2023INSC824

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 1 of 37

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8238 OF 2022

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES

OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER

.....

RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This appeal, by way of special leave, takes exception to the

judgment of the division bench of the High Court of Calcutta,

whereby the intra-court appeal preferred by the State of West

Bengal and Others in F.M.A. No. 1458 of 2017 with CAN No. 6596

of 2017 has been dismissed with the direction to the Appellant No.

2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce and

Enterprises, West Bengal or any authorised officer to execute a

mining lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh Agarwal,

sole proprietor of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 2 of 37

2. The facts are rather chequered, albeit are required to be noticed in

detail. On 07.08.1985, West Bengal Mineral Development and

Trading Corporation Limited

1

had filed an application for grant of

long term mining lease for Dolomite, Limestone and Quartzite at the

plots in Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch. An application was

also filed by WBMDTCL for grant of long term mining lease for Iron

Ore, Manganese and Fireclay at the plots in Mouza - Khariduara,

Kumari, Boch and Kangametya. Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 was

issued in favour of WBMDTCL by the Assistant Secretary,

Commerce and Industries Department, Mines Branch, West

Bengal.

2.1. On 06.03.1998, Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih. had filed an application before the Mining

Officer-in-charge, Purulia Zone, Directorate of Mines and Minerals,

West Bengal, for the grant of a mining lease for the purpose of

extracting Dolomite at Mouza - Khariduara, Kumari and Boch, in 76

acres of land.

2.2. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih filed Writ Petition No. 7808 (W) of 2001 before the High

Court of Calcutta, seeking disposal of their application for grant of

1

For Short,’ WBMDTCL’.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 3 of 37

mining lease. The High Court vide order dated 13.06.2001, directed

the State authorities to dispose of the application of Respondent

No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih at an early

date and in accordance with law.

2.3. The Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West

Bengal, vide order dated 13.03.2003, rejected the application of

Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih, on the ground of non-availability of land in view of the

previous application of WBMDTCL. By another order dated

26.03.2003, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries

Department, West Bengal reiterated that the mining application of

Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih

overlaps with the area applied for in the previous application by

WBMDTCL. The application of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was accordingly

rejected.

2.4. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih had filed Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003

in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the orders passed by the

Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West

Bengal, dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. During the pendency of

the said Writ Petition, the Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 4 of 37

Department, West Bengal, reviewed the aforesaid orders and

passed a fresh order dated 13.10.2006 for apportionment of land

between WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal

(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. This order states that two hearings

were held on 24.05.2006 and 19.06.2006 to review the matter, and

thereupon at the hearing dated 19.06.2006, in the presence of the

representatives of WBMDTCL and the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, it was agreed that

Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih

will be granted the whole of the mining area of 76 acres, and the

lease for the rest of the area will be granted in favour of WBMDTCL.

No other reason has been stated and indicated in the said order.

Thus, the orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 rejecting the

application of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih were recalled. Consequently, the Letter of

Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued in favour of the Respondent

No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih for an area

of 76 acres of land subject to fulfilling/submission of various

documents, including approval of the Mining Plan duly approved by

the Chief Mining Officer, Asansol and Clearance Certificate from

the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 5 of 37

2.5. However, the order dated 13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked

vide order dated 03.12.2010 by the Joint Secretary, Commerce and

Industries Department, Mines Branch, West Bengal, inter alia,

recording that this order was passed without ascertaining the exact

position of the land and in ignorance of the fact that the rejection

orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 had already been

challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of

2003. The authorities had not ascertained the status of the case.

The order of cancellation or revocation dated 03.12.2010 was not

challenged by the respondents.

2.6. This order dated 03.12.2010 was also not brought to the notice of

the High Court, when the Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 was

disposed of ex-parte vide order dated 25.03.2014 by relying upon

the supplementary affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih, which had referred to

the recalled order dated 13.10.2006. This order of the High Court

states that a decision as to whether a lease or licence to be granted

in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih shall be taken within a period of eight weeks

and Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih would be accordingly informed. It was made clear that the

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 6 of 37

decision as to the grant will be on the basis of the law and the rules

applicable at the time of consideration.

2.7. By the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Joint Secretary,

Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal, the

application filed by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih was rejected inter alia relying upon the

earlier application filed by WBMDTCL. Significantly, this order

mentions that the two rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and

26.03.2003 were recalled by the Joint Secretary vide his order

dated 13.10.2006. This order also refers to the factum that the

Grant Order dated 07.04.1986 to WBMDTCL for Iron Ore,

Manganese and Fireclay in the plots in question had been revoked

and the application for Long-Term Mining Lease filed by WBMDTCL

for Dolomite and Limestone was rejected by a common order dated

24.09.2009. The order dated 24.09.2009 has not been placed on

record, though it is necessary to ascertain and know the reasons

for cancellation and rejection in favour of WBMDTCL. WBMDTCL

had applied earlier in point of time, and is a government of West

Bengal undertaking. The order dated 09.07.2014 does indicate that

the cancellation and rejection against WBMDTCL had something to

do with the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries

of Bagandih, and possibly the order dated 13.10.2006 in favour of

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 7 of 37

the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih. This is reflected from the reason given in the order dated

09.07.2014, which states that since the recall order dated

13.10.2006 was cancelled or revoked vide order dated 03.12.2010,

the rejection orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003 were still

valid and the application for mining lease dated 07.08.1985 for

Dolomite and Limestone by WBMDTCL still subsists. Thereupon,

reference in the order dated 09.07.2014 is made to sub-section (2)

to Section 11

2

of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

2

11. Preferential right of certain persons . - (1) Where a reconnaissance permit or prospecting

licence has been granted in respect of any land, the permit holder or the licensee shall have a

preferential right for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of

that land over any other person:

