LAWS(MPH)-1968-1-16

RAGHUWANSH BHUSHAN BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On January 03, 1968
Raghuwansh Bhushan Bajpai Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case who is the holder of a quarry lease for limestone over certain lands situated in Murwara tahsil of Jabalpur district challenges the legality of assessment of royalty made against him for the period from 17th July 1965 to 31st December 1965.

(2.) THE material facts are that by clause 3 of the lease concluded between the petitioner and the State it is provided that the petitioner -lessee shall pay to the State -lessor on the 15th day of March and 15th September in each year royalty at the rate of ten percent of the value at the pit's mouth subject to a minimum of 0.50 paise per ton of limestone, 0.75 Paise per ton of slackedlime and Re. 1/ - per ton of unslacked lime raised from or out of the said lands during the period preceding the said date respectively for which the royalty is payable. Under clause 5 of the lease the lessee is required to keep during the currency of the demise correct and intelligible books of accounts showing accurately the quantity of the minerals extracted and the weight and value of the said minerals sold or exported together with the names of the purchasers or consignees and he is required to furnish to the Collector, Jabalpur, not later than the 10th of every year a correct statement of the quantity of the minerals extracted, sold, exported or otherwise disposed of during the preceding three months. Clause 21 of the lease deed runs as follows: -

(3.) ON 28th November 1906 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector requesting him to refer the dispute with regard to assessment of royalty to the State Government for arbitration in terms of clause 21 of the lease -deed. This was done. On 18th July 1967 the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh in Natural Resources Department by an order in the name of the Governor informed the petitioner that the reference made by him under clause 21 had been rejected. In his letter the Secretary said inter alia: