KAILASH CHAND AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted mining lease for extraction of soapstone and quartz over an area of 258.15 hectares near village Amloda Tehsil Bairath District Jaipur for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 16-8-1976, vide Annexures Nos. 1 and 2 dated 3-6-1976 and 19-2-1977 respectively. Out of the above said area, the petitioner surrendered an area of 61.248 hectares and the surrender was accepted by the State Government vide order dated 14-7-1978 (Annxure-3) w.e.f. 2-2-1978. Vide letter dated 9-6-1987 (Annexure-4), the petitioner wrote to the State Government that he had conducted the mining operation in the area under his lease and had found that the minerals extracted therefrom were of inferior quality and the mining operation therein was not financially beneficial to him and stating that he wanted to surrender the lease of the area in question with immediate effect and requested that the surrender of the lease be so accepted. Vide letter dated 9-2-1988 (Annexure-6), the petitioner wrote to the State Government that he had been informed vide letter dated 23-12-1987 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jaipur that his application for surrender of the lease had not been considered as he had not deposited the land tax due from him and stated that the recovery of the land tax had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He requested that his lease be taken to have been surrendered w.e.f. 9-6-1987 and stated that he had paid all the dues up to the said date. On 14-6-1989, the State Government issued order (Annexure-11) stating that vide letter dated 9-6-1987 the petitioner had desired that his surrender of the lease be accepted w.e.f. 9-6-1987 but a sum of Rs. 8143.57 p. was due from the petitioner by way of land tax and his surrender was accepted w.e.f. 9-6-1988. Vide notice dated 14-8-1989 (Annexure-7) the Asstt. Mining Engineer informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 6672.07 p. was due from him and asked him to pay the same within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. Vide notice dated 7-11-1989 (Annexure-8), the Asstt. Mining Engineer informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 26578-68p. was due from him as revised fee for the period from 5-5-1987 to 8-6-1988 and asked him to pay the same within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. Vide letter dated 27-11-1989 (Annexure-9), the petitioner wrote to the Mining Engineer, Jaipur that vide letter dated 9-6-1987 (Annexure-4) he had requested that the surrender of his lease be accepted with immediate effect and that vide letter dated 23-12-1987 he had been informed that land tax amounting to Rs. 8143.57 p. was due from him which should be deposited but vide letter dated 9-2-1988 (Annexure-6) he had replied that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the recovery of the land tax and had prayed that the surrender be accepted as prayed in the letter but he had not received any intimation. In reply dated 27-12-1989 (Annexure-10) the Mining Engineer, Jaipur wrote to the petitioner that vide order dated 14-6-1989 the State Government had accepted the surrender of the lease w.e.f. 9-6-1988 and a copy of the said order had already been sent to him and directed him to pay the dues. The petitioner thereafter filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that on 9-6-1987 he had made enquiry in the Mining Department and was intimated that a sum of Rs. 3722.39 p. was due from him and, as such, he had deposited the said amount vide Annexure-5 and submitted the application for surrender of the lease with immediate effect. He has further pleaded that the Federation of the Mining Association of Rajasthan had challenged the imposition of land tax and, in the interim order passed on 23-3-1987 in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 78 / 87, the recovery of land tax had been stayed by this Court. He has further pleaded that the legality of the land tax was under challenge in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 89 / 87 "Rangilal v. State of Rajasthan" and in those proceedings also the recovery of the land tax had been stayed. The petitioner claimed to be the member of the Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan and contended that the land tax was not recoverable by the State Government, who was bound to accept the surrender w.e.f. 9-6-1987. He has thus prayed that the order dated 14-6-1989 (Annexure-11) whereby the lease of the petitioner has been accepted from 9-6-1988 be set aside and the surrender of the petitioner may be accepted w.e.f. 9-6-1987 and further that the demand notices dated 18-4-1989 and 7-11-1989 (Annexures-7 and 8 respectively) be quashed.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents, who have pleaded that the dead rent in respect of the land in question had been revised in accordance with the rules w.e.f. 5-5-1987 and that a sum of Rs. 33246.75 p. was due from the petitioner on this account which the petitioner did not pay and further that the petitioner was liable to pay the dead rent / land tax amounting to Rs. 8143.57 p. for the period ending 9-6-1987 and, as such, there was no question of accepting the surrender with immediate effect on receipt of his notice dated 9-6-1987. It has also been stated that the surrender has been rightly accepted w.e.f. 9-6-1988 in accordance with the Rule 29(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (the Rules) which provides that the lessee cannot surrender a mining lease except by giving 12 months' notice. It is also stated that there is nothing to show that the petitioner was a member of the Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan and further that the interim stay granted by the Court stood vacated and that the petitioner never filed any writ petition challenging the validity of land tax and could not claim any benefit from the orders passed in the said writ petitions. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner could have challenged the order of the State Government by filing a revision petition under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1960 (the Act) and he having not availed of the said remedy, this writ petition could not be filed by him.