Provided that the State Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee, as the case may

be, -

(a) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations, as the case may be, to

establish mineral resources in such land;

(b) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the

prospecting licence;

(c) has not become ineligible under the provision of this Act; and

(d) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, within

three months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence, as the case may be, or

within such further period as may be extended by the said Government.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),where the State Government has not notified in the

Official Gazette the area for grant of reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease, as

the case may be, and two or more persons have applied for a reconnaissance permit, prospecting

licence or a mining lease in respect of any land in such area, the applicant whose application was

received earlier, shall have a preferential right to be considered for grant of reconnaissance permit,

prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, over the applicant whose application was

received later:

Provided that where an area is available for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or

mining lease, as the case may be, and the State Government has invited applications by notification

in the Official Gazette for grant of such permit, licence or lease, all the applications received during the

period specified in such notification and the applications which had been received prior to the

publication of such notification in respect of the lands within such area and had not been disposed of ,

shall be deemed to have been received on the same day for the purposes of assigning priority under

this subsection.

Provided further that where any such applications are received on the same day, the State

Government, after taking into consideration the matters specified in sub-section (3), may grant the

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 8 of 37

Regulation) Act, 1957

3

, which states that in cases where the State

Government has not notified in the Official Gazette an area for grant

of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence for mining lease, and

two or more persons had applied for the permit, licence or mining

lease, the person whose application received earlier in point of time

shall have preferential right for grant of permit, licence or lease over

the person whose application was received later. The order states

that WBMDTCL is very much interested in mining Dolomite and

Limestone in the area and has confirmed the said fact in writing vide

letter dated 05.06.2014.

reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be, to such one of the

applicants as it may deem fit.

(3) The matters referred to in sub-section (2) are the following:-

(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or

mining operations, as the case may be, possessed by the applicant;

(b) the financial resources of the applicant;

(c) the nature and quality of the technical staff employed or to be employed by the applicant;

(d) the investment which the applicant proposes to make in the mines and in the industry based on

the minerals;

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.

(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section(1), where the State Government notifies in the Official

Gazette an area for grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case

may be, all the applications received during the period as specified in such notification, which shall not

be less than thirty days, shall be considered simultaneously as if all such applications have been

received on the same day and the State Government, after taking into consideration the matters

specified in sub-section(3), may grant the reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease,

as the case may be, to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), but subject to the provisions of sub-section

(1), the State Government may, for any special reasons to be recorded, grant a reconnaissance permit,

prospecting licence or a mining lease, as the case may be, to an applicant whose application was

received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier:

Provided that in respect of minerals specified in the First Schedule, prior approval of the Central

Government shall be obtained before passing any order under this sub-section.

3

For short, ‘MMDR Act, 1957’

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 9 of 37

2.8. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih challenged the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the

Joint Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West

Bengal in Writ Petition No. 21358 (W) of 2014 before the High Court

of Calcutta. This petition was disposed of vide order dated

10.09.2014 observing that the Joint Secretary, who had passed the

order dated 09.07.2014 had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in

him as the applications filed by WBMDTCL had been rejected vide

common order dated 24.09.2009 and were therefore not pending.

Direction was issued by the High Court to grant a long term lease

in respect of 76 acres of land to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih by observing that the

respondent had a Rayati status and that the remaining land can be

given to WBMDTCL. It may be relevant to note here that this order

records that the files relating to the application of WBMDTCL were

untraceable. WBMDTCL was not made a party to the said writ

petition. Notably, the application filed by WBMDTCL, being earlier

in point of time in terms of the applicable rules was to be given

preference, whereas the application filed by the Respondent No. 1

- M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was rejected vide

orders dated 13.03.2003 and 26.03.2003. However, the rejection

orders were recalled vide order dated 13.10.2006 and the Letter of

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 10 of 37

Intent dated 26.10.2006 was issued in favour of the Respondent

No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih.

Subsequently, the Grant Order dated 13.10.2006 in favour of the

Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih

was cancelled and recalled vide order dated 13.12.2010. This order

dated 13.12.2010 was never challenged and has attained finality. It

is during the period between the order dated 13.10.2006 and the

order dated 13.12.2010 that the request/application of WBMDTCL

was rejected and the mining lease cancelled vide order dated

24.09.2009.

2.9. On 10.02.2015, vide notification No. S.O. 423 (E), Dolomite was

notified as a minor mineral, and accordingly henceforth, fell under

the legislative and administrative jurisdiction of the State

Government.

2.10. A Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was issued by the Deputy

Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, West Bengal for

Dolomite mining in favour of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal

(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih in respect of 76 acres of land,

subject to certain conditions, including the requirement to submit

consent letters of owners of the land in question (Raiyats) before

the execution of the lease deed, or a condition to this effect would

be incorporated in the draft lease. Another stipulation mentioned

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 11 of 37

therein is the need for permission under Section 14-Y

4

of the West

Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955

5

for holding the required land and

furnishing of Conversion Certificate for plots of land from the

appropriate authority in terms of Section 4-C

6

of the WBLR Act,

1955. It is also stipulated that the Grant Order and the subsequent

4

14-Y. Limitation on future acquisition of land by a raiyat.—If at any time, after the

commencement of the provisions of this Chapter, the total area of land owned by a raiyat exceeds the

ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M, on account of transfer, inheritance or otherwise, the

area of land which is in excess of the ceiling area shall vest in the State and all the provisions of this

Chapter relating to ceiling area shall apply to such land:

Provided that a person intending to establish a tea garden, mill, factory or workshop, livestock

breeding farm, poultry farm, or dairy, or township in accordance with the provisions of the West

Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979, may, with the previous

permission, in writing, of the State Government and on such terms and conditions and in such

manner as the State Government may by rules prescribe, acquire and hold land in excess of the

ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M:

Provided further that if such person, having been permitted by the State Government, does

not utilise within two years of the date of such permission such land for the purpose for which he

has been so permitted by the State Government to acquire and hold it, then, all the provisions of

this Chapter relating to ceiling area shall apply to the area of land which is held in excess of the

ceiling area applicable to him under Section 14-M.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “person” includes an individual, a firm, a

company, an institution, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

5

For short, ‘WBLR Act, 1955’.’

