Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2023 (JHR)

Anand Vardhan Prasad v. Union Of India

2017-11-23

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2017
ORDER D.N. Patel, A.C.J (Oral) - These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the original respondent Nos.9 and 10 in W.P.(L) No.6248 of 2004 [in fact as per nomenclature prevailing in the Jharkhand High Court it should have been W.P.(C)] 2. It appears that a lease agreement was entered into between the erstwhile State of Bihar and one Sri Mathura Prasad for mining purposes. Thereafter the name of legal heirs of Mathura Prasad, namely, Satyendra Prasad and his sons was entered into in the lease deed by virtue of decree passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 1970. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that Satyendra Prasad expired on 7th February, 2003 and legal heirs of Satyendra Prasad applied for substitution in the lease deed under Rule 25A of Mining Concessions Rules, 1960 enacted under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 4. It appears that the mining authorities had rejected the claim of daughters of Satyendra Prasad and hence, two daughters preferred a writ petition being W.P.(L) No.6248 of 2004 (nomenclature should have been W.P.(C) as prevailing in the Jharkhand High Court). 5. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge while finally disposing of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 19th November, 2009 in paragraph Nos.17, 18, 18 and 19 as under: "17. It is apparent that the impugned order of the Revisional Authority is in violation and not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 25 A of the Mineral Concession Rules and notwithstanding the fact that the Review application is still pending, the impugned order has to be declared as illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.04.2004 (Annexure 7) is hereby quashed. 18. As it appears, the essential dispute is between the petitioners and the Respondent Nos.9 and 10 involving their rival claims of share/interest in the properties of their father, including the mining lease under reference. The parties in fact, seek declaration of their rights over the properties and the legal remedy has already been availed by virtue of the partition suit pending before the civil court. The parties in fact, seek declaration of their rights over the properties and the legal remedy has already been availed by virtue of the partition suit pending before the civil court. The petitioners and the Respondent Nos.9 and 10 should therefore, await the adjudication of their dispute by the civil court and for the same reason, the State authorities should also be advised to stay their hands on the prayer for renewal of the mining lease, awaiting final decision by the civil court. 18. With these observation, this writ application stands disposed of. 19. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents." (There is wrong numbering given by the stenographer in the paragraphs in the original judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge). 6. In view of the aforesaid observation, the order passed by the mining authorities was quashed and set aside and it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the parties, in fact, seeking declaration of the rights over the properties and legal remedy has already been availed by virtue of partition suit pending before the civil Court. This civil suit being Title Partition Suit No.21 of 2002 has already been decided by the Principal District Judge, Chaibasa vide judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2013 and the shares of two brothers and sisters have been finalised by the aforesaid judgment and decree. Thus, the names of the sisters will be substituted under Rule 25A of the Rules, 1960 in the lease deed. Nonetheless, it is made clearer that substitution of the names of respondent Nos.10 and 11 (original petitioners) will not entitle them to get equal share from the profit or loss of the mining operations. Percentage of their share is a separate issue. 7. With these observations, these Letters Patent Appeals are, hereby, disposed of. 8. At the request of learned counsels for both the sides, we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case because they have submitted that suffice it will be if this Court is disposing of the Letters Patent Appeals for incorporation of the names of the original petitioners in the lease deed. 9. 8. At the request of learned counsels for both the sides, we are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case because they have submitted that suffice it will be if this Court is disposing of the Letters Patent Appeals for incorporation of the names of the original petitioners in the lease deed. 9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 and 11 (original petitioners) that they have preferred F.A. No.141 of 2013 as well as F.A. No.169 of 2013 against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Chaibasa in Title Partition Suit No.21 of 2002 vide judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2013.