, as referred in Section 105 of the Act,
1882 is chargeable by the lessor to be paid by the lessee if the
right to hold the land, immovable property, has been
transferred for the time being in favour of the lessee. The
word ―share‖ is having bearing and if the word ―share‖ and
the proviso to Section 26 of the Stamp Act particularly its
proviso will be taken into consideration, there also the
reference of the word royalty or share has been made.
160. The reference of word royalty as provided under Section
26 of the Stamp Duty Act will relate to the charging of the
stamp duty on the amount of royalty in a case when the lease
has been granted by or on behalf of the Government, at such
amount or value as the Collector may, having regard to all
the circumstances of the case, have estimated as likely to be
payable by way of ―royalty‖ or ―share‖ to the Government
- 62 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
under the lease.
161. But when the land is owned by the private party and the
State has granted lease to carry out mining operation in view
of principle that the natural resources are having the
absolute ownership of the State and even if the land belongs
to the private party but the underlying natural resources i.e.,
mineral will not have the propriety right of the land owner. If
the concerned land owner is seeking his right to carry out the
mining operation then he has to have the permission of the
State which will be granted by virtue of entering into lease
deed and in such circumstances the stamp duty will be
required to be charged on the basis of amount of royalty but
in a case of land exclusively owned by the State having
absolute title then Section 26 of the Stamp Act has taken
care in the aforesaid circumstances as to what would be the
stamp duty which is to be charged, therefore, the word
―share‖ has been referred in the proviso to Section 26 of the
Indian Stamp Act 1899.
162. It is settled connotation of law that in the statute if the
reference of any word has been given then each and every
word has got its meaning and implication.
163. In the context of the present case, this Court has
considered the reference of the word ‗share' as stipulated
under proviso to Section 26 of the Stamp Act, wherein the
- 63 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
word ‗royalty' and ‗share' are there, which cannot be
construed to be same rather ―royalty‖ is to be treated
differently to that of the ―share‖.
164. In the aforesaid circumstances the question is that what
is the meaning of word ‗share'. The ‗share' as per the
provision of Section 105 of the T.P. Act, will be total
consideration amount which the party has agreed on the date
or creation of instrument under the Indian Registration Act
giving/conferring right by one party in favour of another for
the time being to have absolute right to carry out mining
operation.
165. Herein one of the writ petitioners (W.P.(C) 272 of 2025)
have paid the stamp duty under protest as per the
calculation made by the authority concerned which would be
evident from Annexure-3 of the said writ petition. For ready
reference the relevant part of the said annexure-3 is being
quoted as under:
अनुमाननत वानषिक स्वानमत्व (in Rupees) 200340000.00
(बीस करोड़ तीन लाख चालीस हजार) रू०
अनुमाननत वानषिक Final Price Offer (in Rupees) 428662500.00
(बयालीस करोड़ नियासी लाख बासठ हजार
पााँ च सौ) रू०
वानषिक अनुमाननत DMFT (10%) 20034000.00
(in rupees) (दो करोड़ चौतीस हजार) रू०
प्रनतभू नत (नसक्यु ररटी) (in Rupees) 10000.00
(दस हजार) रू०
प्राथनमक व्यय (in Rupees) 1000.00 (एक हजार) रू०
भू तल लंगान (30 वषों के नलए) 259752.00
(in Rupees) (दो लाख उनसठ हजार सात सौ बावन) रू०
अनुमाननत ननयत लगान (30 वषों के नलए) 7008000.00 (
(in Rupees) सतर लाख आठ हजार) रू०
कुल रानि 656315252.00
(पैंसठ करोड़ नवस्सठ लाख पंद्रह हजार दो सौ
बावन) रू०
656315252.00 X 5 = 3281576260.00 X 4% = 131263051.00 (तेरह
- 64 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
करोड़ बारह लाख तीरसठ हजार एकावन) रूपये मुद्रां क िुल्क है ।
166. The law is well settled that when an instrument is being
created by virtue of taking aid of provision of Indian
Registration Act, 1908 as the facts of the present case, as per
the statutory command the lease is to be registered. The
instrument is to be created by taking aid of Indian
Registration Act, 1908 and the Stamp duty is to be charged
on the basis of the amount available on the face of the
instrument, which is to be given legal shape to give the
binding force i.e., by way of registration under Indian
Registration Act, 1908.