6

4-C. Permission for change of area, character or use of land.—(1) A raiyat holding any land may

apply to the Collector for change of area or character of such land or for conversion of the same for

any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or was being previously used or for

alteration in the mode of use of such land.

(2) On receipt of such application, the Collector may, after making such inquiry as may be

prescribed and after giving the applicant or the persons interested in such land or affected in any way

an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing either reject the application or direct such change,

conversion or alteration, as the case may be, on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.

(3) Every order under sub-section (2) directing change, conversion or alteration shall specify the

date from which such change, conversion or alteration shall take effect.

(4) A copy of the order passed by the Collector directing change, conversion or alteration, if any,

under sub-section (2), or in an appeal therefrom shall he forwarded to the Revenue Officer referred to

in Section 50 or Section 51, as the case may be, and such Revenue Officer shall incorporate in the

record-of-rights changes effected by such order and revise the record-of-rights in accordance with such

order.

(5) If the Collector is satisfied that any land is being convened for any purpose other than the

purpose for which it was settled or was being previously held, or attempts are being made to effect

alteration in the mode of use of such land or change of the area or character of such land, he may, by

order, restrain the raiyat from such Act.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 12 of 37

execution of the lease deed are subject to the No Objection

Certificate to be obtained from the Central Government since

Dolomite was a major mineral at the time of the order dated

10.09.2014 passed by the High Court.

2.11. Aggrieved by the conditions and the requirements stipulated in the

Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih filed two Contempt

Petitions in W.P. 21358 (W) of 2014. These contempt petitions were

disposed of, inter alia, observing that the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih was required to fulfil the

conditions, including furnishing of the Conversion Certificate under

Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955 and No Objection Certificate

from the Government of India. The court, therefore, found that there

was no wilful, or contumacious violation of the order dated

10.09.2014. However, liberty was granted to the Respondent No. 1

- M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih to question the

Grant Order dated 16.07.2015.

2.12. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih thereupon preferred Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016

before the High Court of Calcutta. However, WBMDTCL was not a

party to this writ petition. In the meanwhile, a clarification was

sought by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and Industries

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 13 of 37

Department, West Bengal and vide clarification dated 26.08.2016

issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, it was clarified

that even prior to 10.02.2015, Dolomite was a Non-Scheduled

major mineral, for which prior approval of the Central Government

was not required under sub-section (1) to Section 5 of the MMDR

Act, 1957.

2.13. This Writ Petition No. 20309 (W) of 2016 vide judgment and order

dated 12.04.2017 has been allowed inter alia observing that

Dolomite had become a minor mineral with effect from 10.02.2015

and hence prior approval of the Central Government is not required

under Section 5(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957. On the question of

requirements under Section 14-Y and 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955,

it is observed that the land in question is recorded as ‘Dungri’ as

per information provided by the Deputy District Land and Land

Reforms Officer, Purulia vide Memo No. V/RTI/775/15 dated

06.03.2017 and that the land classified as ‘Dungri’ is only used for

the purpose of mining lease and thus, there is no need for a

conversion certificate under Section 4-C of the WBLR, Act, 1955.

The clarification dated 07.04.2016 was issued by the Additional

District Magistrate and District Land and Land Reforms Officer,

Purulia, stating that the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal

(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih had procured a No Objection

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 14 of 37

Certificate in respect of the major portion of Raiyati land from

different owners and that the State Government itself was the owner

of 20.87 acres of land, thus Section 14-Y of the WBLR Act, 1955

would not be applicable as the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal

(Mineral) Industries of Bagandih has not acquired land in excess

ceiling limit prescribed under Section 14-M of the WBLR Act, 1955.

2.14. This judgment was challenged by the State of West Bengal in an

intra-court appeal being F.M.A. No. 1458 of 2017 with CAN No.

6596 of 2017 which has been dismissed vide the impugned

judgment dated 04.10.2018. Agreeing with the findings recorded by

the Single Judge, the division bench has held that the provisions of

the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016

7

will not

be applicable as the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih had made the application in March 1998,

and more so as the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal

had passed the order dated 13.10.2006 to grant mining lease. The

High Court’s direction given in Writ Petition No. 21358 (W) of 2014

vide judgment dated 10.09.2014 are prior to the enforcement of the

Concession Rules, 2016.

3. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State

7

For short, ‘Concession Rules, 2016’.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 15 of 37

of West Bengal and the Respondent No. 2 – Dinesh Agarwal, who

has appeared in-person. They have also submitted their written

submissions.

4. We begin our discussion by first referring to Rule 61 of the

Concession Rules, 2016, which reads as under:

“61.Decleration of ineligibility of the pending minor

mineral applications for mining lease including the

applications of reclassified major minerals.- All

applications for mining lease of minor minerals including the

reclassified minor minerals vide SO No-423 (E) dated 12

th

February,2015 received prior to the giving-effect to this rules

irrespective of its duration of pendency shall become

ineligible.

