On 16 April 1953 Madan Gopal Rungta entered into an agreement by which he agreed to pay royalty to Government of Bihar for working the mining rights companyered by the Sub lease.
91 respectively of the Collectorate of Palaman.
226 of the Constitution of India challenging the certificate proceedings mentioned before and the High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings on 23 November 1964.
The High Court dismissed Mohd.
Hanif filed an application in the Assam High Court under Art.
Hanif.
66,317.93 by way of dead rent and royalties which are alleged to have accrued during the period when Madan Gopal Rungta was working the mines under the aforementioned sub lease.
The appellant sought to rely on this order be fore the High Court.
On 22 July 1965 the Government of Bihar acting with the approval of the Central Government granted a numberember 1966 a lease was granted in favour of Bharat Marble Company.
The latter, however, was obstructed in his working of the mines under the Sub lease by the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau in December, 1952.
226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners sought to rely on the case of Mohd.
In any event the appellant has been granted a mining lease by the Government of Bihar and is number admittedly in possession under that lease.
In the case of Mohd.
7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public.
Soon after this writ petition had been filed, in April 1970, one of the petitioners died.
On 2 September 1968 one S. K. Jain purporting to act on behalf of the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna in which it was.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated Sep tember 17, 1971 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction case No.
The petitioners claim have remained in possession of the lease hold property when interest of the proprietor vested in the State of Bihar under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and they became the lessees in the State of Bihar on the same terms and companyditions as were companytained in the original lease of 1919.
161, Survey No.
S. Manley who had sold his right and title in the land to the predecessor in interest of Mohd.
Demands Recovery Act demanding a sum of Rs.
Some time in 1963 Tribeni Prasad Rungta made an application under Art.
In January, 1955 the whole of Ladi Estate vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Certain other parties had also applied for mining lease in the area prior to this stage.
The petitioners trace their title to the lease granted by Kumar Amardeyal Singh in favour of Pran Kristo Chatterjee who in turn assigned his, right to the petitioners , predecessor in title.
On 1 April 1963 the appellant M s. Hindustan Steel Limited applied for the grant of mining lease for an area of 67.26 acres within the area.
1787 of 1971.
M s. Hindustan Steel Limited have number companye on appeal against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court by which the two lease were cancelled.
In any event, even if the petitioners companyld trace any title from the original lease of 1919, after the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950 they became lessees under the State of Bihar and their lease has been terminated by the Controller of Mining Leases so that the State of Bihar was quite within its rights to execute the leases in favour of the present appellant and of Bharat Marble Company.
On 13 November 1962 a numberice was issued to Tribeni Prasad Rungta under Sec.
in support of their proposition that since they have adduced sufficient evidence to show at least prima facie title in respect of the disputed lands they are entitled to be protected from ouster from their lands by an executive action on the part of the State Government.
On 17 September 1971 the High Court granted a writ in favour of the petitioners before them and cancelled the two leases.
On 10 September 1962 Madan Gopal Rungta and his son Tribeni Prasad Rungta both applied for grant of a mining lease of the area.
143 and Touzi No.
The lease which gave a perpetual Mokarari Settlement was in respect of various minerals including iron ore and related to a large tract of land in District Palamau companyering an area of 2227 acres in village Adar and 1303 acres in village Gore.
Hanif State of Assam ,.
CIVIL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
130, Survey No.
On 28 September 1959 after hearing the petitioners and also after hearing Madan Gopal Rungta who held a power of attorney on behalf of the said petitioners, the said Controller in purported exercise of his powers under Rule 6 of the Mining Lease Modification of Terms Rules, 1956 modified the lease under the aforesaid registered document of 11 July 1919 and made it terminable with effect from 20 September 1961.
S. Desai and N. R. Khaitan for the respondent Nos.
In 1959 the Controller of Mining Leases initiated a case for the modification of the terms of the lease dated 11 July 1919.
It is, stated on behalf of the appellant that this order of termination was made at the instance of Madan Gopal Rungta who pleaded that the lease should be made terminable after the expiry of the sub lease granted in his applications for grant of mining leases in respect of Gore in the Official Gazette.
Hanif appealed against the decision of the High Court.
prayed that the two leases in favour of the appellant and Bharat Marble Company should be quashed and can celled.
But this also is a very lame stick on which the appellant relied.
N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, Santhosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee for the appellant.
On 21 September 1951 the petitioners granted a Sub lease under the aforesaid lease of 11 July 1919 to one Madan Gopal Rungta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA, J. This appeal with leave is directed against a judgment and order of the High Court of Patna in companynection with a writ petition of respondents Nos.
1 to 3 who will herein after be referred to as the petitioners by which the High Court quashed and cancelled two leases granted by the State of Bihar in favour of M s. Bharat Marble Company, a partnership firm and the present appellant M s. Hindustan Steel limited.
claim that their predecessor in title Vyomkesh Mukherjee had exercised his rights under the deed of assignment and had in fact raised iron ore until 1949 when he died.
In 1937 the heirs of the original lessee under the document of 11 July 1919 assigned and transferred their interest under the .lease to one Vyomkesh Mukherjee.
740 of 1968.
4 to 6.
Both the two villages Adar and Gore appertained to Kumar Amardeyal Singhs estate, bearing Touzi No.
1 to P. Singh for the respondent Nos.
The facts and circumstances out of which the petition arose are as follows.
By a registered document dated 11 July 1919 one Kumar Amardeyal Singh, who was the proprietor of Ladi Estate at the relevant time granted a lease in favour of one Pran Kristo Chatterjee.
In 1949, Vyomkesh Mukherjee died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and successors.
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court has held that the order of the Controller of Mining Leases was invalid and of numberlegal effect whatsoever.
Hanif 1 the Government of Assam sought to resume certain lands which had been ,originally settled by the British Crown with, one Capt.
