SHYAMAKANT LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Shyamkant Lal has obtained a rule from the High Court asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution commanding the respondents to withdraw the notification No. 7325 L, R. Act/Mines, dated the 5th/11th December, 1956, published under Rule 67 of the Mineral Concession, Rules, with regard to 3300 acres of land situated in village Saphi Sawaiyatanr in the district of Gaya.

(2.) Cause has been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given.

(3.) Previous to the coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the petitioner Shyamakant Lal and his wife had 8 annas milkiat interest in frauzi No. 12561 of village Sawaiyatanr covering an area of 3300 acres. In the year 1940 the petitioner and his wife executed a zarpeshgi lease in favour of Chhathu Ram Horil Ram Limited with regard to an area of 2893 acres out of their 8 annas share. It is alleged that the mortgagees worked the mines in some portions of the area and the mortgage amount was automatically paid off on the 1st October, 1955. After the period of the mortgage had expired the petitioner and his wife took possession of the area and carried on mining operations. On 25-9-1 1950, the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) was promulgated. By virtue of a notification dated 27-6-1953 under Section 3 of that Act, tauzi No. 12561 of Village Sawaiyatanr became vested in the State Government. The case of the petitioner is that after the vesting of the estate under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the petitioner became a statutory lessee of the mica mines in the tauzi by virtue of Section 9(1) of that Act. It is alleged that the petitioner was working the mines in an area of 3300 acres comprised in the tauzi and the effect of Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was that he became a statutory lessee with regard to these mines and the respondents had no authority to declare that the area was available for re-grant under Rule 67 of the Mineral Concession Rules. It is convenient at this stage to refer to the statutory provisions relevant to this case.