Provided that if the applicant has been issued a Grant Order

or Letter of Intent (LoI) or any other Government Order

requiring the alteration of applicant's position then his

mining lease application may be considered after due

compliance of the all the necessary conditions”

5. An almost corresponding amendment was made to the MMDR Act,

1957 by incorporating Section 10-A vide Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015

8

, which

reads as under:

10-A. Rights of existing concession holders and

applicants.— (1) All applications received prior to the date

of commencement of the Mines and Minerals

(Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015,

shall become ineligible.

(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the following shall

remain eligible on and from the date of commencement of

8

For short, ‘Amendment Act, 2015’.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 16 of 37

the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

Amendment Act, 2015—

(a) applications received under Section 11-A of this Act;

(b) where before the commencement of the Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act,

2015 a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence has

been granted in respect of any land for any mineral, the

permit holder or the licensee shall have a right for obtaining

a prospecting licence followed by a mining lease, or a

mining lease, as the case may be, in respect of that mineral

in that land, if the State Government is satisfied that the

permit holder or the licensee, as the case may be,—

(i) has undertaken reconnaissance operations or

prospecting operations, as the case may be, to establish

the existence of mineral contents in such land in

accordance with such parameters as may be prescribed by

the Central Government;

(ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and

conditions of the reconnaissance permit or the prospecting

licence;

(iii) has not become ineligible under the provisions of this

Act; and

(iv) has not failed to apply for grant of prospecting licence

or mining lease, as the case may be, within a period of three

months after the expiry of reconnaissance permit or

prospecting licence, as the case may be, or within such

further period not exceeding six months as may be

extended by the State Government;

(c) where the Central Government has communicated

previous approval as required under sub-section (1) of

Section 5 for grant of a mining lease, or if a letter of intent

(by whatever name called) has been issued by the State

Government to grant a mining lea se, before the

commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development

and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, the mining lease

shall be granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions of the

previous approval or of the letter of intent within a period of

two years from the date of commencement of the said Act:

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 17 of 37

Provided that in respect of any mineral specified in the First

Schedule, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be

granted under clause (b) of this sub-section except with the

previous approval of the Central Government.

6. Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016 states that all applications

for mining lease of minor minerals including reclassified minor

minerals vide S.O. No. 423 (E) dated 12.02.2015 received prior to

giving effect to the Concession Rules, 2016

9

, irrespective of its

duration of pendency shall become ineligible. In other words, these

applications are not to be considered. The proviso makes an

exception and states that if an applicant, who had made an

application prior to 29.07.2016, had been issued a Grant Order or

a Letter of Intent, or any other order requiring alteration of the

applicant’s position, his application for mining lease may be

considered after due compliance of all necessary conditions. The

question is whether the respondents’ case is covered by the

exception in terms of the proviso to Rule 61 of the Concession

Rules,2016. We have already referred to the reasoning given by the

division bench of the High Court dealing with the Concession Rules,

2016, and would like to quote the findings which hold that the

proviso would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

These observations read:

“25. ….Neither such recent policy nor can the provisions of

9

The Concession Rules, 2016 came into effect on 29.07.2016

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 18 of 37

the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016

can apply to the application of the writ petitioners made in

March, 1998 and more so as the order of the Joint

Secretary to grant lease is dated 13

th

October, 2006 and

that of this Court directing grant of long term lease is dated

10

th

September, 2014 are prior to such policy and prior to

the said Rules came into operation. It further appears that

necessary mining plan taking into account the

environmental aspect has been submitted by the writ

petitioners and the appellant/State has raised no grievance

in respect thereof.”

7. The policy referred to in the aforesaid paragraph is in terms of the

letter dated 02.02.2018 issued by the Principal Secretary, State of

West Bengal, wherein it is specified that obtaining a Conversion

Certificate is a mandatory condition for the purpose of a mining

lease. Reference in the impugned judgment to the order dated

13.10.2006, or for that matter, the Letter of Intent dated 26.10.2006

is inconsequential as the said orders were recalled and revoked on

03.12.2010. The orders did not survive and continue to operate

thereafter. Writ Petition No. 7505 (W) of 2003 was disposed of ex-

parte, without noticing that the order dated 13.10.2006 had been

recalled or cancelled, albeit the judgment had directed that the

application for grant of lease would be considered in accordance

with law and the rules applicable at the time of consideration. The

order dated 03.12.2010 was never challenged by the Respondent

No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih and has

attained finality. At best, the case of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 19 of 37

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is that the application

dated 06.03.1998 should be considered in accordance with law.

8. The Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of

Bagandih has relied upon judgment of this Court in Bhushan

Power and Steel Limited v. S.L. Seal, Additional Secretary

(Steel and Mines), State of Odisha and Others

10

. In the said

case, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner therein had made

an application for grant of lease before the State of Odisha for

mining of Iron Ore in an area measuring 1250 acres. The

application was in view of the proposal to set up a steel plant in the

district of Sambalpur, Odisha. The rejection for the grant of the

mining lease to M/s. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited was

challenged in a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was

dismissed, but the appeal preferred before this Court was allowed

vide judgment dated 14.03.2012 in Bhushan Power and Steel

Limited and Others v. State of Orissa and Another

11

, setting

aside the order of the State Government dated 09.02.2016, with the

following directions:

“41. In the light of the above, the High Court erred in holding

that it could not interfere with the decision of the State

Government calling upon the appellants to sign a fresh

MoU with the Government, during subsistence of the earlier

10

(2017) 2 SCC 125.

11

(2012) 4 SCC 246.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 20 of 37

MoU. Since the State Government has already made

allotments in favour of others in relaxation of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960, under Rule 59(2) thereof, no

cogent ground had been made out on behalf of the State to

deny the said privilege to the appellants as well.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the

judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa and also

the decision of the State Government dated 9-2-2006,

rejecting the appellants' claim for grant of mining lease.

42. During the course of hearing, we have been informed

that Thakurani Block A has large reserves of iron ore, in

which the appellants can also be accommodated. We,

accordingly, direct the State of Orissa to take appropriate

steps to act in terms of the MoU dated 15-5-2002, as also

its earlier commitments to recommend the case of the

appellants to the Central Government for grant of adequate

iron ore reserves to meet the requirements of the appellants

in their steel plant at Lapanga.”

9. The State of Odisha thereafter filed an application for review of the

judgment in Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and Others v.

State of Orissa and Another

12 (supra) which was rejected vide

order dated 11.09.2012.

10. Alleging non-compliance and in-action of the judgment dated

14.03.2012, a contempt petition was filed by M/s Bhushan Power

and Steel Limited. The contempt petition was contested by the

State of Odisha on several grounds, including that the judgment

dated 14.03.2012 is incapable of enforcement, for which reliance

was placed on a subsequent judgment of this Court in Sandur

12

(2012) 4 SCC 246.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 21 of 37

Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

13

. This

stand did not find favour with this Court and the officers of the State

Government were found to be in contempt of the judgment dated

14.03.2012 vide judgment dated 22.04.2014 in Bhushan Power

and Steel Limited v. Rajesh Verma

14

. Under these circumstances,

the judgment dated 22.04.2014 had given one more opportunity to

the State Government to send requisite recommendation to the

Central Government inter alia observing that this Court cannot lose

sight of the fact that there is a judgment inter se the parties, which

has become final. Accordingly, the contention that the judgment of

this Court in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited (supra)

will not undo the directions given in the judgment dated 14.03.2012

was rejected. The relevant observations in the judgment dated

22.04.2014 read as under:

“21. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a

judgment, inter partes, which has become final. Even when

the civil appeal was being heard, certain other parties

claiming their interest in these very lands had moved

intervention applications which were dismissed. At that time

also it was mentioned that there are 195 applicants.

However, notwithstanding the same, this Court issued firm

directions to the State Government to recommend the case

of the petitioners for mining lease in both the areas. In view

of such categorical and unambiguous directions given in

the judgment which has attained finality, merely because

another judgment has been delivered by this Court

in Sandur Manganese case , cannot be a ground to undo

13

(2010) 13 SCC 1.

14

(2014) 5 SCC 551.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 22 of 37

the directions contained in the judgment dated 14-3-

2012. Insofar as law laid down in Sandur Manganese is

concerned, that may be applied and followed by the State

Government in respect of other applications which are still

pending. However, that cannot be pressed into service qua

the petitioner whose rights have been crystallised by the

judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be reopened, that

too at the stage of implementation of the said judgment.

22. …. Once we hold that the respondents are bound to

implement the direction contained in the judgment dated

14-3-2012, insofar as the State Government is concerned,

it is obliged to comply therewith and such matters, along

with other relevant considerations, can be left to the wisdom

of the Central Government while taking a decision on the

recommendation of the State Government.

xx xx xx

24. …. However, we are giving one final opportunity to them

to purge the contempt by transmitting requisite

recommendations to the Central Government. It would be

for the Central Government to consider the said

recommendations on its own merits and in accordance with

law. In case the recommendation is sent within one month

from the date of copy of receipt of this order, we propose

not to take any further action and the

respondents/contemnors shall stand discharged from this

contempt petition. However, in case the respondents do not

purge in the manner mentioned above, it would be open to

the petitioners to point out the same to this Court by moving

appropriate application and in that event the contemnors

shall be proceeded against.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. Consequent to the directions dated 22.04.2014, the State

Government had sent the requisite recommendation to the Central

Government for grant of mining lease of the area in question. The

Central Government, however, took the stand that having regard to

the amendments in the MMDR Act, 1957, vide the Amendment Act,

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 23 of 37

2015 introducing Section 10-A, the request made by M/s Bhushan

Power and Steel Limited stands invalidated. In view of the aforesaid

stand, the Central Government had written letters to the State

Government, with a copy sent to M/s Bhushan Power and Steel

Limited. In the letter dated 13.05.2015, the Central Government had

stated that the proposal for according the prior approval for grant of

mineral concession was ineligible in terms of sub-section (1) to

Section 10-A of the MMDR Act, 1957 and, therefore, should be

treated as closed. However, the State Government might ascertain

whether the proposal was safe from ineligibility under Section 10-A

of the MMDR Act, 1957 and thereupon the State Government could

take action accordingly. Similar view was also expressed by the

Central Government in the letter dated 29.05.2015 therein.

Consequent to these communications, the State government vide

letter dated 09.07.2015 had informed M/s Bhushan Power and

Steel Limited that their applications for grant of mining lease had

become ineligible as per sub-section (1) to Section 10-A of the

MMDR Act, 1957.

12. This Court in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited

15 (supra),

specifically examined the contention whether in the facts of the said

15

(2012) 4 SCC 246.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 24 of 37

case, clause (c) to sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR

Act, 1957 could be invoked in view of the contention raised by M/s

Bhushan Steel and Power Limited that the Letter of Intent was

issued by the State Government for grant of mining lease and,

therefore, their application stands protected. The submission was

that the recommendation dated 24.05.2014, given by the State

Government should be treated as a Letter of Intent by “whatever

name called”, as it signifies the intention to grant mining lease

insofar as the State Government is concerned. It was also argued

that under the new regime contained under Section 10-A of the

MMDR Act, 1957, approval of the Central Government was not

even required and the State Government could have proceeded

further and granted the lease.