167. The lessee, the writ petitioner, since has agreed to make
payment being one of the terms and conditions of the lease
deed which is for the period of 30 years since lease deed is for
the period of 30 years as such that amount has been
considered and accepted by the State to be its ―share‖.
168. The said amount being the share of the State will be the
consideration amount for the purpose of charging/computing
the stamp duty. The reason for the same is that if the said
amount will not be construed to be share and the stamp duty
will not be charged on that amount as agreed in between the
parties as referred in the lease deed then the State will be at
the loser end and if merely on the basis of amount of royalty
the stamp duty will be charged, the loss will be multiplied.
- 65 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
169. It also needs to refer herein that the ‗Final Price Offer'
forms part of consideration of grant of mining lease and the
final price offer is a consideration in nature of
premium/share of value for the mining lease executed. So,
Para 35(c) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as
prevalent in Jharkhand, will also apply for the payment of
Stamp Duty.
170. We are conscious that the State cannot act as a
moneylender but in the matter of generation of revenue, the
balance is to be maintained in between the government and
the party concerned.
171. It needs to refer herein that under the new regime for
allocation of the coal mines after the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma
v. union of India, [(2014) 9 SCC 516] all the coal block
allocations were cancelled and there were fresh allocations on
the basis of fresh auction under the Coal Mines (Special
provisions) Act, 2015 and the Coal Auction Rules.
172. The basic reason by holding to allot the mining lease on
the basis of auction is to generate the source of revenue to
the State from the mineral which is to be extracted of any
nature. Prior to Manohar Lal Sharma Judgment there was
no concept of allotment through auction rather it was either
on the basis of linkage system or renewal or extension.
- 66 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
173. Thereafter, the mines were allocated under the
competitive bid where the bidder became successful after
quoting a price i.e. consideration based on a total reserve of
the coal and its annualized value. Thereafter, Coal Mines
Production and Development Agreement [CMPDA] between
the writ petitioners and State has been made.
174. Final Price Offer' under Clause 1.1.27 of the Coal Mines
Production and Development Agreement [CMPDA] is Rs.
1,512 per Tonne of coal in respect of W.P.(C) No. 6572 of
2024 and ‗Final Offer' under clause 1.1.28 of the CMPDA is
23.00% share of revenue payable to the Government per
Tonne of Coal in respect of W.P.(C) No. 272 of 2025, are
provided herein.
175. The final price offer is the word having bearing which
finds mention in the agreement as agreed in between the
parties.
176. This Court, taking into consideration together with the
reference of word ‗share' in Section 105 of the Transfer of the
Property Act as also the reference of the word ―share‖ in the
proviso to Section 26 of the Indian Stamp Act coupled with
para 35 C of Schedule IA of Indian Stamp Act 1899, is of the
view that the stamp duty is to be charged, in such
circumstances i.e., if land is owned by the State and leased
out in favour of the lease holder, on the basis of ―Final Price
- 67 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
Offer‖ which will be in nature of premium/share of the
mineral lease executed.
177. We, after having discussed the aforesaid fact, have gone
through the Audit Report dated 01.06.2023 submitted by the
Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand wherein it
was observed that the stamp duty must be computed on the
total amount of royalty and final price offer, are of the view
that whatever objection has been raised by the by the
Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand appears to
be correct based upon the discussions made hereinabove.
178. Furthermore, this Court will fail in duty if it would not
discuss the judgment upon which reliance has been placed
by learned counsel for the parties regarding its applicability
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence, we
are proceeding to examine the applicability of the judgment
upon which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel
for the petitioners first.
179. So far, the applicability of the judgment of India
Cement Ltd (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is concerned in the said case issue was lease
amount to calculate the stamp duty payable or shall be
payable on the basis of the annual royalty or on the basis of
annual dead rent.
