JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India for declaring the provisions of Sections 10 and 24-A of the mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the act of 1957') and Rules 22 and 26 and Form 'k' prescribed under Rule 31 of the mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short "the Rules of 1960") made thereunder as ultra vires the Constitution of India and for quashing the order dated 8-12-2006 of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh in the Mineral resources Department granting mining lease of the land of the petitioners in favour of the respondent No. 4 as well as the lease agreement dated 15-1-2007 executed between the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the order dated 8-12-2006 of the State Government.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner No. 1 is the recorded Bhumiswami of land in khasra Nos. 56,57,354,369,370,371,372,374 and 390 situated at Village Sarda, Tehsil Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi. The petitioner No. 2 is the recorded Bhumiswami of the land in Khasra Nos. 283/430, 283/2, 203/2, 201/2, 219/2, 199/2, 120/2, 202/2 situated at Village Kariyajhar, tehsil Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi. By an order dated 8-12-2006 of the government of Madhya Pradesh, Mineral Resources Department, mining leases for extracting limestone from the lands of the petitioners have been granted by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 4 and accordingly mining leases in Form K prescribed under the Rules of 1960 have been executed by the State Government on 15-1-2007 in favour of the respondent No. 4 in respect of the aforesaid lands.

(3.) WRIT petitions were filed by other Bhumiswamis in respect of whose lands similar mining leases had been granted by the State Government. The main ground taken in these writ petitions was that the State Government could not grant mining leases in respect of the land to a third party without the consent of the Bhumiswami of the land and without affording him an opportunity of hearing and learned Single Judge of this Court who heard the writ petitions referred two questions of law to a Division Bench of this Court : (1) whether grant of any lease by the State Government without the consent of the bhumiswami was sustainable in law and (2) whether the Division Bench of this court in Premchand Vs. State, 1965 JLJ 413 (CN 73), had rightly held that for assignment of right in respect of any minerals, the mines and quarries by the government to a third person under Section 247 of the M. P. Land Revenue code, an opportunity of hearing or consent of Bhumiswami was not required. The Division Bench to which the reference was made held in its opinion dated 2nd May, 2008 in W. P. No. 7745 of 2006 (Shyam Bihari Singh Vs. State ofm. P. and others), reported in 2008 (4) M. P. H. T. 151, and the other connected writ petitions that the rights of the lessee and the owner of the private land in respect of which the mining lease of minerals covered under the Act of 1957 was granted are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1960 and hence the decision of the Division Bench in Premchand (supra), under Section 247 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code was not applicable to grant of mining lease under the Act of 1957. In the opinion dated 2nd May, 2008, the Division Bench also held that the consent of the owner of the private land or opportunity of hearing to such owner of private land was not mandatory before grant of mining lease under the Act of 1957 and the grant of mining leases by the Government without the consent of the private owner of the land is sustainable in law.