13. The aforesaid arguments did not find favour of this Court in the case

of M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (supra) in spite of the

earlier judgment of this Court dated 14.03.2012 and the order

passed in the contempt petition dated 22.04.2014 with the

observations therein that there was failure of the State Government

to comply with the directions. This Court rejected the submissions

in M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (supra) and held as

under:

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 25 of 37

“17. Undoubtedly, as per sub-section (1) of Section 10-A,

all applications received prior to coming into force of the

Amendment Act, 2015, become ineligible. Reason for

interpreting such a provision is not far to seek. Before the

passing of the Amendment Act, 2015, it was the Central

Government which had the ultimate control over the grant

of licences insofar as mining of major minerals is

concerned. As per the procedure then existing, the State

Government could recommend the application submitted

by any applicant for grant of mining lease to the Central

Government and the Central Government was given the

power to grant or refuse to grant the approval. Thus,

“previous approval” from the Central Government was

essential for grant of lease, without which the State

Government could not enter into any such lease agreement

with the applicant. Shortcomings of this procedure were

noticed by this Court in its judgment rendered in Centre for

Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC 1]

(for short “CPIL case”) and also in Natural Resources

Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [Natural

Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of

2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1] . In these judgments, this Court

expressed that allocation of natural resources should

normally be by auction. Judgment in CPIL case had a direct

relevance to the grant of mineral concessions as the

Government found that it was resulting in multipurpose

litigation which was becoming counterproductive. Mining

Ordinance, 2015 was passed on 12-1-2015 which was

ultimately replaced when Parliament enacted the

Amendment Act, 2015.

18. The exhaustive Statement of Objects and Reasons

reveals that the extensive amendment in the Act were

effected after extensive consultations and intensive

scrutiny by the Standing Committee on Coal and Steel, who

gave their Report in May 2013. As is evident from the

Statement that difficulties were experienced because the

existing Act does not permit the auctioning of mineral

concessions. It was observed that with auctioning of

mineral concessions, transparency in allocation will

improve; the Government will get an increased share of the

value of mineral resources; and that it will alleviate the

procedural delay, which in turn would check slowdown

which adversely affected the growth of mining sector.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 26 of 37

19. The Amendment Act, 2015, as is evident from the

objects, aims at: (i) eliminating discretion; (ii) improving

transparency in the allocation of mineral resources; (iii)

simplifying procedures; (iv) eliminating delay on

administration, so as to enable expeditious and optimum

development of the mineral resources of the country; (v)

obtaining for the Government an enhanced share of the

value of the mineral resources; and (vi) attracting private

investment and the latest technology.

20. The Amendment Act, 2015 ushered in the amendment

of Sections 3, 4, 4-A, 5, 6, 13, 15, 21 and First Schedule;

substitution of new sections for Sections 8, 11 and 13; and,

insertion of new Sections 8-A, 9-B, 9-C, 10-A, 10-C, 11-B,

11-C, 12-A, 15-A, 17-A, 20-A, 30-B, 30-C and Fourth

Schedule.

21. These amendments brought in vogue: (i) auction to be

the sole method of allotment; (ii) extension of tenure of

existing lease from the date of their last renewal to 31-3-

2030 (in the case of captive mines) and till 31-3-2020 (for

the merchant miners) or till the completion of renewal

already granted, if any, or a period of 50 years from the date

of grant of such lease; (iii) establishment of District Mineral

Foundation for safeguarding interest of persons affected by

mining related activities; (iv) setting up of a National Mineral

Exploration Trust created out of contributions from the

mining lease-holders, in order to have a dedicated fund for

encouraging exploration and investment; (v) removal of the

provisions requiring “previous approval” from the Central

Government for grant of mineral concessions in case of

important minerals like iron ore, bauxite, manganese, etc.

thereby making the process simpler and quicker; (vi)

introduction of stringent penal provisions to check illegal

mining prescribing higher penalties up to Rs 5 lakhs per

hectare and imprisonment up to 5 years; and (vii) further

empowering the State Government to set up Special Courts

for trial of offences under the Act.”

14. Thus, the object and purpose of the Amendment Act, 2015 is to

ensure that allocation of mineral resources is done through

auctioning. This is the reason why sub-section (1) to Section 10-A

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 27 of 37

of the MMDR Act, 1957 mandates that all applications received

prior to 12.01.2015 shall become ineligible. The exceptions or the

saving clause applies to three kinds of situations specified in sub-

section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act. 1957. The first

category is where an application has been received under Section

11-A of the MMDR Act,1957. The second category is where a

reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence has been granted

the permit holder or the licensee has the right to obtain a

prospecting licence followed by a mining lease and the State

Government is satisfied that the permit holder or the licensee has

complied with the requirements specified in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of

clause (b) of sub-section (2) to Section 10-A of the MMDR Act,

1957. The reason for protecting this class of cases is on account of

the fact that they had altered their position by spending money on

reconnaissance operations or prospecting operations. Accordingly,

the principle of legitimate expectation is applied. The third category

is where the Central Government had already communicated their

previous approval or the State Government had issue Letter of

Intent for grant of mining lease before coming into force of the

Amendment Act 2015. The raison dêtre, it is observed therein, is

that certain rights had accrued to these applicants inasmuch as all

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 28 of 37

necessary procedures and formalities had been complied with and

only formal lease remains to be executed.

15. Delving on the question of whether the letter for approval dated

22.05.2014 granted by the State Government can be treated as a

Letter of Intent predicated on the words by whatever name, which

expression, it was submitted, should be given a broad interpretation

in view of the words ‘by whatever name called’ was examined in-

depth and in detail. Reference was made to the legal dictionary for

the meaning of the term ‘Letter of Intent’ as a preliminary

understanding between the parties who intend to make a contract

or join together for further action. Reference was also made to

decisions of this Court in Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited

v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Others

16

and

Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited v. Maha Laxmi

Mingrate Marketing Service Private Limited and Others

17

However, the said contention was rejected inter alia holding as

under:

“26. Applying the aforesaid meaning, can it be said that

Letter dated 24-5-2014 of the State Government would

constitute a letter of intent? We are afraid, answer has to

be in the negative. Reason is simple. As mentioned above,

in order to enable the State Government to enter into any

lease agreement/contract with the prospecting licensee,

16

(2015) 13 SCC 233.

