Jharkhand High Court
Hindalco Industries Limited vs State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated.
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey, resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Union of India,
Shastri Bhawan, P.O and PS Shastri Bhawan, District
New Delhi.
6. Gaurav Singh, S/o Late Sripati Singh, R/o - Belwatika,
P.O. & P.S.-Daltanganj Town Dist-Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4213 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
1
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medíninagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Jageshwar Sao son of Late Devki Sao, resident of Village
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4214 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 through its
authorized Signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey, resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
2
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Naresh Sao son of Late Dhanu Sao, resident of Village -
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4215 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,.
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Basdev Sao son of Bhuneshwar Sao, resident of Village -
Kathautia, P.O. Naudiha, P.S. Pandwa, District
Palamau. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4216 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
3
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Mandeep Sao son of Bhuneshwar Sao, resident of Village
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4217 of 2022
----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
4
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
5. Kamesh Sao son of Late Devki Sao, resident of Village -
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4218 of 2022
----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Bishun Sao son of Late Nanhak Sao, resident of Village
-Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
: Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.
: Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to G.P.-V
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
------
5
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
C.A.V. on 26.08.2025 Pronounced on 23/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. All the writ petitions are having the same issues and
similar facts are involved and, as such, have been directed
to be heard together.
2. Accordingly, the cases have been listed today for
analogous hearing which have been heard together with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of following reliefs :-
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2022
"(1) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus to the State Government of Jharkhand and
the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamu, Jharkhand,
to expeditiously hand over Raiyati land admeasuring
1257.19 Acres mentioned in the Mining Lease dated
07.10.2016 in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines executed
in favour of Hindalco Industries Limited.
AND
(ii) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus to Respondent No. 5, the Nominated
Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, to
handover possession to the Petitioner of the Rayati Land
admeasuring 1257.19 Acres comprised in the Mining
Lease dated 07.10.2016 in respect of Kathautia Coal
Mines executed in favour of the Petitioner and
undertake requisite procedure under Sections 14 and
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
17 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4213 of 2022
"(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government of
Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District
Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the
physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.02 acres
situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal
Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District
Palamau, under Khata No. 23 and 57, plot no. 2366,
2404 and Others, from the previous land owner,
Respondent No. 5 herein namely Jageshwar Saw S/O
Late Devki Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated
07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco
Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4214 of 2022
"(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government of
Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District
Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the
physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.98 acres
situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal
Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District
Palamau, under Khata No. 175 and 154, plot no. 2365,
2338 and Others, from the previous land owner,
Respondent No. 5 herein namely Naresh Saw S/O Late
Dhanu Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated
07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco
Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4215 of 2022
"(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
mandamus directing the State Government of
Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District
Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the
physical possession of the land admeasuring 2.629444
acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia
Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa,
District Palamau, under Khata No. 154 and 175, plot
no. 2438, 2365 and Others, from the previous land
owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Basdev Saw
S/O Bhuneshwar Saw in respect of the Mining Lease
dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner
Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia
Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4216 of 2022
"(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government of
Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District
Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the
physical possession of the land admeasuring 2.629444
acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia
Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa,
District Palamau, under Khata No. 154 and 175, plot
no. 2438, 2365 and Others, from the previous land
owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Mandeep Saw
S/O Bhuneshwar Saw in respect of the Mining Lease
dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner
Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia
Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4217 of 2022
"(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government of
Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District
Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.02 acres
situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal
Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District
Palamau, under Khata No. 23 and 57, plot no. 2366,
2404 and Others, from the previous land owner,
Respondent No. 5 herein namely Kamesh Saw S/O Late
Devki Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated
07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco
Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4218 of 2022
"(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s)
/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the State Government of
Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District
Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the
physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.0175
acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia
Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa,
District Palamau, under Khata No. 51 and 286, plot no.
2363, 2368 and Others, from the previous land owner,
Respondent No. 5 herein namely Bishun Saw S/O Late
Nanhak Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated
07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco
Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines."
Factual Matrix
4. Since facts of all the aforesaid writ petitions are
almost similar, therefore, the facts of lead case, i.e., W.P.(C)
No.4172 of 2022 are being referred herein :-
In December 2014, the Union of India and the
Nominated Authority constituted by the Central
Government under the CMSP Act issued Order dated
18.12.2014 under Rule 8(2) of the Rules for the auction of
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
such de-allocated coal mines including open cast
underground Coal Mine covering an area of 938.27 Ha
situated at Kathautia, Daltonganj, District Palamu,
Jharkhand ("Kathautia Coal Mine"). Tender document
dated 27.12.2014 was subsequently issued by the
Nominated Authority constituted by the Central
Government under the CMSP Act.
5. Pursuant to placing its bid for the Kathuatia coal
mine, the Petitioner was declared the successful bidder and
became entitled to enter into an agreement with the
Nominated Authority constituted by the Central
Government under the CMSP Act, 2015 in terms of Rule
13(5) of the CMSP Rules, 2014. Accordingly, on 02.03.2015,
the Petitioner entered into a Coal Mine Development and
Production Agreement ("CMDPA") with the President of
India (acting through the Nominated Authority constituted
by the Central Government under the CMSP Act).
6. In terms of Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA, the Petitioner
furnished inter-alia, a Performance Security as a "Vesting
Condition" in the form of an irrevocable and unconditional
revolving Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2,67,88,80,000/- (two
hundred and sixty-seven crores eighty-eight lakhs and
eighty thousand only) dated 18.03.2015 in favour of
Respondent No. 5 calculated on the basis of estimated one
year royalty payable to the State Government on the basis
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
of peak rated capacity of the Coal mine as per the approved
mining plan.
7. Further, the Petitioner also paid an amount of. Rs.
54,77,48,668/- (Rupees Fifty Four Crores Seventy Seven
Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Eight
Only) as 'Upfront Amount' under Clause 3.1 and 5.2 of the
CMDPA and an amount of Rs. 32,13,02,288 (Rupees Thirty
two crores thirteen lacs two thousand two hundred and
eighty eight only) as 'Fixed Amount' under Clause 3.1 of the
CMDPA for inter-alia, value of Land and Mine
Infrastructure, cost of preparation of geological report
borne by the Prior Allottee, cost of obtaining all statutory
licenses, permits, permissions, approvals, clearances or
consents relevant to the mining operations, borne by the
Prior Allottee, and Transaction Expense.
8. After the Petitioner had complied with all Vesting
Conditions, the Central Government vested the Kathautia
coal mine along with the coal bearing areas contained
therein upon the Petitioner by way of the Vesting Order
bearing no. 104/3/2015/NA dated 23.03.2015 ("Vesting
Order") issued by the Respondent No. 5.
