Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4017 of 2025 Shri Gagan Nahata S/o Lt. Shri Suresh Nahata, Aged About 45 Years R/o - Nahata Chowk, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Having Its Offices At - Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur-492002. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director, Geology And Mining, Having Its Offices At - Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492002. 4 - The Mining Officer, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Tehsildar, Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7 - Mining Inspector, Dhamtari, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vivek Chopda (through VC) & Mr. Maulik Bhansali, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG assisted by Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners with following relief(s): “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the Petitioner's case for its kind perusal, if deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directions to the Respondent Authorities for setting aside and quashing of the Impugned Order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Mining Officer. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directions in consequence to the relief sought in prayer clause 10.2, permanently restraining the concerned respondent authorities from taking any coercive steps based on the Impugned Order and disturbing the status of Supplementary Agreement. AND/OR 10.4 In alternative to reliefs as prayed herein-above in prayer clause 10.2 and 10.3, a writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directions staying the effect, operation and execution of the Impugned Order during the pendency of the Memorandum of Appeal, Review and Revision as 3 filed before the Respondent Authorities and directing them to decide the said Memorandum in a prescribed time frame as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the present case. 10.5 Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of the case. 10.6 The cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of present petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 30.06.2025 passed vide प्ቔ ्ቅाሰ(cid:6)(cid:7)क 644A/ ख.लि(cid:11)/ख. लि(cid:11)/अव. विवस्ता(cid:6)/2025-2026 (herein after referred to as "Impugned Order") which has been illegally, unilaterally and arbitrarily passed by the Mining Officer. Petitioner obtained a mining lease for a period of 10 years from 02.05.2003 to 01.05.2013 and in pursuant to such a lease, a Lease Deed dated 06.05.2003 was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. That being satisfied with the Petitioner's conduct and operations during the first term, a Renewed Lease Deed dated 15.03.2013 was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 extending the lease term for another 10 years, i.e., from 02.05.2013 to 01.05.2023. The State Government brought into force the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. Thereafter various amendments were made in the 2015 Rules vide Notification No. F/6- 42/2012/12 dated 23.03.2016 by the State Government which provided that the tenure of lease granted in lessee shall be a period of 30 years 4 based on the terms and conditions as provided in the Rules. The Relevant Authorities had vide Letter dated 01.03.2017 called the Petitioner on account of their own volition for execution of a Supplementary Lease Deed for extension of the term of the mining lease granted to the Petitioner till 01.05.2043 in light of Rule 38A(4) inserted in the 2015 Rules vide 2016 Amendment. He further contended that Supplementary Agreement 21.03.2017 between the Petitioner and the Mining Officer extending the lease period of the Petitioner with respect to the subject land till 01.05.2043, for 30 years from the date of Renewal Agreement i.e., 02.05.2013 under Rule 38A(4) of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. The Petitioner herein received a letter dated 22.02.2022 by which the Mining Officer called upon the Petitioner for correction of term of lease granted to the Petitioner in relation to the subject land. It was stated in the letter that the tenure of the Lease was to be extended for a period of 30 years from the Original Agreement as mentioned herein, however the same has been erroneously extended for a period of 30 years from the Renewal Agreement as mentioned herein, which is an error that needs rectification. In pursuant to the said letter, the Petitioner had categorically informed the Mining Officer vide his reply dated 28.02.2022 that extension of Mining Lease has been rightly granted as per the 2016 Amendment Rules and no further Agreement was required to be executed. The Mining Officer has subsequently passed an illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and unilateral Impugned Order dated 30.06.2025 5 vide प्ቔ ्ቅाሰ(cid:6)(cid:7)क 644A//ख.लि(cid:11)/ख.लि(cid:11)/अव. विवस्ता(cid:6)/2025-2026 vide which the term of the lease of the Petitioner has been reduced from 01.05.2043 to 01.05.2033 by arbitrarily, unilaterally and with mala-fide intention stating that Rule 38A(4) provides that the Lease Deed ought to be renewed for a period of 30 years from the date of Original Lease Deed, without an opportunity of fair hearing being granted to the Petitioner to present his case. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned State Counsel contended that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner and in this regard learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has already been filed appeal before the Director General (Mine) which is still pending before the appellate authority, but as per Annexure P-1, the Mining Officer, District Dhamtari has ordered that if within 30 days, the petitioner has not executed the agreement, the order of extension automatically set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended
Decision
to the writ petition. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the grievance raised by the petitioner and also looking to the Clause of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), the impugned order itself speaks that the original agreement has been executed for a period of 30 years and for the execution of the same, 30 days’ time was fixed. Admittedly, 6 till date the agreement has not been executed even after lapse of 30 days. 6. In view of the above, it is directed that the part of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) “if the agreement is not executed within stipulated time, this order shall automatically loose to its efficacy is kept in abeyance.” 7. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Sd/- Vasant