17

(1996) 10 SCC 405.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 29 of 37

“previous approval” of the Central Government was

essential. Unless such approval came, the State

Government could not communicate to the prospecting

licensee/lessee its intention to enter into any contract as the

prerequisite prior approval would be lacking. Therefore, no

promise could be held by the State Government to any

applicant showing its intention to enter into a contract in the

future. Position would have been different had Letter dated

24-5-2014 been issued after receiving previous approval of

the Central Government. However, that is not so. This letter

to the Central Government was only recommendatory in

nature and ultimate decision rested with the Central

Government. It is a different thing if the Central Government

refuses to give its approval on any extraneous reasons or

mala fides or does not take into consideration relevant

factors/material while rejecting the application, which may

form a different cause of action and may become a reason

to challenge the action of the Central Government rejecting

the application on the grounds that are available in law to

seek judicial review of such an action. However, we are not

dealing with that situation in the instant case. Our

discussion is confined to the plea raised before us viz.

whether Letter dated 24-5-2014 can be termed as “letter of

intent”. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view

that it was not a letter of intent. The application of the

petitioner, therefore, would not be covered by clause (c) of

Section 10-A of the Act.

27. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner herein

had originally succeeded in the appeal inasmuch as

judgment dated 14-3-2012 was rendered giving direction to

the State Government to recommend the case of the

petitioner, in terms of the MoU entered into between the

parties, to the Central Government. This was not done and

the decision was reiterated in orders dated 22-4-2014

passed in Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh

Verma [. It is possible that had the State Government acted

promptly and sent the recommendations earlier, the Central

Government might have accorded its approval. However,

whether it could have done so or not would be in the realm

of conjectures. Insofar as the Central Government is

concerned, no direction was ever given by this Court. On

the contrary, it was categorically observed in the order

dated 22-4-2014 in Bhushan Power and Steel

Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma that it would be for the Central

Government to consider the recommendations of the State

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 30 of 37

Government on its own merits and in accordance with law.

If that has not been done by the Central Government, it

cannot be the subject-matter of present contempt petition.”

16. The aforesaid judgment is relevant for our purpose, though in the

present case, post notification No. S.O. 423(E) dated 10.02.2015,

Dolomite was notified as a minor mineral and hence, the approval

of the Central Government was not required for the reason that the

Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 was hedged with pre-conditions,

including the requirement to submit consent letters of the owners of

the land in question (Raiyats) before the execution of the lease

deed, or there was to be a stipulation that a condition to this effect

would be incorporated in the draft lease. Therefore, in our opinion,

the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015 is provisional, and is subject to

fulfilment of the conditions therein. This is clear from the terms of

the Grant Order dated 16.07.2015, which are reproduced below:

“

xx xx xx

(a) You have to furnish a Draft Mining Lease Deed in

the model form K us prescribed in the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960, as amended upto date (1 rule

31 of MC Rules, 1960),

(b) The Draft Mining Lease Deed should be prepared in

durable papers neatly and sufficient space should be

kept in between two lines in order to permit, if

necessary, correction therein,

(c) The Deed of Lease, after execution, shall be

registered by you at your own cost and no mining

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 31 of 37

operation should be started before registration of the

Deed,

(d) You shall have to furnish the approved Mining Plan,

if not submitted rules 22(4) and 22A of MC Rules, 1960,

(e) You shall have to furnish the Environment Clearance

(EC), if not submitted from the M1EF Environment of

Protection Act, 1986,

(f) You shall have to furnish Consent to Establish and

Consent to Operate from the WBPCB before execution

of Deed of Lease [Section 25 and 26 of Water Act ,1974

and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981],

(g) You shall have to raise annually a minimum quantity

of minerals as stipulated in the approved Mine Plan

[rules 22A and 45(ia) of MC Rules, 1960],

(h) You shall have to deposit Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten

thousand) only as Security for due observance of the

terms and conditions of the lease, under appropriate

Head of Account which shall be refundable to you after

expiry of the period of Lease, unless the whole or a part

of it is withheld or forfeited by the Government for any

default on you part including default in payment of

amount due to the Government [rule 32 of MC Rules,

1960],

(i) You shall have to submit consent letter(s) of the

owner(s) of the land under consideration before

execution of the Lease Deed (Consent of the Raiyats)

or a condition to that effect should be incorporated in

the Draft Deed (rule 22(3)(i)(1t)),

(j) You shall have to furnish the N.O.C., of the Forest

Authority in proper format in case the applied area falls

in the forest area as notified by the Appropriate

Authority, alongwith the Draft Lease Deed or a condition

to that effect should be incorporated in the Draft Deed

[Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980],

(k) For actual operation of quarrying or digging, ten (10)

yards clear margin shall be kept from the outer

boundary of the adjacent 1 plot or plots and maintain

throughout the operation and you shall have to give a

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 32 of 37

written undertaking to that effect or corporate a

condition in the Draft Lease Deed,

(l) You shall have to incorporate all the conditions as

mentioned in the M.C. Rules, 1960 in the Draft Lease

Deed,

(m) You shall have to furnish up to date Royalty

Clearance, Income Tac Clearance and VAT Clearance

certificates before execution of the Deed,

(n) You shall have to submit, along with the Draft Deed,

a Geo-Reference Map duly vetted by the DL&LRO and

DMM, West Bengal, if not submitted,

(o) You shall have obtained the permission under

Section 14Y of WBLR Act, 1955 for holding the required

land,

(p) You have to furnish the Conversion Certificate for

plots of land from the Appropriate Authority (Section 4C

of WBLR Act, 1955),

(q) You have to furnish the current Land Availability

Report (LAR) from the Appropriate Authority.

