AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) For quashing the order dated-23.04.2004 (Annexure-7), passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the Revision application preferred by the petitioner''s predecessor in interest, namely, late Satyendra Prasad, under the provisions of Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, was dismissed as abated.
(ii) For quashing the order dated-28.03.2006 (Annexure-8), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the names of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have been substituted in place of the original lessee and an order for renewal of the mining lease in their names, has been passed.
The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters and the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are the sons of late Satyendra Prasad. The petitioner No. 1, whose name has been struck off from this writ application after her death, was the mother of the remaining petitioners and of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10.
The subsisting dispute between the parties is in respect of the partition of the properties, which had belonged originally to the father, late Satyendra Prasad and in the present writ petition, the dispute involves the rival claim of succession to the mining lease, which was allotted to the father, late Satyendra Prasad.
For better appreciation of the controversy raised in this writ application, a brief narration of the background facts would be relevant:
One Mathura Prasad, paternal grand-father of the petitioners and of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, was granted a mining lease for mining iron ore within 154.25 acres of land in the district of Singhbhum (East) for 30 years in the year 1954.
Sometime in the year 1970 Mathura Prasad during his lifetime have filed a partition suit in the civil court by filing T.S. No. 89 of 1970 claiming its share in the joint family properties held by him and his brother, Satyendra Prasad. The dispute was settled by arbitration and the Award of the Arbitrator was made the Rule of the Court in Title Suit No. 89 of 1970. Under the terms of the Award, the Mining lease holds right of Mathura Prasad was allocated in the share of Satyenra Prasad declaring it as his self-acquired property.
In terms of the Arbitrator''s Award, the Mines in Singhbhum including the mining lease referred to as property of Item No. 1, was declared as the self-acquired property of Satyendra Prasad (party No. 2 in the Arbitration Proceedings). The mining business under the name and style of Gajadhar Mining Industries, as per the Award, was to be treated as a Hindu Joint Family Business firm of the party No. 2 and his sons with the party No. 2 as Karta thereof and to be treated as separate for all purposes for the remaining parties.
After the death of Mathura Prasad in 1971, Satyendra Prasad submitted an application for renewal of lease in his name. The prayer for renewal was rejected by the concerned authorities, firstly on 04.04.1977 and subsequently on 01.08.2002 on the ground that certain dues under the original lease remained pending. However, the Revisional Authority on considering the Revision application, filed by the Satyendra Prasad, stayed the operation of the order dated-01.08.2002.
While the Revision application was pending, Satyendra Prasad died leaving behind his widow (petitioner No. 1), two daughters (petitioner Nos. 2 and 3) and his two sons (Respondent Nos. 9 and 10). After the death of Satyendra Prasad, his widow (petitioner No. 1), filed her application for substitution of her name, in place of her deceased-husband, in the pending Revision application. However, by the impugned order dated-24.03.2004, the Revisional Authority dismissed the Revision application as having abated on the ground that none of the claimants have provided relevant documents in support of their respective claims.
From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, it appears that they too being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Revisional Authority, have already preferred a Review application. The Review application is still pending before the concerned authorities.
As it appears, even during the pendency of the Review petition, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated-28.03.2006 substituting the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in place of their father, late Satyendra Prasad for being treated as the mining lessees.
Interestingly, during this period and even during the lifetime of his father, Satyendra Prasad, the Respondent No. 10 had filed a partition Suit of the properties, which was declared as joint family property with the father, Satyendra Prasad as the Karta of the family, before the Court of the Sub-Judge 1, vide Title Suit No. 21 of 2002 impleading the present writ petitioners as well as the Respondent No. 9 as necessary parties. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have offered their contest in the Partition Suit, claiming their share in the properties including the entitlement of share/interest in the mining lease.
In the above background facts, and the controversy as raised by the parties, herein, the dispute revolves around the claim of the petitioners of their share in the properties of their father including the share in the mining lease.
As it appears from the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents, in the partition Suit also which is presently pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge 1, Chaibasa, the issues include the dispute over the share claimed by the petitioners in the mining lease.
Though the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 would want to assert their exclusive right of share in the mining lease to the exclusion of their sisters, namely, the present petitioners on the basis of the Arbitration Award but in the light of the contest offered by the petitioners, it would be appropriate to allow the civil court to decide the issue. The disputed questions relating to the interpretation of the Award, the application of the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to the petitioners and others, as also the issues involving points of law, have therefore, to be left to the civil court to address and decide upon. In view of the pendency of the partition Suit, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interpose and to resolve the dispute on the contentious issues relating to the claim of share in the properties by the rival claimants.
Referring now to the impugned order, dated-28.03.2006 (Annexure-8), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the same has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that without giving any prior notice to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner could not have proceeded to decide the issue as to whose name should be substituted for renewal of the mining lease in place of the original lessee. The impugned order has been challenged also on the ground that it is in violation of the Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The impugned order of the Revisional Authority (Annexure-7) has also been challenged on the same ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, would explain that as per the provisions of Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, upon the death of the applicant who applies for renewal of the mining lease, his legal representatives are deemed to be substituted in his/her place.
Learned Counsel adds that upon the death of late Satyendra Prasad on 07.02.2003, his widow (petitioner No. 1) alongwith the consent of the other legal heirs, had applied for substitution of her name in place of her deceased-husband in the Revision application, which was earlier filed before the Revisional Authority under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules by Satynedra Prasad. Learned Counsel adds that under such circumstances, the Revisional Authority could not have held that the Revision application has abated and as such, the impugned order dated- 23.04.2004 as passed by the Revisional Authority is illegal and not sustainable.
Learned Counsel argues further, that during the pendency of the present writ application and during the pendency of the partition suit before the civil court, the Deputy Commissioner, could not have proceeded to take any decision to renew the mining lease exclusively in favour of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10. Such decision as taken by the Deputy Commissioner, that too without affording any opportunity to the petitioners of being heard, amounts to illegally depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right in the share in their father''s properties and ignoring the fact that the petitioners being the daughters of late Satyendra Prasad, are also entitled to their share in the mining lease under the Hindu Succession Act.
On the other hand, the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 is that since the dispute between the parties is in regard to the share and interest in the mining lease in question, which also constitutes part of the joint family properties, the same should have been left for the civil court to be decided in the partition suit.
On perusal of the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, I find that it is with the State Government that the powers have been reserved to grant a mining lease in favour of an applicant. The decision for renewal on the mining lease in favour of any applicant has therefore, necessarily to be taken by the State Government. The Rules do not categorically indicate that the State Government may delegate such powers to the Deputy Commissioners. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State would want to explain here that the State Government has given such powers to the Deputy Commissioners to decide upon. It is doubtful as to whether the State Government could legally delegate such powers to the Deputy Commissioners. At best, the State Government could have gone to the extent of seeking the opinion of the Deputy Commissioners on the prayer made by the applicants for renewal of the mining lease and thereafter, to act upon the basis of such opinion.
Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the partition suit between the legal heirs of late Satyendra Prasad is pending adjudication before the civil court and the rival claims of their shares as advanced by the petitioners in the properties including the mining lease, the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have proceeded with, by deciding the dispute in the manner in which he has done by his impugned order. By passing the impugned order, it appears as if the Deputy Commissioner has arrogated to himself the powers of adjudication on the dispute between the parties relating to their respective claim of shares in the joint family properties. This is illegal and the illegality is compounded on the petitioners'' assertion that before passing the impugned order, no notice was issued to the petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to them.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure-8) as passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and is therefore hereby quashed.
As regards the impugned order of the Revisional Authority, whereby the Revision application has been declared as abated, the same is also patently illegal. Admittedly, separate applications for substitution of their names in place of the original applicant was filed in the pending Revision application before the Revisional Authority, both by the Respondent Nos. 10 as also by the widow of the deceased, Satyendra Prasad. In view of the fact that the applications for substitution were filed by the son and the widow of the deceased, Satyendra Prasad, it was incumbent upon the Revisional authority to consider their claims and pass an order in terms of the provisions of Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The provisions of Rule 25A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 declares that the application for the grant or renewal of the mining lease shall be deemed to have been made by his legal representative.
It is apparent that the impugned order of the Revisional Authority is in violation and not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 25A 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.
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 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.
With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the Respondents.