KALYANI BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by three petitioners, praying that two leases granted by the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, to Messrs. Bharat Marble Company, a partnership firm, and Messrs. Hindustan Steel Limited, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, be quashed and cancelled. Copies of the leases have been given as Annexures 6 and 7, dated the 12th May, 1967 and the 17th October, 1966 respectively. The further prayer is that the said respondents be enjoined to desist from interfering with the possession of the petitioners with respect to certain properties comprised within a lease, dated the 11th July, 1919, a copy of which has been given as Annexure 1. It has also been prayed, that, if necessary, the petitioners be restored into possession of each and several portion of the property mentioned in the said leases. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, and a counter-affidavit and several supplementary statements have been filed on behalf of Messrs. Hindustan Steel Limited, respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 4, Messrs. Bharat Marble Company, has appeared through counsel, but has not filed any rejoinder in writing. The substance of the case of the petitioners is as follows: It is stated that by a registered document, dated the 11th July, 1919 (Annexure 1), Amardayal Singh, the then proprietor of Ladi Estate had granted a mining lease to Sri Pran Kristo Chatterjee in respect of certain minerals, including iron Ore in villages Adar and Gore, pertaining to his estate, bearing Touzi No. 130, Survey No. 143 and Touzi No. 161, Survey No. 91 respectively of the Collectorate of Palamau. This was a perpetual mokrari settlement. The mining rights had been given with respect to an area of about 2227 acres of land in village Adar and an area of 1303 acres of land in village Gore. By a registered deed of assignment dated the 13th March, 1937 the heirs of the original lessee, assigned and transferred their interest to one Vyomkesh Mukherjee. A copy of this document has been given as Annexure 2. It is said that the said Sri Mukherjee had exercised his rights under the deed of assignment and had raised iron ores on the terms and conditions of the original lease dated the 11th July, 1919, Until he died in 1949, leaving three daughters as his only heirs, who are the three petitioners. It is said that the petitioners had continued in possession and enjoyment of the leasehold property until the estate and the proprietary interest of the then proprietor had vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is alleged that due to the vesting of the estate, the petitioners came to hold a statutory lease from the date of vesting, on the same terms and conditions as set forth in the original lease of 1919. It is said that in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 6 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rule, 1956, the Controller of Mining Leases, respondent No. 2, initiated a case in 1959 for the modification of the terms of the lease of the year 1919 and ultimately ordered that the said lease was modified and would terminate on 20th September, 1961. A copy of the order dated the 28th September, 1959 has been given as Annexure 3. This order is challenged as ultra vires, ineffective and null and void. It is, then, alleged that the State of Bihar, ignoring the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the properties mentioned in the 1919 lease, inducted respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as lessees over portions of the original lease-hold property. These two leases, Annexures 6 and 7 respectively, are also said to be ineffective and void. It is alleged that the petitioners had protested against the action of the State of Bihar and of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, but without any result. Under these circumstances, this writ application has been filed with the prayers mentioned above.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, no clear-cut case has been made out in rebuttal. The counter-affidavit consists of five paragraphs only, sworn by the District Mining Officer and the relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which are quoted below: "2. That the application is not maintainable in law and in fact and is fit to be dismissed.

(3.) That the petitioner has paid no rents and royally from the date of vesting to the State of Bihar.