(r) In the event of non-execution of the deed within the

stipulated period on compliance with the above

mentioned conditions the order sanctioning the lease

shall be liable to be revoked,

(s) You shall have to comply with all the statutory

requirements before presenting the Deed of Lease of

execution to this Department,

(t) This Grant Order and subsequent execution of Lease

Deed are subject to the No Objection Certificate (NOC)

to be obtained by this Department form the Govt. of

India since the applicant prayed for mining lease on the

ground that the Letter of Intent (Lol) was issued for the

mineral Dolomite which was a major mineral at the time

of order dated 10.09.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court.

xx xx xx”

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 33 of 37

17. Raiyat land is to be used for cultivation, etc., and not for mining.

Once the mining activity is undertaken, the Raiyats will not be able

to use the land. In terms of sub-section (10) to Section 2 of the

WBLR Act, 1955, a Raiyat means a person or an institution holding

land for any purpose whatsoever. However, the rights of Raiyat in

respect of the land in terms of sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the

WBLR Act, 1955 does not permit any other person to quarry sand

from his holding, dig or use, or permit any person to dig or use, earth

or clay of his holding for the manufacture of bricks or tiles except

with previous permission in writing of the State Government. In

case of breach of the condition, the prescribed authority may, after

giving notice and opportunity to a Raiyat to show cause, can levy a

monetary penalty. Further, on an order being passed, the land shall

vest in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 4-B of the

WBLR Act, 1955 stipulates that every Raiyat holding any land shall

maintain and preserve such land in a manner that the area is not

diminished or its character is not changed or the land is not

converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was

settled or previously held except with the previous permission of the

Collector in writing. Equally significant for our purpose is Section 3A

of the WBLR Act, 1955, which states that the rights and interests of

all non-agricultural tenants and under-tenants shall vest in the State

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 34 of 37

free from all encumbrances and provisions of Section 5 and 5A of

the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 shall apply. An

exception is carved out by sub-section (2) to Section 3A of the

WBLR Act, 1955, where a non-agricultural tenant or under-tenant

is holding khas possession of any land, in which case he is entitled

to retain the land as Raiyat. There are also provisions relating to the

transferability of land by the Raiyat. If cultivation was not being

undertaken at the land in question, the classification requires a

change.

18. The controversy relating to Section 4-C of the WBLR Act, 1955,

cannot simply be decided on the basis of Memo No. V/RTI/775/15

dated 06.03.2017 issued by the Deputy District Land and Land

Reforms Officer, Purulia, that as per the revenue records the land

was recorded as ‘Dungri’. The reason is that Raiyat land is not for

mining. Thus, a contradiction arises, as the grant of Raiyat land and

the classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory.

19. Further, whether the consent letter of the owners of the land in

question (Raiyats) obtained by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih still hold good, would be

relevant as there could be a change of hands on account of transfer,

inheritance, etc. Connected with this are the legal issues. First,

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 35 of 37

whether the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries

of Bagandih had altered its position post the issue of the Grant

Order dated 16.07.2015, but before enforcement of the Concession

Rules, 2016, to get the benefit of Rule 61 of the Concessions Rules,

2016? It is necessary to ascertain the facts and then alone one can

adjudicate and decide the question whether the Respondent No. 1

- M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih is entitled to the

benefit of the proviso to Rule 61 of the Concession Rules, 2016.

This has not been verified and ascertained. An issue would arise

on whether the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih way back in 1998 would

still hold good as at the time, when the application was filed,

approval of the Central Government was required. Another difficulty

is that WBMDTCL has not been impleaded as a party, though it was

always contesting the claim made by the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. On the question of

cancellation or rejection of the application made by WBMDTCL, we

have made observations supra. However, we need not examine

these issues in light of the order and directions we are issuing.

Further, we feel that the remand order should not be passed at this

distinct point of time.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 36 of 37

20. Having said so, it is the stand of the appellants – State of West

Bengal, that they are owners of 20.87 acres of the land in question

and to this extent, they have no difficulty in executing the mining

lease. This being the stated stand, which has also been affirmed

before us, there should be no difficulty in granting of mining lease

for the said area to the Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral)

Industries of Bagandih.

21. During the course of arguments before us, reference was made by

the appellants to the provisions of the WBLR Act, 1955 and the

judgment of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob and Others v.

Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and Others

18

.

We have not examined the said aspects which are left open and not

adjudicated upon. However, we deem it appropriate to observe that

the judgment of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob and Others

(supra) is prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 2015 and

the Concession Rules, 2016. The amendments made by the

Amendment Act, 2015 were not subject matter of decision in the

said case and would have to be considered by the courts and the

authorities as a judgment’s binding ratio depends upon the legal

provisions considered, interpreted and applied in a given judgment.

18

(2013) 9 SCC 725.

C.A. No. 8238 of 2022 Page 37 of 37

When the law changes by an amendment in the legislation, the

amended legal provisions have to be considered, interpreted and

applied.

22. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated, we partly allow the present

appeal and set aside the impugned judgment with a direction that

the government of West Bengal will execute a mining lease for

20.87 acres of land in favour of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. The Writ Petition No.

20309 (W) of 2016 will be treated as allowed to the extent as

indicated above. The claim of the Respondent No. 1 - M/s.

Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih towards the balance

area for the grant of mining lease will be treated as rejected and

dismissed. In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as

to costs.

......................................J.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

......................................J.

(ARAVIND KUMAR)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023.