9. Thereafter vide letter dated 10.04.2015, the
Petitioner addressed Application under Rule 22 of the
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ("MCR, 1960") to the
Secretary (Mines & Geology) Government of Jharkhand
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
("Respondent No. 2") through the concerned Deputy
Commissioner cum District Mining Officer (District Palamu)
("Respondent No. 4") for grant of Mining Lease.
10. On 27.07.2015 and after much delay, the Joint
Secretary, Government of Jharkhand ("Respondent No. 3")
issued order for grant of mining lease to the Petitioner.
11. Despite the Petitioner's persistent efforts, the
execution of the mining lease was further delayed and was
finally registered on 07.10.2016 ("Mining Lease dated
07.10.2016") for reasons entirely attributable to the
Respondents.
12. The Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 was executed
in the favour of the Petitioner in respect of Kathautia Coal
Mine for an area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres. The
Mining Lease area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres
consists of the following land types:-
Type of Land Area
Government Land 98.53 Acres
Raiyat Land 1257.19 Acres
Alleged Jungle Jhari Land 344.16 Acres
13. Since the Prior Allottee had already initiated
proceedings under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
("CNT Act"), for seeking the transfer of occupancy-holding
in order to undertake mining operations at the Kathautia
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Coal Mines, the Petitioner continued with the same for
seeking the transfer of Raiyat Land admeasuring 1257.19
Acres and the same were undertaken during the period
October 2016 to August 2020. However, the proceedings
have not reached a logical conclusion, thereby causing
undue hardships and delays for the Petitioner.
14. The petitioner states that the surface rights over the
land in question is included in the concept of mine for the
reason that if the surface in question does not form part of
the concept of mine it is not possible to have any
excavation. The land in question that are all included in the
mining lease deed and hence it is beyond any doubt that
the petitioner must have access over these lands in order to
exploit the minerals which are lying underneath the surface
of these lands.
15. The petitioner states that it is the duty of the
respondents herein to ensure that the petitioner has access
over these lands to win the minerals. Reciprocal obligation
has been imposed upon the petitioner achieve certain
milestones within the time stipulated by the central
government feeling which huge penalty has been imposed
on the petitioner and in the future also the petitioner will
be saddled with substantial financial liability without there
being any fault on its part.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
16. The petitioner purchased these lands from the
private respondent only because the land were included in
the mining lease deed. The coal block in question has been
allocated to the petitioner in terms of the Coal Mines
(Special Provisions) Act, 2015. The mining area and the
leased area are not determined by the petitioner rather are
decided by the respondents and in order to facilitate the
mining operations the petitioner by expending a substantial
sum of money purchased the land in question. The
petitioner has no mechanism to take steps to evict the
private respondents from the land in question and having
regard to the nature of operations involved in mining
activities, the respondent State cannot be a mute spectator.
Once the area is covered under a mining lease, which is a
statutory lease, the State cannot be said to be powerless to
ensure that the area is used for the purpose for which the
lease is granted. The mining lease is granted for a specified
period and the entire period must be available to the lessee
to win the minerals covered thereunder and for mining
operations.
17. Despite the passage of over seven years since the
Kathautia Coal Mine was vested upon the Petitioner, only
an area of 398.12 Acres is in possession of the Petitioner
pursuant to direct purchase by the Petitioner, of the total
Raiyat Land admeasuring 1257.19 Acres. It is pertinent to
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
note that an area admeasuring 859.07 Acres (out of the
total Raiyati Land area of 1257.12 Acres) is still inaccessible
to the Petitioner, despite the Petitioner not only adopting
the proceedings under CNT Act but also incurring huge
expenditure.
18. Further, possession of the Raiyati Land
admeasuring 1257.19 acres comprised in the Mining Lease
for the Kathautia Coal Mine is also yet to be handed over to
the Petitioner.
19. Petitioner holds certain rights and obligations
under the CMDPA, including the right to produce coal from
the Kathuatia Coal Mine for captive use in the specified
power plants as well as the obligation to produce upto 0.8
MT per annum from the Kathautia coal mine as per the
production schedule fixed under the Mining Plan. That
failure to discharge such obligation results in penalty in the
form of appropriation of performance bank guarantee
entrusted by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 5.
20. Paradoxically, despite having itself failed to
handover possession of the coal bearing land comprised in
the Mining Lease for the Kathautia Coal Mine, the Central
Government has illegally penalised the Petitioner to the
tune of Rs. 53,57,76,000 and Rs. 64,29,31,200, under
appropriation notices dated 25.04.2018 and 25.03.2019
respectively. The Petitioner has been constrained to
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
challenge the notices dated 25.04.2018 and 25.03.2019
before the Part Time Tribunal constituted under the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 by
way of C.B.C Case Nos. 7 of 2018 and 11 of 2019,
respectively which are pending.
21. Since over seven years have passed since the
vesting of the Kathautia Coal Mine upon the Petitioner, yet
the Petitioner has not been handed over possession of the
majority of the coal bearing land comprised therein, the
Petitioner addressed an application bearing no.
HIL/KOCCM/LAND/2022/29 dated 04.05.2022 under
("Application dated 04.05.2022") inter alia praying for the
following reliefs:
(i) Handover surface rights over the government
land specified in para 3 above to HIL;
(ii) Determine the annual compensation payable
for surface rights with respect to the raiyat
land specified in para 3 above and after taking
deposit of the compensation amount facilitate
handover of possession of the said land to HIL.
22. When no action was taken on the Petitioner's
Application dated 04.05.2022, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing the present writ petitions.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner
23. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the
passage of over nine years since the Kathautia Coal Mine
was vested upon the Petitioner, only an area of 398.12
Acres is in possession of the Petitioner pursuant to direct
purchase by the Petitioner, of the total Raiyat Land
admeasuring 1257.19 Acres. An area admeasuring 859.07
Acres (out of the total Raiyati Land area of 1257.12 Acres)
is still inaccessible to the Petitioner.
24. The writ petitioners have tried to utilize the land for
the purpose of mining operation but serious interruption
has been caused by the raiyats, the owners of the lands in
question, due to which the lands have not been utilized for
the purpose of mining operations.
25. The Petitioner addressed an application dated
04.05.2022 to the Respondent No. 2 inter alia praying
therein to handover surface rights over the government
land to HIL and to determine the annual compensation
payable for surface rights with respect to the raiyat land
and after taking deposit of the compensation amount
facilitate handover of possession of the said land to HIL.
Hence, the State is duty bound to provide free access to the
lands in question for the purpose of mining operation but
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
the State has not taken any endeavour so as to allow the
writ petitioners to carry out the mining lease.
26. The petitioners have taken the ground that so far as
the grievance of the petitioner which pertains to the
compensation and other allied benefits is concerned, the
petitioner company is only liable to compensate the owners
of the lands in view of the provision or Rule 72 and 73 of
the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 (hereinafter to be
referred to as "Rule, 1960").
