SATNA STONE AND LIME CO LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of the following writ petitions :- (1) M.P. No. 955/88, Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State and another; (2) M.P. (No. 229/88, M/s. Birla Jute and Ind. Ltd. v. Union of India, and others; (3) M.P. No. 504/88, Bharat Food India Ltd. v. Union of India; (4) M.P. No. 1166/88, Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. and another v. State and another; (S) M.P. No. 500/88, Raymond Cement Works v. Union of India and others; (6) M.P. No. 943188, Grasim Industries Ltd. v. State and others; (7) M.P. No. 1260/88, Steel Authority of India v. State and another; (8) M.P. No. 1267/88, Cement Corpn. Of India v. State and another; (9) M.P. No. 889/88, Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. State and another; (10) M.P. No. 1109/88, M/s. D.P. Rai v. State and another; (11) M. P. No. 1112/88, M/s. J.A. Trivedi Brothers v. State and another; (12) M.P. No. 1167/88, M/s. Pacific Mineral Pvt. Ltd. v. State and another; (13) M.P. No. 1173/88, M/s. Eastern Mineral Mine Owners v. State and others; (14) M.P. No. 277/88, Century Textiles and Ind. Ltd. v. State and others; (15) M.P. No. 282/88, Century Textiles and Ind. Ltd. v. State and others; (16) M.P. No. 661/88, M/s. Navratan Mal Gugalia and others v. State and others; (17) M. P. No. 662/88, Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (18) M.P. No. 663/88, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (19) M.P. No. 1178/88, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (20) M.P. No. 1201/88, M/s. Sheilesh Kumar v. State and others; (21) M.P. No. 1282/88, Darjeeling Dooars Plantations Ltd. v. State and others; (22) M.P. No. 40/88, Hiralal Rameshwar Pd. and others v. State and others; (23) M.P. No. 424/88, Associated Cement Co. v. State and others; (24) M.P. No. 1255/88, Association Cement Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (25) M.P. No. 916/88, Hiralal Remeshwar Pd. v. State and others; (26) M.P. 885/88, Jaiprakash Ind. Ltd. v. State and others; (27) M.P. No. 3056/87, M.P. Lime Manu Asso. v. State and others; (28) M.P. No. 443/88, M/s. Mysore Cement Ltd. v. State and another; (29) M.P. No. 509/88, Pannalal Bajaj v. State and others; (30) M.P. No. 510/88, Satyawan Agarwal v. State and others; (31) M.P. No. 536/88, Managanese Ore. (India) Ltd. v. State and another; (32) M.P. No. 614/88, M/s. Sheoratanlal Gulabchand Agarwal and others v. State and others; (33) M.P. No. 740/88, Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. State and others; (34) M.P. No. 859/88, Diamond Mining Project v. State and another; (35) M.P. No. 862/88, National Mineral Development Corpn. v. State and another; (36) M.P. No. 957/88, National Mineral Development Corpn. v. State and another; (37) M.P. No. 1010/88, Shaligram Parita v. State and another; (38) M.P. No. 1011/88, Preeti Enterprisers v. State and others; (39) M.P. No. 1160/88, M/s. Narsinghdas Jankidas Mehta v. State and others; (40) M.P. No. 1168/88, M/s. Shri Krishandas Tikaram and another v. State of M.P.; (41) M.P. No. 1177/88, Krishindas Tikaram v. State and others; (42) M.P. No. 1185/88, M/s. Shri Krishandas Tikaram and others v. State and others; (43) M.P. No. 1322/88, M/s. Chopra and Sons Co. and others v. State and others; (44) M.P. No. 1322/88, Dyers Stones Lime Co. (P) Ltd. and others v. State and others; (45) M.P. No. 1324/80, G.K. Maitra v. State and others; (46) M.P. No. 1394/88, Cement Corpn. of India v. State and another.

(2.) The petitioners in all these petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution, hold mining leases under written contracts in Form K referred to in R.31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (for short, the "M.C. Rules'') for mining various minerals in different parcels of land in various villages. By the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 25 of 1987), (for short, the "Amending Act"), certain amendments were made in S.59 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (for short, the "MPLR Code" or the Code"), and then the Madhya Pradesh Land under Mining Leases Quarry Leases Assessment Rules, 1987, (for short, the "New Assessment Rules"), were framed. The Amending Act was published on 28-5-1987, whereas the new Assessment Rules were published on 4-12-1987 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazettee (Extraordinary) of the even dates. After the amendment in Section 59 of the MPLR Code and on the basis of the rates given in new Assessment Rules, assessments of lands under various mining leases of the petitioners were made for the purpose specified in the newly inserted item (e) of Sub-Section (1) of S.59 of the Code. After such assessments, demand notices were issued against the petitioners, which are impugned in all the petitions on various grounds. As the grounds of attack are more or less, common in all the petitions, the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers and authorities filed their return in Misc. Petition No. 40 of 1988. Hiralal Rameshwar Prasad and others v. State and others, and adopted the same in all other petitions.

(3.) It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners in M.P. No. 980 of 1988 that the introduction of item (e) in Sub-Section (1) of S.59 of the Code by the Amending Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. According to him, the regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent mentioned to Entry 54 of the Union List was within the domain of the Parliament and that in exercise of that power the Parliament enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, (for short, the "MMRD Act"), and made its declaration under S.2 that "it is expedient in public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent" provided in the MMRD Act. S.3(c) defines "mining lease" as a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations, and includes a sub-lease granted for such purpose. The expression "mine" has the meaning assigned to it in the Mines Act, 1952, as per Cl.(i) of Section 3 the MMRD Act. It is, therefore, in the exclusive field of Parliament to regulate mines and minerals development, including taxation on mines and minerals, by enacting Laws in that regard by virtue of Entry 54 of the Union List. It was contended that the State Legislature transgressed its limits by inserting item (e) in Sub-Section (1) of Section 59 of the Code, inasmuch as the State Government was thereby empowered to levy tax on mines and minerals in the garb of land revenue.