KARTAR SINGH Vs. VIKAS STONE CRUSHING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court: "1. Whether the grant of mining contract by the State of Haryana in favour of the plaintiffs prohibits all other persons in the area of mining contract from carrying out any sort of work on minerals besides the carrying away of the same?

(2.) If question No. 1 is answered in negative, then whether all other persons are also debarred from carrying out any sort of work on the minerals even if they carry out their work within 50 meters from the Public road?" The referred questions have to be judged in the light of the case set up in the plaint by the plaintiffs (Messrs Ram and Shyam and Company) and the case set up by the defendants thereto. The plaintiffs' case is that a definitely earmarked area in terms of Khasra numbers had been given to them on lease by the State Government, Haryana, vide agreement dt. 10-12-1982, for the purpose of mining, breaking, crushing and removing or taking away the same after crushing stone, minor minerals of stone and all road metals lying and found in the said quarry, which has been described in detail in para No. 2 of the plaint; that the defendants who had the contract of lease earlier to carry on mining operations have their crushers over the leased area; that the continuance of the crushers of the defendants started illegal interference over the leased area and they have no right either to maintain or to work their stone-crushers there.

(3.) Before dealing with the above referred two questions, it would, at this stage, be apt to recapitulate a little history in regard to this reference. The defendants had applied to the trial Court to make a reference to the High Court. Right up to the High Court the prayer for making a reference was declined. When the matter was carried to the Supreme Court, their Lordships made a direction to the trial Court, operative part whereof is in the following terms : "......But since the decision of the controversy between the parties involves the question of construction of clauses (g) and (j) of Rule 2 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concessions Rules 1964 and this interpretation might depend on the question of validity of these Rules, we would direct the trial court to immediately refer this question to the High Court under S.113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court acting in pursuance of the said direction made a reference to this Court which, when came up for consideration before my learned brother Goyal, J., the same was found not in accord with the provisions of O.46, R.1 of the Civil P.C. and the trial Court was directed to frame a proper reference and it is thus that the present reference pointing the two questions, already stated, for the opinion of this Court with its own findings by the trial Court has been submitted to this Court.