27. It has been contended that the CMSP Act, 2015 also
cast liability upon the State Government to allow the writ
petitioner to carry out the mining operation, as would be
evident from the provision of Section 8, particularly 8(4)(a)
wherein it has been provided that vesting order shall
transfer and vest upon the successful bidder all the rights,
title and interest of the prior allottee, in Schedule I coal
mine concerned with the relevant auction and, therefore,
the writ petitioner herein, by virtue of vesting of the rights,
which has been utilized by the prior allottee, cannot be
compelled to make payment of compensation deviating
from the provision as provided under Rule 72 and 73 of the
Rule, 1960.
28. The reference of the provision of Section 8(7) and
8(8) of the CMSP Act, 2015 has also been made wherein it
has been provided that after the issuance of a vesting order
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
under Section 8 and its filing with the Central Government
and with the appropriate authority designated by the
respective State Government, the successful bidder shall be
entitled to take possession of the Schedule I coal mine
without let or hindrance. While Section 8(8) thereof
provides that upon the execution of the vesting order, the
successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be
granted prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting
licence-cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned
State Government in accordance with the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
29. The learned counsel, therefore, has made
submission that it is the accountability of the State
Government to execute the vesting order in accordance with
M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 but the State Government, instead of
doing so, is insisting upon the writ petitioner to utilize their
land by seeking permission as required under Section 49 of
the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
30. It has been contended that the provision of C.N.T.
Act, 1908 as available under Section 49 will not be applied
in the matter of execution of right vested under the
M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 in view of the provision of Section 8(8)
of CMSP Act, 2015.
31. The ground has been taken to substantiate the
argument that the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 is a self-content
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
code and the same since is applicable in view of the
mandate of the CMSP Act, 2015, it has got overriding effect
upon the other statutory provisions as provided under
Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015.
32. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the
provision provided under Rule 72 and 73 of the Rule, 1960,
the writ petitioners are willing to pay compensation at the
stage as provided as also will restore the land after
reclaiming the same after conclusion of the mining
operation. As such, since the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 is to be
read along with the CMSP Act, 2015, there is no scope of
applicability of the provisions of C.N.T. Act, 1908 in view of
the provisions of Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015 which
has got overriding effect upon all the statutes.
Submission made by learned counsel for the
respondent-State
33. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General
appearing for the State, has submitted on the basis of the
counter affidavit filed that the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 or the
CMSP Act, 2015 have been enacted but the question herein
is of the transfer of land of the raiyats by way of lease who
belong to SC/ST community and, as such, the tenancy law
since is applicable in the area, will have its force.
34. It has been contended by referring to Section 46, 47
and 48 read with Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 that
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
there is bar in transfer of the land by any means even by
way of lease which would be evident from the provision of
Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 wherein for the limited
purposes the land is to be transferred, i.e., for the purpose
of industry or the mining operation but subject to
satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner or adequate
compensation to be paid in favour of the raiyats.
35. The question herein which requires consideration is
that when the tenancy law is holding in the region, then the
applicability of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 read with CMSP Act,
2015 can be allowed to be operated without giving any
adherence to the tenancy Act.
36. The argument has been advanced that it is not a
question to have the overriding effect of the C.N.T. Act,
1908, rather, the question herein is of harmonious
construction of the provisions of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957,
the CMSP Act, 2015 and the C.N.T. Act, 1908. It is for the
reason that the mining operation is to be carried out by the
mining operators to extract the natural resources but that
does not mean that the same is to be allowed at the cost of
the tribal/raiyat, rather, for the purpose of carrying out the
mining operation, due adherence is to be given to the
tenancy laws also. Therefore, the provision as provided
under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 is required to be
followed by the lease holders which has been enacted for
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
the purpose of benefit to the raiyats by making adequate
compensation before granting permission by the Deputy
Commissioner.
37. The said fact has also been stated by the State in
paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit that the State is
regularly granting permission under Section 49 of the
C.N.T. Act, 1908 in favour of the writ petitioner and as on
date, almost 400 acres of raiyati land out of 1257.19 acres,
has been granted. The said statement has not been refuted,
meaning thereby, the writ petitioner is also adhering to the
statutory mandate as conferred under Section 49 of the
C.N.T. Act, 1908. But, here the contrary stand is being
taken.
38. Learned Advocate General has further submitted
that it is not the case of inconsistency in any of the legal
provisions, rather, it is a case where the object of the
benevolence provisions enacted by enacting the C.N.T. Act,
1908 is also to be adhered to and once it has been admitted
for part of the land, then there cannot be two different
parameters for rest of the lands.
39. The contention has been raised that the writ
petitioner had been impleaded as Respondent No.8 in writ
petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 and Batch cases
as also and W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 and Batch cases. The
said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
05.03.2020 and 03.03.2020 respectively by giving liberty to
the writ petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner
for redressal of grievance.
40. The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on
the representation filed on behalf of the raiyats in a full-
fledged proceeding being Misc. Case No.45/2020-21, in
which the writ petitioner had also participated and in their
presence an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner
as has been brought on record in the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of newly impleaded respondent.
41. It has been contended that though the writ
petitioner was party to the proceeding arising out of W.P.(C)
No. 1326 of 2019 & Batch cases/W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019
& Batch cases and Misc. Case No.45/2020-21, but the
aforesaid fact has not been brought to the notice in the writ
petition, rather, the same has been brought to the notice by
the newly impleaded respondent.
42. The contention, therefore, has been raised that
since the order has been passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Palamau in a proceeding drawn on the basis
of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court dated 05.03.2020 and 03.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.
1326 of 2019 & Batch cases and W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019
& Batch cases respectively wherein the restriction has been
imposed that without having permission of the Deputy
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Commissioner as required under Section 49 of the C.N.T.
Act, 1908, no mining operation is to be carried out, has not
been challenged and in absence thereof, no relief can be
granted in favour of the writ petitioner.
Submission made on behalf of newly impleaded
respondent
43. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel, has
appeared for the newly impleaded respondent who has been
impleaded on the strength of the order passed in
interlocutory application filed for intervention being I.A.
No.5391 of 2023 which was allowed vide order dated
17.07.2023 passed in this proceeding.
44. The contention has been raised that the raiyats are
making opposition based upon the fact that the land was
earlier acquired under the provision of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 but subsequently it was denotified and in
consequence thereof, the land has again been restored in
favour of the raiyats. The said notification has come on the
basis of the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by this Court
in W.P.(C) No.5749 of 2012 and Batch cases.
45. The contention has been raised that the writ
petitioners, therefore, are having two options, first either to
acquire the land under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 or after having permission as
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
required under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 subject
to satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance to
the provision as contained under Section 49(4) of the C.N.T.
