JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 dated 17th March, 2015 whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and, therefore, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that initially an auction notice was issued by the respondents on 24th November, 1999 for the auction of Sand Ghat, total 41 in number. This appellant applied for 03 Ghats viz. Balu Ghat Nos. 5, 10 and 11. The controversy has arisen for Balu Ghat No. 11 only. 3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the auction was held on 30th November, 1999. This appellant was the highest bidder so far as Balu Ghat Nos. 5, 10 and 11 are concerned, but, we are concerned with Balu Ghat No. 11 only, the necessary amount to be deposited with the respondents for Balu Ghat No. 11, was at Rs. 3,23,200/- which is a rent per year. The possession of the said Balu Ghat No. 11 was handed over to the appellant on 20th December, 1999. Certain deposits were to be given before the actual work was to be started and, therefore, Rs. 1,69,060/-was deposited as well as Kisan Vikash Patra of Rs. 80,000/- was also deposited. Thereafter, Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, Patna filed a revision application claiming that all the 04 auctions is illegal in nature under the Bihar Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1972 enacted under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Ultimately, the auction was set aside vide order dated 24th December, 1999 by the Mines Commissioner (Annexure 1 to the memo of appeal)). The order of revision was also passed on 15th January, 2000 (Annexure 2 to the memo of appeal). So far Ghat Nos. 5 and 10 are concerned, the amount was refunded for which there is no dispute in this matter. Nonetheless, for Ghat No. 11, a writ petition was preferred by this appellant before the Hon'ble High Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 123 of 2000 in which status quo order was granted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28th January, 2000 (Annexure-3 to the memo of appeal). Thereafter, on 25th January, 2000, all the 41 Ghats were given to the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation. Thereafter, on 25th January, 2000, all the 41 Ghats were given to the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation. Thus, the deposits given by this appellant should have been refunded, because the auction was illegal and the application was preferred for getting a refund. The said application was rejected vide order at Annexure 6 to the memo of appeal, against which a revision case bearing Revision Case No. 196 of 2002 was preferred before the Mines Commissioner who passed an order dated 7th January, 2005 and relegated the matter to the District Mining Officer, Bokaro. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro passed an order on 16th April, 2005 (Annexure 8 to the memo of appeal) and the refund application was rejected. Against this, Revision Application No. 132 of 2011 was instituted by this appellant before the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, who also rejected the revision application preferred by this appellant and, therefore, W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 was preferred before this Court which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th March, 2015 with certain observations about adjustment of the amount of Kisan Vikash Patra valued at Rs. 80000/-. This amount was directed to be adjusted against which this appeal has been preferred. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this appellant was never in possession of Balu Ghat No. 11. This matter has not been properly appreciated by the authorities below including by the learned Single Judge and not a single kilo gram of sand has been excavated by this appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that original amount payable by the appellant to the respondents-State was Rs. 3,23,200/- out of which Rs. 1,69,060/- has already been deposited. Thus, the only left out amount is Rs. 1,63,140/-. Now, Kisan Vikash Patra of Rs. 80000/- was also with the respondents which has already matured in the year 2005 and, therefore also, the said amount has been kept by the respondents and, hence, looking to the interest upon the Kisan Vikash Patra, now nothing is required to be paid by the appellant. On the contrary, the appellant has to receive the amount from the respondents-State. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that on 17th April, 2015, further amount of Rs. On the contrary, the appellant has to receive the amount from the respondents-State. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that on 17th April, 2015, further amount of Rs. 75,800/- have been deposited by this appellant before the District Mining Officer, Bokaro. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 dated 17th March, 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Counsel for the respondents submitted that no error ha been committed by the Deputy Director of Mines, Dhanbad while passing an order dated 20th September, 2002 (Annexure 6) in which it has been stated that despite the order of the status quo passed by Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 123 of 2000 dated 28th January, 2000, the possession of the Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant and, therefore, the appellant was liable to make payment of rent for the said Balu Ghat. This is the finding of fact recorded by the first authority. The whole case is based upon this finding of fact. Against this order, Revision Case No. 196 of 2002 was instituted before the Mines Commissioner, who relegated the matter to the District Mining Officer, Bokaro vide order dated 7th January, 2005. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in his order dated 16th April, 2005 has stated that the Balu Ghat No. 11 was in possession of this appellant and, therefore, this appellant was liable to make payment of rent for the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11. Against this, Revision Application No. 132 of 2011 was instituted by the appellant before Additional Chief Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, State of Jharkhand, who dismissed the revision application vide order dated 2nd June, 2012 in which also it has been observed by the Mines Commissioner that the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant. Against this, Revision Application No. 132 of 2011 was instituted by the appellant before Additional Chief Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, State of Jharkhand, who dismissed the revision application vide order dated 2nd June, 2012 in which also it has been observed by the Mines Commissioner that the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant. Against this concurrent finding of fact, a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 was instituted which was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, because this appellant (original petitioner) was in possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 and, therefore, the liability was with this appellant to make payment of rent for the said Balu Ghat within proper time, failing which the outstanding amount can always been recovered by the respondents-State with interest and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in appreciating these aspects of the matter. So far as direction of adjustment of the amount is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that the said direction given by the learned Single Judge will be set off and if there is any further outstanding amount, the same shall have to be paid by the appellant with interest and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons:- 6. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Auction notice was issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar on 24th November, 1999 for 41 Sand Ghat which are referred by the authorities under Bihar Mines Mineral Concessions Rules, 1972. We are here in this matter concerned with Balu Ghat No. 11. (ii) Auction was held on 30th November, 1999 in which this appellant was the highest bidder so far as Balu Ghat No. 11 was concerned and, therefore, a letter for commencement of the work was given to this appellant for Balu Ghat No. 11 on 20th December, 1999, for which per annum rent was fixed at Rs. 3,23,200/-. Certain amount has been deposited, whereas, certain amount is yet to be deposited. (iii) Thus, the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant on and from 20th December, 1999. 3,23,200/-. Certain amount has been deposited, whereas, certain amount is yet to be deposited. (iii) Thus, the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant on and from 20th December, 1999. Thereafter, Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation preferred a revision application and challenged the auction held by the respondents-State and, ultimately, the auction for all the 41 Balu Ghats was cancelled vide order dated 24th December, 1999. (iv) Necessary order for refund was also passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15th January, 2000 (Annexure 2). (v) This appellant (original petitioner) wanted to retain the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 and, therefore, the he filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna bearing C.WJ.C. No. 123 of 2000 and status quo order was granted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28th January, 2000 (Annexure 3). Thus, the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was continued with this appellant. (vi) It further appears from the facts of the case that in fact, this appellant was also given Balu Ghat Nos. 5, 10 and 11 and, therefore the appellant applied for refund of the amount of the security deposit, etc for all the 03 Balu Ghats which was rejected by the Deputy Director of Mines, Dhanbad vide order dated 20th September, 2002 (Annexure 6). This order is mainly for Balu Ghat No. 11, because there is no dispute so far as Balu Ghat Nos. 5 and 10 are concerned. (vii) Looking to the order at Annexure 6 dated 20th September, 2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Mines, Dhanbad, it appears that possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 of more than 40 acres of land was with this appellant and, therefore, he was directed to make payment of rent for the said Balu Ghat. This is finding of fact by the first authority. (viii) Against this order, Revision Case No. 196 of 2000 was preferred by this appellant before the Mines Commissioner, which was disposed of by the Mines Commissioner vide order dated 7th January, 2005 and it has been stated in this order that let the petitioner file an application before the District Mining Officer, Bokaro. (viii) Against this order, Revision Case No. 196 of 2000 was preferred by this appellant before the Mines Commissioner, which was disposed of by the Mines Commissioner vide order dated 7th January, 2005 and it has been stated in this order that let the petitioner file an application before the District Mining Officer, Bokaro. (ix) It appears that thereafter Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro passed an order on 16th April, 2005 (Annexure 8) and it has been observed by the said Officer that the possession of this Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant and, therefore, the appellant was liable to make payment of rent. This is also a finding of fact by the second authority. (x) Against this order, Revision Case No. 132 of 2011 was instituted by the appellant before Additional Chief Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, State of Jharkhand who dismissed the Revision Case No. 132 of 2011 vide order dated 2nd June, 2012 (Annexure 10). Here also, it has been observed that the possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant and, therefore, he was liable to make payment of rent. (xi) Against this concurrent finding of fact, viz., as this appellant was in possession of Balu Ghat No. 11, he was liable to make payment of rent as agreed. W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 was preferred by this appellant which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17th March, 2015, against which, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. (xii) It appears that as this appellant was in possession of Balu Ghat No. 11, he was liable to make payment of rent as agreed by him. This liability cannot be taken away merely because Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation preferred an application for cancellation of the auction. The auction might have been cancelled vide order dated 24th December, 1999 and it might have been settled in favour of Bihar State Mineral Corporation vide order dated 25th January, 2000, but the fact remains that this appellant had instituted C.W.J.C. No. 123 of 2000 in which he obtained status quo order which was passed by this High Court on 28th January, 2000. The physical possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant. This is also consistent finding of fact by all the authorities viz. (a) Deputy Director of Mines, Dhanbad as per order at Annexure 6. The physical possession of Balu Ghat No. 11 was with this appellant. This is also consistent finding of fact by all the authorities viz. (a) Deputy Director of Mines, Dhanbad as per order at Annexure 6. (b) By the order of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide order dated 16th April, 2005 at Annexure 8. (c) By the order of the Additional Chief Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner dated 2nd June, 2012 which is at Annexure 10. (xiii) Thus, looking to the consistent finding of fact, if this appellant was in possession of Balu Ghat No. 1, he is liable to make payment of rent as agreed upon between the parties to the agreement and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 dated 17th March, 2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has taken all care for Kisan Vikash Patra having maturity value of Rs. 80,000/- is to be set off. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4399 of 2012 dated 17th March, 2015. 7. We, therefore, dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal with cost of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to be deposited by the appellant before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyay Sadan, Ranchi, within a period of four weeks from today. Copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyay Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi.