PRABHU LAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE questions have been agitated during the course of arguments in this writ petition. It will be proper to state those questions at the very outset. They are as under: - (i) If at the time of renewal of mining lease the area of mining lease is reduced, whether the dead rent should be proportionately reduced or not? (ii) Whether the stamp duty for the registration of the mining lease is also to be charged on the component of security amount, and (iii) Whether the Circular No. F. 7 (281) Gen/r&s/ 177932-18227 dated June 10, 1985 of the respondent No. 3 Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration, Tehsil Karauli, District Sawai Madhopur, or for that matter the order of the State Government Finance Department under which the said circular appears to have been issued deserves to be struck down and what should be the stamp duty on the registration of mining lease?.

(2.) FIRST the facts, which are these. The petitioner took a lease for sandstone from the Government of Rajasthan under the then Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 in respect of Group No. 10 comprising of village Langra Bugder, Tehsil Karauli Distt. Sawai Madhopur for an area of 19. 4 sq. kms. There were first and second renewals and the third renewal of the mining lease was w. e. f. September 19, 1972 to September 18, 1977 for a period of five years which was the maximum period of renewal under the then mineral concession rules. After the expiry of five years' period of renewal the fourth renewal of the mining lease became due on September 19, 1977 but by that time the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 came into force which made a provision for renewal of mining lease for 10 years and the area for which the mining lease could' be granted was reduced to 15 kms. The renewal of mining lease therefore could be for a period of 10 years and the dead rent during the period of third renewal was Rs. 64,400/- p. a. While granting fourth renewal for a period of 10 years the Dead Rent was revised to Rs. 1,25, 704. 25 pais per year. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid revision of Dead Rent by filing a writ petition No. 476/1978 and also obtained an interim order of stay under which he was allowed to continue to pay dead rent at the rate of Rs. 64,400/- per year instead of revised dead rent as aforesaid. The petitioner also gave an undertaking (Anr. 2) to the Mining Engineer under the orders of this Court. It will be necessary to refer to the aforesaid undertaking at the later stage of this order and therefore it is proper to extract clauses (i) and (ii) of the aforesaid undertaking which are as under:- " (i) That the dead rent with effect from 19. 9. 1977 to 18. 9. 1982 was fixed at Rs. 1,25, 704. 25, which is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and necessary stay is operative in this behalf. (ii) That, if ultimately the Hon'ble High Court confirm the dead rent fixed by the Govt. for the above period or any other modification is made therein, the consequence enhancement as per rules for the period w. e. f. 19. 9. 1982 to 19. 9. 1987, which is stated to be at Rs. 2,43,193. 83 and from 19. 9. 1987 onwards at Rs. 5,04,635. 04 by the Mining Department, whatever, applicable according to the law and the Rules finally settled by competent Court or authority would be acceptable and payable by me. " The aforesaid undertaking was executed on January 21, 1988. There is no dispute between the parties that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on August 24, 1988 and consequently, so far as validity of the Dead Rent having been fixed at Rs. 1,25,704. 25 per year during the first five years of fourth renewal is beyond challenge. It may also be said that the Dead Rent was subject to revision after a period of 5 years and therefore the revision of dead rent became due w. e. f. September 19, 1982. According to the formula for revision of dead rent, the dead rent for a period from September 19, 1982 onwards will come to Rs. 2,4393. 83. Upto this stage, the fixation of dead rent cannot be said to be against the provisions of the rules, moreso, before the area was 15 sq. kms.

(3.) SO far as the question (iii) stated above is concerned, the first of the same has been dealt with in the earlier part of this order and the aforesaid circular has been quashed and coming to the later part of this question it is not for this court to decide the same and it is for the Sub-Registrar to say what stamp duty is to be paid and it is the Collector who is to estimate the duty payable as aforesaid. It will be open for the petitioner to apply to the Collector to estimate the amount of duty and royalty for registration of lease deed. The petitioner will be free to move the Collector within a period of 15 days and the Collector is directed to decide the matter as early as possible but in no case later than six weeks thereafter. I would not like to decide what stamp duty is payable and it is for the Registrar to deal with this controversy.