Act, 1908. But, the writ petitioners are not intending either
to go for the acquisition mechanism by making requisition
to the State Government for the purpose of adequate
compensation/rehabilitation or willing to comply with the
direction passed by the Deputy Commissioner for making
adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy
Commissioner as per the provisions under Section 49(4) of
the C.N.T. Act, 1908 and straightaway intends to utilize the
land by taking aid of Rule 72 and 73 of the Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960.
46. Learned counsel has taken the ground that Rule 72
of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 although speaks for
payment of compensation to owner of surface right vis-à-
vis the compensation for damage but it is to be taken into
consideration in the light of the provisions as contained
under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 since the tenancy
law is operating in the area.
47. The submission has also been made that the land
of the raiyats are being used and the nature of the land is
being changed by carrying out the mining operation and
herein the issues have been raised that it is being reclaimed
for restoration of the land in favour of the raiyats but the
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
question herein is if the entire area will be dug-out for the
purpose of mining operation, then what will be the use of
the land for the raiyats which cannot be utilized for the
agricultural purposes for which the protection has been
granted under the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
48. The question has also been raised that in no case
the nature of land is to be changed, however, in view of the
exception carved out by virtue of amendment in Section 49
of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, the land can be leased out for the
purpose of mining operation but subject to payment of
adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy
Commissioner.
49. Learned counsel, in addition to the aforesaid, has
adopted the argument advanced by the learned Advocate
General.
Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner
50. Mr. Indrajit Sina, learned counsel for the petitioner,
in response to the argument advanced by the learned
Advocate General and the learned counsel for the newly
impleaded respondent, has submitted that it is totally
incorrect notion and only for the interest of the tribal, the
law holding the field for the purpose of carrying out the
mining operation as available under the M.M.D.R. act, 1957
or Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and CMSP Act, 2015
cannot be allowed to be frustrated.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Consideration
51. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the pleading made in the writ petition, the
counter affidavit and the rejoinder filed thereto.
52. It is evident from the factual aspect that the
Petitioner was declared the successful bidder for the
Kathuatia coal mine and accordingly, on 02.03.2015, the
Petitioner entered into a Coal Mine Development and
Production Agreement ("CMDPA").
53. In terms of Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA, the Petitioner
furnished inter-alia, a Performance Security as a "Vesting
Condition" in the form of an irrevocable and unconditional
revolving Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2,67,88,80,000/- in
favour of Respondent No. 5 calculated on the basis of
estimated one year royalty payable to the State Government
on the basis of peak rated capacity of the Coal mine as per
the approved mining plan.
54. Further, the Petitioner also paid an amount of. Rs.
54,77,48,668/- as 'Upfront Amount' under Clause 3.1 and
5.2 of the CMDPA and an amount of Rs. 32,13,02,288 as
'Fixed Amount' under Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA for inter-
alia, value of Land and Mine Infrastructure, cost of
preparation of geological report borne by the Prior Allottee,
cost of obtaining all statutory licenses, permits,
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
permissions, approvals, clearances or consents relevant to
the mining operations, borne by the Prior Allottee, and
Transaction Expense.
55. After the Petitioner had complied with all Vesting
Conditions, the Central Government vested the Kathautia
coal mine along with the coal bearing areas contained
therein upon the Petitioner.
56. On 27.07.2015, the Joint Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand issued order for grant of mining lease to the
Petitioner which was finally registered on 07.10.2016.
57. The Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 was executed
in the favour of the Petitioner in respect of Kathautia Coal
Mine for an area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres. The
Mining Lease area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres.
58. The issues have been raised in all these writ
petitions that the lands in question belong to the raiyats
and have been allotted in favour of the erstwhile lease
holder but after the judgment having been delivered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v.
The Principle Secretary & Others, (2014) 9 SCC 516,
the lease granted in favour of the lease holders deemed to
be cancelled and the allotment since was to be made by way
of auction, hence, the rule has been formulated known as
Coal Mines (Special provisions) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be
referred to as "CMSP Act, 2015").
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
59. The present allottees, the writ petitioners herein,
being successful bidder, has been granted in their favour,
the lease to carry out the mining operation over the lands
in question.
60. The questions which have been raised and which
are to be considered by this Court based upon the pleading
and the arguments are -
(i) Whether the provisions of tenancy law enacted by way
of C.N.T. Act, 1908 can be given go bye for the purpose
of carrying out mining operation as per the allotment
made under the CMSP Act, 2015?
(ii) Whether the provision as carved out under Rule 72
and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 will
operate for the purpose of carrying out the mining
operation over and above the provision of Section 49
of the C.N.T. Act, 1908?
(iii) Whether the duty which has been commanded to the
Deputy Commissioner to look into the interest of the
Tribal of the Schedule/non-Schedule area as per the
protection granted under C.N.T. Act, 1908, can it be
allowed to be frustrated at the cost of the interest of
the raiyats and for the purpose of benefit to be given
to the mining operators without making any adequate
compensation as per the satisfaction of the Deputy
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Commissioner as required under Section 49 of the
C.N.T. Act, 1908.
61. All the issues are interlinked and, as such, are being
taken into consideration together. But, before considering
the aforesaid issues and before adverting to the factual
aspects, the underlying objects of the CMSP Act, 2015, the
M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and the C.N.T. Act, 1908 are required
to be referred herein.
62. The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 has
been enacted to provide for allocation of coal mines and
vesting of the right, title and interest in and over the land
and mine infrastructure together with mining leases to
successful bidders and allottees with a view to ensure
continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal,
and for promoting optimum utilisation of coal resources
consistent with the requirement of the country in national
interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.
63. The nominated authority has been conferred with
the power to notify the prior allottee of Schedule I coal
mines to enable them to furnish information required for
notifying the particulars of Schedule I coal mines to be
auctioned in accordance with such rules as may be
prescribed. The same is provided under Section 8(4) thereof
wherein it has been stipulated that the vesting order shall
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
transfer and vest upon the successful bidder, the following,
namely:-
"(a) all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee, in
Schedule I coal mine concerned with the relevant auction;
(b) entitlement to a prospecting licence, mining lease or
prospecting licence-cum-mining lease, as the case may be to be
granted by the State Government;
(c) any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent
required to undertake coal mining operations in Schedule I coal
mines if already issued to the prior allottee;
(d) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior
allottee;
(e) any right, entitlement or interest not specifically covered
under clauses (a) to (d)."
64. Sub-section (7) thereof provides after the issuance
of a vesting order under this section and its filing with the
Central Government and with the appropriate authority
designated by the respective State Governments, the
successful bidder shall be entitled to take possession of the
Schedule I coal mine without let or hindrance.
65. Sub-section (8) provides that upon the execution of
the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I
coal mine shall be granted prospecting licence, mining lease
or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease as applicable, by
the concerned State Government in accordance with the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957.
