MANOJ AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25. 4. 1996 an auction notice was issued by the State of Haryana for the extraction of sand from the Khatkar zone comprising 27 villages in district Sonepat although by virtue of Clause 3a of this notice sand was to be extracted at only 4 villages at one given time. The auction was. actually held on 28. 5. 1996 and the petitioners' bid for Rs. 2,46,63,000.00 per year was accepted being the highest. This information was conveyed to the petitioner-company on 30. 5. 1996. On that very day the petitioner-company deposited a sum of Rs. 20,55,250.00 towards the first monthly instalment and a further sum of Rs. 61,65,750.00 as security making a total of Rs. 82,21,000/ -. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 24,66,300.00 on 26. 7. 1996 as 10% of the tentative compensation to be paid to the land owners in terms of Clause 27 of the Contract and Rule 61 of Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, (hereinafter called the Rules) as applicable to Haryana. A formal contract was also entered into between the parties, on 9. 8. 1996 for the period 29. 6. 1996 to 31. 3. 1999. It is the admitted case that as of now the petitioner-company has deposited almost Rs. 1. 7 crores with the respondent-State. It appears from the. facts given in the petition that the petitioner-company thereafter sought to extract sand from villages Jatti Khurd, Sarsa and Nangal Kalan but faced some obstacles at the hands of the land owners. The petitioner-company then wrote to the Geologist (Jr) Minor and Geology Deptt. Sonepat with a copy to the Commissioner,. Mines and Geology, Haryana, Chandigarh for information that as they had already deposited an sum of Rs. 24,66,300.00 as 10% tentative compensation for the land owners an obligation rested with the State Government to make available the land for extraction, A copy of this letter dated 13. 8. 1996 has been put on record as Annexure P-2. As nothing came out of this letter, the petitioner-company wrote another letter dated 22. 8. 1996, Annexure P-3, to the same officials reiterating the contents of the letter, Annexure P-2, but once again to no avail. The petitioner-company than wrote another letter dated 2. 9. 1996, Annexure P-4, to the same officials pointing out that they had already deposited approximately Rs. One crore with the department as security, monthly instalment and compensation amount and as they were paying interest on this amount, they were being put to a big loss due to non-settlement of compensation to the land owners by the department and that the Geology department was responsible for this situation. It was again pointed out, that as physical possession of the land for extraction of sand from the Khatkar zone had still not been given to them so the question of deposit of any further monthly instalment would not arise. By communications dated 11. 9. 1996 and 14. 9. 19%, Annexure P-5 and P-6 to the petition, it was again reiterated that until the possession was given to the petitioner-company, it was not liable to make the payment of any further monthly instalment.

(2.) AS the petitioner-company had refused to pay the monthly instalment the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide his notice dated 13. 9. 1996, Annexure P-1, informed it that as various sums were due from it on the basis of the contract that had been signed on 9. 8. 1996 and that as condition No. 15 thereof requiring the submission of a production report had been breached, it was called upon to show cause as to why the Contract be not cancelled? The petitioner-company was however given a period of one month to rectify the default. Aggrieved by the issuance of the notice the petitioner-company has filed the present petition. This case first came up for hearing on 17. 10. 1996 before a Division Bench of this Court and notice of motion was issued for 29. 10. 1996. It was further directed that in the meantime the contract would not be given to any other person. The case was thereafter adjourned time and again and ultimately admitted on 17. 12. 1996 with the observations that the nature of the controversy involved required that the main case be listed for hearing on 13. 1. 1997, high-up in the list. It is in that situation that the case has been listed before me.

(3.) MR . R. K. Chhibbar, the learned counsel appeared in support of the petitioner has urged that Clause 27 of the Contract when read alongwith Rule 61 of the Rules provided that in case a contractor/lessee faced any difficulty in getting the possession of the land from which sand was to be extracted, a statutory obligation lay on the Collector of the District to ensure that the possession was delivered to it and the only obligation that lay on the former was to deposit 10% of the compensation money that was to be paid to the objecting land owners and as 10% of the bid money had been deposited as compensation on 26. 7. 1996, the petitioner-company had completed its part of the contract. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to Clause 27 of the agreement and Rule 61 of the Rules which are reproduced below :" CLAUSE 27: ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THIRD PARTIES AND COMPENSATIOn THEREOF : In accordance with provisions of Clause 9 of this agreement, the contractor shall offer to pay compensation to an occupier or owner of the surface of the land where from the minor mineral will be raised, including the land required for use as access to the quarry/mine, stoking of minerals and purposes subsidiary thereto for any damage or injury which may arise from the purposed mining operation of the contractor and in case the said occupier or owner refuses his consent to the exercise of the rights and power reserved to the Government and demised to the contractor under these presents, the contractor shall report the matter to the Assistant Mining Engineer/mining Officer posted in the district who shall request the Collector of the District concerned to direct the occupier or the owner to allow the contractor to enter the said land and to carry on such mining/quarrying operation as may be necessary for the working of the mine/quarry, on deposit with the Collector in advance, of the following amount as tentative compensation to the occupier or the owner by the contractor subject to its final fixation by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. RULE 61: ACQUISITION OF LAND OF THIRD PARTIES AND COMPENSATIOn THEREOF: In case of a land in respect of which minor mineral rights vest in the Government, the contractor/lessee shall offer to pay compensation to an occupier or owner of the surface of the land wherefrom the minor mineral will be raised, as also the land required for use as access to the mine/quarry, stacking of minerals and purposes subsidiary thereto, for any damage or injury which may arise from the proposed mining or quarrying operations of the contractor/lessee, and if the said occupier or owner refuses his consent to the exercise of the rights and powers reserved to the Government and demised to the contractor/lessee, the contractor/lessee shall report the matter to the General Manager District Industries Centre posted in the District concerned who shall request the collector of the district concerned to direct the occupier or the owner to allow the contractor/lessee, to enter the said land and to carry on such mining or quarrying operations as may be necessary for the working of the mine/quarry, on deposit with the Collector in advance, of the following amount as tentative compensation subject to its final fixation by the Collector in accordance with the principles of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : a) ten percent of the annual contract/lease money for the land comprising the mine/quarry; and b) a sum at the rate of one rupee per square yard in the case of arable land and ten paise square yard in the case of waste land, per year for the land to be used for access to the quarry/mine, stacking of minerals and other subsidiary purposes. The contractor/lessee shall use the shortest possible route for access to the quarry/mine. If the amount of final compensation works out to be more than the tentative amount of compensation already deposited, the contractor/lessee shall deposit immediately on demand by the Collector, the additional amount of compensation. If however the amount of final compensation works out to be less than the amount already deposited by the contractor/lessee, the excess amount shall be refunded to him. "