Afr High Court
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.17 15:43:50 +0530 2025:CGHC:17552 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 879 of 2025 1 M/s Landmark Engineer Through Proprietor Mr. Nishant Jain S/o Suresh Chand Jain Age 46 Year R/o Shanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Mineral Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Collector District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 Deputy-Director (Mining) District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent/
Legal Reasoning
three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.” 9. The communication dated 27.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to obtain permission under Section 165 (6) of CGLRC for grant of order of Quarry lease is not in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, as the word ‘lease’ has been excluded from the provisions of section 165 (6) of the CGLRC. 10. As far as the contention of the respondent/ State it to protect the interest of land owners who belong to ST category is concerned, Rule 88 of the C.G. Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 which provides payment of compensation to the owners of surface rights while granting Prospecting Licence or Quarry Lease or Quarry permit to the occupier of the surface of the land, hence the plea taken by the respondent will also not come in the way of grant of Quarry lease to the petitioner herein.
Arguments
: Shri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate. : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. State 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 16.04.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking direction towards the respondents No. 2 & 3, for grant of Quarry Lease by overriding the objection raised vide communication dated 27.01.2025 by the Deputy Director (Mining) by which the petitioner has been directed to seek permission from the Collector as the land in question belongs to Scheduled Tribe category candidate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the direction has been issued by the respondent No. 3/ Deputy Director (Mining) by referring provisions of 165 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth ‘the CGLRC’) to get the consent letter executed by land owners to be registered and take permission of respondent No. 2 under section 165 (6) of the CGLRC (wrongly mentioned as 156 (6) in the communication dated 27.01.2025) and Section 168 of the CGLRC. He further submits that section 165 (6) of the CGLRC is not applicable over the quarry lease since the provision itself excludes its applicability by way of explanation which states that for the purpose of this sub-section the expression “otherwise” shall not include lease. He further submits that section 168 of the CGLRC is not applicable in the present case, as the petitioner has not taken the private land of the land owners on lease which forms part of Quarry Lease and it has simply taken the consent of the land owners for undertaking 3 Quarry Operation over the subject area in terms of Rule 42 (2) (c) of C.G. Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. Hence, the order directing the petitioner to take permission under Section 165 (6) is absolutely illegal and further prays that the respondents be directed to grant order of Quarry Lease by overriding the objection raised by respondent No.3 vide communication dated 27.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/ state submits that the petitioner has not submitted consent of land owners for taking Quarry operation in terms of Rule 42 (2) (c) of C.G. Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 as also the order of permission from Collector. He further submits that the consent to be taken from land owners is only to protect the interest of land owners belonging to Scheduled tribe category and there is no illegality in the communication dated dated 27.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 3. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. For the sake of convenience, it would be apt to quote the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the CGLRC which reads as under:- 165. Rights of transfer :- 1. XXX 2. XXX 3.XX X 4. XXX 5. XXX 6. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the right of Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State 4 Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which this Code applies shall- (i) in such areas as are predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify, not be transferred nor it shall be transferable either by way of sale [or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan Hor will (bequest)] to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified in the notification; (ii) in areas other than those specified in the notification under clause (i), not to be transferred or be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan 1[or will (bequest)] to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing 2[:] [Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be applicable to the land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013). Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section the expression “otherwise” shall not include lease. 6. Perusal of explanation itself is very clear that for the purpose of this sub section the expression “otherwise” shall not include lease. It means for grant of Quarry lease, as concerned, the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the CGLRC will not attract and there is no need to seek permission from Collector. As far as, the consent of land owners is concerned, the petitioner has already annexed the consent taken from the land owners as AnnexureP-1. Hence, the order directing the petitioner to take permission under Section 165 (6) of the CGLRC from the Collector is absolutely contrary to the provisions. 5 7. It is equally settled proposition of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. 8. The Supreme Court in Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Others, held thus : 35. It is by now a certain law that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 432-33, paras 31-32) “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: (IA pp. 381-82) ‘where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.’ 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh 6 Pradesh and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a
Decision
11. In view of the above, the respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to take necessary steps for grant of order of Quarry lease in favour of petitioner without insisting upon the objection raised in the communication dated 27.01.2025 by the Deputy Director 7 (respondent No. 3) and take necessary steps and decision within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti 8 Head Note “ If the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.”