66. For ready reference, Section 8 with relevant sub-
sections of the Act 2015 is being referred as under: -
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
"8. Nominated authority to issue vesting order or
allotment order.--(1) The nominated authority shall notify
the prior allottees of Schedule I coal mines to enable them to
furnish information required for notifying the particulars of
Schedule I coal mines to be auctioned in accordance with
such rules as may be prescribed.
(2) The information required to be furnished under sub-
section (1) shall be furnished within a period of fifteen days
from the date of such notice.
(3) A successful bidder in an auction conducted on a
competitive basis in accordance with such rules as may be
prescribed, shall be entitled to the vesting of Schedule I coal
mine for which it bid, pursuant to a vesting order drawn up
in accordance with such rules.
(4) The vesting order shall transfer and vest upon the
successful bidder, the following, namely:-
(a) all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee,
in Schedule I coal mine concerned with the relevant
auction;
(b) entitlement to a prospecting licence, mining lease
or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease, as the case
may be to be granted by the State Government;
(c) any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval
or consent required to undertake coal mining
operations in Schedule I coal mines if already issued
to the prior allottee;
(d) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of
the prior allottee;
(e) any right, entitlement or interest not specifically
covered under clauses (a) to (d).
(5) The nominated authority shall, in consultation with the
Central Government, determine the floor price or reserve
price in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.
(6) The successful bidder shall, prior to the issuance and
execution of a vesting order, furnish a performance bank
guarantee for an amount as notified in relation to Schedule
I coal mine auctioned to such bidder within such time, form
and manner as may be prescribed.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
(7) After the issuance of a vesting order under this section
and its filing with the Central Government and with the
appropriate authority designated by the respective State
Governments, the successful bidder shall be entitled to take
possession of the Schedule I coal mine without let or
hindrance.
(8) Upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful
bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted
prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-
cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned State
Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957).
(9) ... ... ...
(10) ... ... ...
(11) ... ... ...
(12) ... ... ...
(13) ... ... ...
(14) ... ... ...
(15) ... ... ...
67. Further, Section 21 provides that all existing land
acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in relation to
Schedule I coal mines, shall continue in respect of such
areas of land in accordance with the provisions of the said
Act, for ready reference, Section 21 is being referred
herein:-
"21. Acquisition of land.--(1) All existing land acquisition
proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), in relation to Schedule
I coal mines, shall continue in respect of such areas of land
in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
(2) All such areas of land which are not subject matter of
land acquisition proceedings, in relation to the coal mines,
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(30 of 2013), may be proceeded with by the Central
Government in terms of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).
(3) The State Governments which have initiated land
acquisition proceedings under provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), and
all such lands which are also subject matter of the said Act
in respect of Schedule I coal mines, shall-
(a) not transfer any land to the prior allottees which
have been acquired under the said Act;
(b) continue the land acquisition proceedings till the
appointed date;
(c) for such Schedule I coal mines which have not
vested in the successful bidder or the allottee, as the
case may be, by the appointed date, continue the land
acquisition proceedings for and on behalf of the
Central Government;
(d) upon the vesting or the allotment, as the case may
be, after the appointed date, continue such land
acquisition proceedings on behalf of the successful
bidder or the allottee."
68. Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015 provides that the
provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law
for the time being in force, or in any instrument having
effect by virtue of any such law, for ready reference, Section
29 is being referred herein :-
"29. Act to have overriding effect.--The provisions of this
Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any
such law."
69. It needs to refer herein the core object of the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(MMDR Act) is to provide for the development and
regulation of mines and minerals in India under the control
of the Union Government.
70. The reference of the provisions of M.M.D.R. Act,
1957 also need to be made in view of the fact that the same
has been referred to be made applicable under Section 8(8)
of the CMSP Act, 2015 wherein it has been stipulated that
upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful
bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted
prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-
cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned State
Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
71. The Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 has been enacted and in the year
1960 the Mineral Concession Rules has been formulated.
72. The said Rule contains a provision under Rule 72
and 73 under Chapter-X which provides therein the
payment of compensation to owner of surface rights. It is
stipulated therein that the holder of a reconnaissance
permit or prospecting licence or mining lease shall be liable
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
to pay to the occupier of the surface of the land over which
he holds the reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence
or mining lease as the case may be, such annual
compensation as may be determined by an officer
appointed by the State Government by notification in this
behalf in the manner provided in sub-rules (2) to (4), for
ready reference, Rule 72 is being referred herein :-
"72. Payment of compensation to owner of surface rights
etc. - (1) The holder of a reconnaissance permit or
prospecting licence or mining lease shall be liable to pay to
the occupier of the surface of the land over which he holds
the reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining
lease as the case may be, such annual compensation as may
be determined by an officer appointed by the State
Government by notification in this behalf in the manner
provided in sub-rules (2) to (4).
(2) In the case of agricultural land, the amount of annual
compensation shall be worked out on the basis of the
average annual net income from the cultivation of similar
land for the previous three years.
(3) In the case of non-agricultural land, the amount of
annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of
average annual letting value of similar land for the previous
three years.
(4) The annual compensation referred to in sub-rule (1) shall
be payable on or before such date as may be specified by the
State Government in this behalf.
73. Rule 73 of Rule 1960 thereof contains the provision
for assessment of compensation for damage. It has been
stipulated therein that after the termination of a
reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining
lease, the State Government shall assess the damage, if
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
any, done to the land by the reconnaissance or prospecting
or mining operations and shall determine the amount of
compensation payable by the permit holder or licensee or
the lessee as the case may be to the occupier of the surface
land. Further, every such assessment shall be made within
a period of one year from the date of termination of the
reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining
lease and shall be carried out by an officer appointed by the
State Government by notification in this behalf, for ready
reference, Rule 73 is being quoted hereunder as :-
"73. Assessment of compensation for damage. - (1) After
the termination of a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting
licence or a mining lease, the State Government shall assess
the damage, if any, done to the land by the reconnaissance
or prospecting or mining operations and shall determine the
amount of compensation payable by the permit holder or
licensee or the lessee as the case may be to the occupier of
the surface land;
(2) Every such assessment shall be made within a period of
one year from the date of termination of the [reconnaissance
permit or prospecting licence or mining lease] and shall be
carried out by an officer appointed by the State Government
by notification in this behalf."
74. It requires to refer herein that the primary objective
of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act of 1908 is to protect
the land rights of the indigenous and tribal populations of
the Chota Nagpur region, primarily.
