Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1508 (RAJ)

Praveen R. Patel v. State of Rajasthan

2017-07-07

INDERJEET SINGH, K.S.JHAVERI

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. This Court admitted the appeal on a limited question vide order dated 06.02.2009 which reads as under:- "The appeal is admitted on the limited question "as to whether dead rent could be charged for the period when the possession was not with the lessee." Since respondents are duly represented through counsel, fresh notices need not be issued." 3. Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for the appellant has strongly relied on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Dhaneshwar Stone Company, Kota v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16614/2010 decided on 13.05.2014 which was subsequently accepted by the State Government. His strong contention is that when the possession was not with the lessee the dead rent was not chargeable. 4. Mr. Anurag Sharma, AAG has taken us to rules 18 and 21 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 which reads as under:- The lessee may surrender the lease at any time by giving an application in writing to Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer, which shall be accepted with immediate effect, provided there are no dues against the lessee in respect of the lease. In case there are dues against the lessee, the surrender of lease shall be accepted after 6 months of the date of notice but where only one quarterly installment of dead rent is due against the lessee and where there are no other breaches of the term of lease, the security of the lease shall be adjusted against dues and surrender shall be accepted with immediate effect; [Provided that where the mineral deposit is not economically workable, the lessee may surrender a part of the lease area with immediate effect by submitting an application to the Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer which may be accepted by the competent authority subject to the following conditions: (a) The area retained shall be rectangular and contiguous in shape, length being not more that 4 time the width; (b) The extent of retained area shall not be less than the minimum prescribed size of the plot fixed for the mineral for that area; (c) There shall be no dues against the lessee;] [Provided further that in case of mining lease for mineral bajri, part surrender of lease area shall not be accepted;] [(d) The protective, reclamation and rehabilitation work in accordance with the approved mine closure plan/progressive mine closure plan or with such modifications as approved by the competent authority have been carried out by the lessee but it shall not be necessary if in intended area to be surrendered no mining operation was carried out.] 21 (a) In case of any breach on the part of the lessee of any covenant or condition contained in the lease, the competent authority may determine the lease and take possession of the said premises and forfeit the security money or in the alternative may impose payment of a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of annual dead rent of the lease. Such action shall not be taken unless the lessee has failed to remedy the breach after serving of 15 days notice; (b) The Government may also at any time after serving the aforesaid notice enter upon the said premises and distrain all or any of the minerals or movable property therein and may carry away, distrain or order the sale of the property so distrained or so much of it as will suffice for the satisfaction of the rent or royalty due and all cost and expenses occasioned by the nonpayment thereof. 5. 5. He has further contended that it is the prerogative of the authorities to charge the dead rent and the restriction is to impose penalty during the breach of any of the condition of the lease. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AAG for the State. 7. Taking into consideration the question which has been framed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2009, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Single Bench of this Court in the above referred case is required to be accepted. The State Government is not entitled for charging the dead rent for the period during which the lessee was not in possession. 8. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. No recovery towards dead rent will be made. 9. The appeal stands allowed.