LAWS(PAT)-2019-4-33

SURAJDEV SINGH @ SURAJ BABA S/O MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVT OF BIHAR

Decided On April 17, 2019
Surajdev Singh @ Suraj Baba S/O Mahendra Singh Appellant
V/S
State Of Bihar, Through Its Principal Secretary, Mines And Geology, Govt Of Bihar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is about the dispute of mining rights of stone quarries stated to have been settled through an auction on 30th December, 2008 and is confined to the claim in respect of two quarries, one over Block No. 1 and the other over Block No. 2 of Plot No. 789 of Mauza Bodha Chak, District- Gaya. The settlement was concluded through auction under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1972 Rules"). Two lease deeds dated 14th of May, 2009 were executed between the appellant and the Collector of District- Gaya for a period of five years, with effect from 26.05.2009. Apart from the security deposit, Block No. 1 was settled on a royalty of Rs. 1.55 crore and Block No. 2 was settled for Rs. 25.55 lacs.

(2.) The appellant complains of not having been allowed to commence mining operations in respect of the aforesaid two Blocks due to non-demarcation of the settled area, which, according to the appellant, took place on 8th September, 2011 for the first time. Thus, the first complaint is of not allowing the appellant to quarry the stones as per the terms of the agreement, which was delayed for more than two years from 26.05.2009 to 08.09.2011 on account of the respondents themselves having not demarcated the area resulting in the mining operations having not commenced at all in respect of these two Blocks. It is on 08.09.2011 when for the first time, the appellant commenced his operations on permission of the department itself on the conclusion of demarcation proceedings.

(3.) The second part of the complaint is that the auction lease of the appellant has been determined by the Collector on erroneous considerations vide order dated 16th of November, 2013, whereafter also, the appellant has been unable to carry out the mining operations, which had to even otherwise continue till 26th of May, 2014, as the lease was for five years.