75. The provisions of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 also need to
be referred herein.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
76. It is evident from the provision of C.N.T. Act, 1908,
after going through all the statutory provisions together,
that there are restrictions imposed in the transfer of the
land either by way of lease or any mode of transfer. The
relevant provision is Section 46 which is being referred
herein :-
"46. Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat. - (1)
No transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any
portion thereof,-
(a) by mortgagte or lease for any period expressed or
implied which exceeds or might in any possible event
exceed five years, or
(b) by sale, gift or any other contract or agreement,
shall be valid to any extent:
Provided that a Raiyat may enter into a 'bhugut
bundha' mortgage of his holding or any portion thereof
for any period not exceeding seven years or if the
mortgagee be a society registered or deemed to be
registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Co-operative
Societies Act, 1935 (B&O Act VI of 1935) for any period
not exceeding fifteen years:] Provided further that,-
(a) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is [a member of
the Scheduled Tribes] may transfer with the
previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner
his right in his holding or a portion of his
holding by sale, exchange, gift or will to [another
person, who is a member of the Scheduled
Tribes and], who is a resident within the local
limits of the area of the police station within
which the holding is situate;
(b) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the
[Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes] may
transfer with the previous sanction of the
Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or
a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift,
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
will or lease to another person, who is a member
of the [Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be,
Backward Classes] and who is a resident within
the local limits of the district within which the
holding is situate;
(c) any occupancy-Raiyat may, transfer his right
in his holding or any portion thereof to a society
or bank registered or deemed to be registered
under the 'Bihar and Orissa Cooperative
Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of
1935), or to the State Bank of India or a bank
specified in column 2 of the First Schedule to
the Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970)
or to a company or a corporation owned by, or
in which less than fifty-one per cent of the share
capital is held by the State Government or the
Central Government or partly by the State
Government, and partly by the Central
Government, and which has been set up with a
view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators;
and
(d) any occupancy-Raiyat, who is not a member
of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or
Backward classes, may, transfer his right in his
holding or any portion thereof by sale, exchange,
gift, will, mortgage or otherwise to any other
person.
(2) A transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any
portion thereof under subsection (1) shall be binding on the
landlords.
(3) No transfer of contravention of sub-section (1), shall be
registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any
Court, whatever in exercise, of civil, criminal or revenue
jurisdiction.
[(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, the Deputy Commissioner shall
be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature relating to
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to
the suits is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and the other
party is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes.]
(4) At any time within three years after the expiration of the
period or which a Raiyat has under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) transferred his right in his holding or any portion thereof,
the Deputy Commissioner shall on the application of the
Raiyat put the Raiyat into possession of such holding or
portion in the prescribed manner.
(4-A) (a) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion
or on an application filed before him by an occupancy-
Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes, for
annulling the transfer on the ground that the transfer was
made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to
sub-section (1), hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner to
determine if the transfer has been made in contravention of
clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1):
Provided that no such application be entertained by
the Deputy Commissioner unless it is filed by the
occupancy-tenant within a period of twelve years from the
date of transfer of his holding or any portion thereof:
Provided further that before passing any order under
clause (b) or clause (c) of this subsection, the Deputy
Commissioner shall give the parties concerned a reasonable
opportunity to be heard in the matter.
(b) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this
sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that there was
no contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-
section (1) in making such transfer, he shall reject the
application and may award such costs to the transferee to
be paid by the transferor as he may, in the circumstances of
the case, deem fit.
(c) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this
sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that such
transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the
second proviso to sub-section (1), he shall annul the transfer
and eject the transferee from such holding or portion thereof,
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
as the case may be and put the transferor in possession
thereof:
Provided that if the transferee has constructed any
building or structure, such holding or portion thereof, the
Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to
pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the
same within a period of six months from the date of the
order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years
from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may
allow failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such
building or structure removed:
Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner
is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial
structure or building on such holding or portion thereof
before the commencement of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy
(Amendment) Act, 1969 (President's Act 4 of 1969) he may,
notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, validate
such a transfer made in contravention of clause (a) of the
second proviso to sub-section (1), if the transferee either
makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or
portion of a holding, as the case may be, of the equivalent
value, in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be
determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation
of the transferor.
Explanation. - In this Section "substantial structure or
building" means the structure or building of the value
exceeding five thousand rupees on the date of holding
inquiry, but it does not include such structure or building of
any value the materials of which cannot be removed without
incurring substantial depreciation in its value.
(5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the validity of any
transfer (of otherwise invalid) of a Raiyats right in his holding
or any portion thereof made bona fide before the first day of
January 1908 in the Chota Nagpur Division except the
district of 'Manbhum', or before the first day of January
1909, in the district of 'Manbhum'.
(6) In this Section [and in Section 47,-
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
(a) "Scheduled Castes" means such castes, races or
tribes as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950;
(b) "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within such tribes
or tribal communities as are specified in Part II of the
Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950; and
(c) "Backward classed" means such classes of citizens
as may be declared by the State Government, by
notification in the Official Gazette, to be socially and
educationally backward."
77. Section 49 of the Act 1908 also needs to be referred
herein which contains five sub-sections. It is evident from
the provisions of Section 49 that for the limited purposes
the land can be transferred notwithstanding anything
contained in Sections 46, 47 and 48 and in such
eventuality, the transferee in such cases shall not be
entitled to use the land so transferred for any other purpose
except for which it was transferred. But, before consenting
to any such transfer, the Deputy Commissioner shall
satisfy himself that adequate compensation is tendered to
landlord for the loss (if any) caused to him by the transfer,
and, where only part of a holding or tenure is transferred,
may, if he thinks fit, apportion; between the transferee and
the original tenant the rent payable for the holding or
tenure, for ready reference Section 49 is being referred
herein :-
"49. Transfer of occupancy-holding or Bhuinhari-Tenure
for certain purposes - [(1) Notwithstanding anything
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
contained in Sections 46, 47 and 48 any occupancy Raiyat
or any member of a Bhuinhari family, who is referred to in
Section 48 may transfer his holding or tenure or any part
thereof for the following purposes,-
(a) in any case, the use of the land for any industrial
purposes or for any other purposes which the State
Government may, by ratification declare to be
subsidiary thereto or for access to land used or
required for any such purpose.
(b) in any case, the use of the land for the purpose of
mining or for any other purposes which the State
Government may, by notification, declare to be
subsidiary thereto or for access to land used or
required for any such purpose.
(2) The transferee in such cases shall not be entitled to use
the land so transferred for any other purpose except for
which it was transferred.
(3) Every such transfer must be made by registered deed,
and before the deed is registered and the land transferred,
the written consent of the Deputy Commissioner must be
obtained to the terms of the deed and to the transfer.
(4) Before consenting to any such transfer, the Deputy
Commissioner shall satisfy himself that [adequate
compensation is tendered to landlord for the loss (if any)
caused to him by the transfer, and, where only part of a
holding or tenure is transferred, may, if he thinks fit,
apportion; between the transferee and the original tenant the
rent payable for the holding or tenure.
(5) The State Government may, at any time within a period
of twelve years from the date on which written consent is
given by the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the transfer
of any holding or part thereof belonging to an occupancy-
Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes either on
its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf
set aside such written consent and annul the transfer, if
after holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner and after
giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to be
heard it finds that the consent had been obtained in
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
contravention of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) by
misrepresentation or fraud, and in case any holding or part
thereof has been transferred on the basis of such written
consent direct the Deputy Commissioner to take further
necessary action under clause (c) of subsection 4-A of
Section 46."
78. It further needs to refer herein that the whole
purpose of the promulgation of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 was
that in no circumstances the nature of land is to be
changed. However, exception in view of Section 49 has been
carved out but the Deputy Commissioner while granting
such permission is to be satisfied with respect to the issue
of adequate compensation to be paid in favour of the
raiyats.
79. It needs to refer herein the very object of the Chota
Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The CNT Act, 1908, is a land
rights legislation that was created to protect the land rights
of the tribal. Major feature of the C.N.T. Act is that it
prohibits the transfer of land to non-tribals to ensure
community ownership. The areas of North Chotanagpur,
South Chotanagpur and Palamau Division are included in
the jurisdiction of C.N.T. Act.
80. The CNT Act has been enacted by keeping the
principle that the tribal people are novice and as such, in
each and every proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner has
been made to be a necessary party so that they may not be
subjected to any exploitation.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
81. The Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 also includes
all those tribal land tenures which were under the earlier
land laws. It also makes provisions for Bhuinhari and other
land tenures, such as Bhootkhet, Dalikatari, Pahnai etc.
which had already been included under the Chotanagpur
Land Tenure Act, 1869.
82. The, provisions have been made in the Chotanagpur
Tenancy-CNT Act, 1908 for the protection of almost all
tribal land tenures. It is also noteworthy that under the
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 keeping in view the
customs and social traditions existing among the tribes,
Provisions have been presented. In this Act, prohibition has
been presented regarding the transfer of tribal land, and at
the same time, very farsighted steps have also been taken
regarding their economic development.
83. Under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908, not only
have the tribes been given their land rights, but proper
guidance has also been provided for the smooth
implementation of government policies. Provisions have
also been made in it for change in the nature of land under
the control and direction of the government, timely
settlement of land, encouragement of proper transfer and
ban on illegal transfer so that the tribes can be saved of
their traditional rights and their rights can be protected.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
84. Thus, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act has been
implemented as a guideline for individuals, society, state
and governments against the problems of eviction from
tribal land, illegal land grabbing, displacement and
migration existing among the tribes. This is the reason that
the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 AD has been included
in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
85. The object of the C.N.T. Act, as has been referred
hereinabove is to protect the interest of the tribal but the
legislature has taken care of with respect to the issue of
development including the mining operation and hence, the
amendment was carried out in Section 49 in the year 1996
by CNT (Amendt.) Act, 1996 inserting therein the conditions
as quoted and referred hereinabove subject to permission
to be granted by the State Government for the purpose of
mining operation, meaning thereby, mining operation can
be carried out but subject to payment of adequate
compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy
Commissioner so that in case of change in nature of land,
the raiyats may be adequately compensated.
86. The other way of acquisition of the land is by taking
recourse of acquisition mechanism. However, we are not
delving upon the issue of land acquisition mechanism since
herein the case of the State as also the private respondent
is the applicability of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act,1908, for
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
the purpose of making payment of adequate compensation
to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner as per the
material available on record also.
87. The issue herein is of the mining of the coal. The
mining was going on not on the basis of auction but on the
basis of the linkage system. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment rendered in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v.
The Principle Secretary & Others (Supra) has declared
all allocations of the coal blocks made through Screening
Committee and through Government Dispensation route
since 1993 as illegal and has cancelled the allocation of 204
coal blocks out of 218 coal blocks (i.e. except, Tasra coal
block allocated to Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Pakri
Barwadih coal block allocated to National Thermal Power
Corporation and 12 coal blocks allocated for Ultra Mega
Power Projects) the relevant paragraph of the said judgment
is being referred herein:-
110. The above facts show that it took almost 8 years in
putting in place allocation of captive coal blocks through
competitive bidding. During this period, many coal blocks
were allocated giving rise to present controversy, which was
avoidable because competitive bidding would have brought in
transparency, objectivity and very importantly given a level
playing field to all applicants of coal and lowered the difference
between the market price of coal and the cost of coal for the
allottee by way of premium which would have accrued to the
Government. Be that as it may, once it is laid down by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Natural Resources
Allocation, In re [Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1] that the Court
cannot conduct a comparative study of various methods of
distribution of natural resources and cannot mandate one
method to be followed in all facts and circumstances, then if
the grave situation of shortage of power prevailing at that time
necessitated private participation and the Government felt
that it would have been impractical and unrealistic to allocate
coal blocks through auction and later on in 2004 or so there
was serious opposition by many State Governments to bidding
system, and the Government did not pursue competitive
bidding/public auction route, then in our view, the
administrative decision of the Government not to pursue
competitive bidding cannot be said to be so arbitrary or
unreasonable warranting judicial interference. It is not the
domain of the Court to evaluate the advantages of competitive
bidding vis-à-vis other methods of distribution/disposal of
natural resources. However, if the allocation of subject coal
blocks is inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution and
the procedure that has been followed in such allocation is
found to be unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, non-
transparent, capricious or suffers from favouritism or
nepotism and violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution, the consequences of such unconstitutional or
illegal allocation must follow.
160. The entire exercise of allocation through Screening
Committee route thus appears to suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness and not following any objective criteria in
determining as to who is to be selected or who is not to be
selected. There is no evaluation of merit and no inter se
comparison of the applicants. No chart of evaluation was
prepared. The determination of the Screening Committee is
apparently subjective as the minutes of the Screening
Committee meetings do not show that selection was made
after proper assessment. The project preparedness, track
record, etc. of the applicant company were not objectively kept
in view. Until the amendment was brought in Section 3(3) of
the CMN Act w.e.f. 9-6-1993, the Central Government alone
was permitted to mine coal through its companies with the
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
limited exception of private companies engaged in the
production of iron and steel. By virtue of the bar contained in
Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, between 1976 and 1993, no
private company (other than the company engaged in the
production of iron and steel) could have carried out coal
mining operations in India. Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, which
was amended on 9-6-1993 permitted private sector entry in
coal mining operations for captive use. The power for grant of
captive coal block is governed by Section 3(3)(a) of the CMN
Act, according to which, only two kind of entities, namely, (a)
the Central Government or undertakings/corporations owned
by the Central Government; or (b) companies having end-use
plants in iron and steel, power, washing of coal or cement can
carry out coal mining operations. The expression "engaged in"
in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) means that the company that was
applying for the coal block must have set up an iron and steel
plant, power plant or cement plant and be engaged in the
production of steel, power or cement. The prospective
engagement by a private company in the production of steel,
power or cement would not entitle such private company to
carry out coal mining operation. Most of the companies, which
have been allocated coal blocks, were not engaged in the
production of steel, power or cement at the time of allocation
nor in the applications made by them any disclosure was
made whether or not the power, steel or cement plant was
operational. They only stated that they proposed to set up
such plants. Thus, the requirement of end-use project was not
met at the time of allocation.