- 68 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
180. The said case was related to renewal of mining lease for
the third time and the stamp duty was demanded on the
basis of royalty payable. The stamp duty was arrived based
on the actual production of limestone and the royalty
remitted by the petitioner company for the period from 1997-
1998 to 2004-2005 and the proposed production of limestone
as provided in the approved mining plan. Hence, the Court
therein at paragraph-22 concluded that royalty payable was
determined, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is
being quoted as under:
―22. It is therefore clear that the royalty payable has been
determined and the question of payment of dead rent will arise
only where the operation is stalled or the operation did not take
place in its full swing due to various factors and as a result of the
same, the dead rent that is fixed in the sanction order is higher
than the royalty payable. This is exactly what has been provided
for under Section 9A of the Act."
181. But, in the present case matter does not relate to
renewal of mining lease or the dead rent, but calculation of
stamp duty is in question more specifically mining lease is to
be registered based upon the auction for mining of the
Minerals hence, India Cement Ltd (supra), is not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
182. In order to fortify his contention, the learned counsel
for the petitioners has also put his reliance on the judgment
rendered by the M.P. High Court in the case of Birla Corpn.
Ltd. v. State of M.P.(supra).
- 69 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
183. We have gone through the factual aspect of the said
case wherein the petitioner No. 1/Company looking to the
requirement of mineral for production of cement, had applied
for grant of lease of limestone under the relevant provisions of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 for an area of 56.27 Hectare and a fresh lease was
granted to the petitioner No. 1/company in pursuance to the
execution of an agreement and registration of mining lease in
Form ―K‖ vide letter dated 2-7-2004 and petitioner was
directed to pay a stamp duty of Rs. 4,32,00,000/- (Rupees
Four Crores Thirty-Two Lakhs) by considering the anticipated
amount of royalty payable at the rate of Rs. 40/- per ton
likely to be paid per annum in future by the prospective
lessee.
184. After hearing both the parties the M.P. High Court has
appreciated the issue i.e. the royalty and the dead rent are
two different aspects. The dead rent cannot be charged only
on the basis of royalty, as the dead rent is to be charged at
the very initial stage at the time of executing leased
documents, whereas, the royalty is to be charged on the basis
of the mineral which has been extracted from the lease area.
185. The M.P. High Court, after appreciating the various
provision of Act 1957, has observed that there is a distinction
between royalty and the dead rent and proviso to section 26
- 70 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
of the Act of 1899 is clearly attracted in the case of mining
lease.
186. In the aforesaid context there is no dispute about the
application of Stamp Act particularly Section 26 but in the
said case the word ―share‖ has not been interpreted by the
M.P. High court in the context of proviso to Section 26 of the
Act 1899 which is the issue herein, as such the said
judgment is also not applicable herein.
187. Further it is settled position of law that the applicability
of the judgment is to be tested on the basis of fact governing
each case, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of "Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors.", (2014) 5 SCC 75. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the
facts of that case and the case is only an authority for
what it actually decides, and not what logically follows
from it. The court should not place reliance on decisions
without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in
with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is
placed."
188. At this juncture it would be pertinent to mention the
Judgment rendered in the case of D.K. Trivedi & Sons
(Supra) .
189. In D.K. Trivedi & Sons (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court
has laid down that ‗royalty' is payment for conferring the
- 71 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
lessee the right not merely to enjoy the property as under an
ordinary lease but also to extract minerals from the land and
to appropriate them for his own use or benefit, in addition to
the usual rent for the area demised, the lessee is required to
pay a certain amount in respect of the minerals extracted
proportionate to the quantity so extracted.
190. This Court from the aforesaid discussion is of the view
that the re-calculation of stamp duty based upon the ―final
price offer‖ cannot be said to be baseless and in that view of
the matter, the decision so taken by the authorities
concerned needs no interference.
191. Accordingly, Issue No. II is decided against the
petitioners.
192. The issues framed by this Court are answered
accordingly.
193. In view thereof, the petitioners are required to pay the
deficit stamp duty and registration fees as per
communication issued to them in the impugned orders so far
writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 3773 of 2025 and W.P.(C)
No.6572 of 2024 are concerned and further there is no need
to issue any direction upon the respondents to refund the
amount of stamp duty and the registration fee in favour of
petitioner so far W.P(C) No. 272 of 2025 is concerned.
- 72 -
2025:JHHC:32293-DB
194. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the
writ petitions stand dismissed.
195. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands
disposed of.
196. The stay, if any, granted in the batch of writ petition(s)
also stands vacated.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
16th October, 2025
Alankar/
A.F.R
- 73 -