163. To sum up, the entire allocation of coal block as per
recommendations made by the Screening Committee from 14-
7-1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through the
Government Dispensation Route suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness and legal flaws. The Screening Committee has
never been consistent; it has not been transparent; there is no
proper application of mind; it has acted on no material in
many cases; relevant factors have seldom been its guiding
factors; there was no transparency and guidelines have
seldom guided it. On many occasions, guidelines have been
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
honoured more in their breach. There was no objective
criteria, nay, no criteria for evaluation of comparative merits.
The approach had been ad hoc and casual. There was no fair
and transparent procedure, all resulting in unfair distribution
of the national wealth. Common good and public interest
have, thus, suffered heavily. Hence, the allocation of coal
blocks based on the recommendations made in all the 36
meetings of the Screening Committee is illegal.
88. Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same
case i.e Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy., (2014)
9 SCC 614 has cancelled the coal block, the relevant
paragraphs are being quoted as under:
32. As far as the first category of coal block allotments is
concerned, they must be cancelled (except those mentioned in
the judgment). There is no reason to "save" them from
cancellation. The allocations are illegal and arbitrary; the
allottees have not yet entered into any mining lease and they
have not yet commenced production. Whether they are 95%
ready or 92% ready or 90% ready for production (as argued by
some learned counsel) is wholly irrelevant. Their allocation
was illegal and arbitrary, as already held, and therefore we
quash all these allotments.
33. The learned Attorney General identified 46 coal blocks
that could be "saved" from the guillotine, since all of them
have commenced production or are on the verge of
commencing production. As these allocations are also illegal
and arbitrary they are also liable to be cancelled. However, the
allotment of three coal blocks in Annexure 1 is not disturbed
and they are Moher and Moher Amroli Extension allocated to
Sasan Power Ltd. (UMPP) and Tasra [allotted to Steel Authority
of India Ltd. (SAIL), a Central Government public sector
undertaking not having any joint venture].
89. herein, this Court is only delving upon implication
of Section 49 C.N.T. Act, 1908, in such situation where the
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
allotment of the coal mines has been given in favour of the
writ petitioner which can be allowed to be given a go bye to
the provision of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
90. Since we have already dealt with herein that the
interest of the raiyats is the foremost consideration for the
purpose of enactment of C.N.T. Act, 1908, as such, their
interest cannot be given a go bye otherwise the whole
purpose of the enactment of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 will be
frustrated and the important question would be that what
will happen to the interest of the raiyats in absence of
adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy
Commissioner.
91. However, the argument has been advanced that the
petitioners are ready to make payment of compensation as
per the provision of Rule 72 of the Mineral Concession Rule,
1960 at the time of entering into the surface land or in view
of Rule 73 at the time of handing over the land on closure
of the mining operation.
92. The said provision is under the Mineral Concession
Rule, 1960 and the argument has been advanced by
referring to Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015 that the same
will have the overriding effect and since the M.M.D.R. Act,
1957 is to be acted upon in view of the provision of CMSP
Act, 2015, hence the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 will also have the
overriding effect over and above the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
93. Herein, it is the admitted case that the writ
petitioner is not averse to making payment of compensation
but the same is being contested by the raiyats and the
Deputy Commissioner being the protector of the interest of
raiyats also.
94. The purpose of enactment of the C.N.T. Act, 1908,
in no case, can be allowed to be given go bye. If any statute
has been formulated, then the same is to be acted upon by
all functionaries including the Centre, State or the litigant
concerned who wants to utilize the land for the mining
purposes.
95. It is not that there is any opposition either being
made on behalf of the raiyats or the State in not carrying
out the mining operation save and except the permission of
the Deputy Commissioner who is also ready to permit
allowing the writ petitioner to carry out mining operation
but subject to certain condition of making payment of
adequate compensation as per the provision under Section
49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
96. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a
case where there is the consideration of overriding effect of
one Act over the other, rather, it is a case where the
statutory command is to be taken into consideration on the
principle of harmonious construction so that a balance is
created and maintained in between the mining operators
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
and the raiyats because of the reason that both are to
survive as also the natural resources are to be excavated
but one cannot be allowed to operate at the cost of others.
97. Although Section 21 of CMSP Act, 2015 speaks
about the applicability of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 but as we have observed herein that
we are only concerned with the issue of adequate
compensation as per the mandate of Section 49 of the
C.N.T. Act, 1908 and it is also the case of the State and the
newly impleaded respondent that the applicability of
Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 in view of the order
already passed by the learned Single Judge being acted
upon by the Deputy Commissioner, a decision has also
been taken.
98. The question of making payment of compensation
under Rule 72 and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rule,
1960, if will be allowed, then what would be the situation
of observing the provision of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act,
1908, particularly, in the area where the tenancy law is
applicable and there is no restriction rather the exception
has been carved out.
99. In addition to the above, the writ petitioners were
party to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 &
Batch cases as also W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 & Batch
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
matters disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2020 and
03.03.2020 and in pursuance thereto, the Deputy
Commissioner has passed an order on 24.06.2023 by
initiating a miscellaneous case being Misc. Case
No.45/2020-21 as available in the counter affidavit filed on
21.07.2023. But the said order has not been challenged by
the writ petitioners even though they have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner by acting upon the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.
1326 of 2019 & Batch cases as also in W.P.(C) No. 4357 of
2019 & Batch matters.
100. Further, the writ petitioners have also admitted of
taking recourse of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, as
would be evident from the statement made at paragraph-16
of the counter affidavit dated 31.01.2023, wherein out of
1257.19 acres of land permission has been granted for
almost 400 acres of the raiyati land under Section 49 of the
C.N.T. Act, 1908, meaning thereby, the writ petitioners are
also admitting the fact that the permission under Section
49 of the Act, 1908 is required, for ready reference, the
statement made at paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit is
being quoted hereunder as :-
"16. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs
29 of the writ petition, under reply, it is stated that the same
is matter of record, hence, require no comment. However, it
is stated that answering respondent is regularly granting
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
permission under section 49 of the CNT Act, 1908 in favour
of the petitioner and as on date almost 400 Acres of Raiyati
land out of 1257.19 Acres has been granted."
101. The said statement has not been rebutted even
though rejoinders have been filed.
102. Accordingly, all the issues are being answered.
103. In consequence thereof, the writ petitions lack merit
and accordingly, dismissed.
104. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Date: 23rd September, 2025
A.F.R.
Birendra/
