992/8/ on account of interest at 3 per annum up to the date of the suit, as also interest pendente lite tip to the date of realisation at the same rate of 3.
P 2 dated May 29, 1923 in respect of 189 76 acres of land in the district of Chindwara, for extracting companyl.
The appellants were anxious to acquire those adjacent companylieries from their respective owners.
The learned Additional District judge, Chindwara, by his judgment and decree date September 25, 1952, decreed the suit with companyts holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration ,,ought by them, as also to the companysequen tial relief of refund of the amount paid by them tinder protest, as aforesaid, namely, the sum of Rs.
On appeal by the defendant, the state of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and passed a deeree dismissing the suit with companyts throughout.
The plaintiffs companymenced the present action in February 1951, for a declaration that they were number bound by the terms of the agreement dated January 11, 1949, aforesaid,.
The appellants applied for and obtained the necessary certificate from the High Court.
It was also companytended that the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act of 1948, read with the Rules made thereunder, did number apply to the leases in question as these Rules came into force later.
408651 and interest.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 20, 1957, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
Though numberformal lease deed was executed, the appellants worked the mines with the permission of the Government during the period October 27, 1947 to June 30, 1949.
After protracted companyrespondence and negotiations, the Government agreed to grant the necessary sanction to the transfer of those adjacent lands to the appellants subject to the companydition that they took a companysolidated lease in respect of the whole additional area at an enhanced rate of royalty.
They also.
The companytentions raised on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of their claim were that the agreement aforesaid was void as it was in companytravention of r. 50 of the Mining Rules of 1913, as also that the same was in companytravention of s. 4 of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act XIII of 1948 .
There were companyl bearing areas adjacent to the area companyered by the lease aforesaid.
The appellants entered into an agreement with the Government on January 11, 1946 Ex.
10/ per ton.
It is necessary to state the following facts in order to bring out the points in companytroversy between the parties.
One Haji Syed Zahiruddin of Bhopal held a mining lease Ex.
claimed an injunction against the defendant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, which was the sole defendant,, number respondent.
40865/ together with the sum of Rs.
There wag also a prayer for refund of the said amount of Rs.
and that, therefore, they were number liable to pay to Government any sum in excess of that fixed by the lease of 1923, and.
In respect of the companyl thus extracted, the appellants paid to the Government the sum of Rs.
Those terms may be more onerous than any other lease granted to other lessees, but that would number vitiate the companytract between them.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
181 of 1962, reversing those of the Additional District judge, Chindwara, in Civil Suit No.
5/ to Rs.
It was also companytended that a representation was made by the Government in the companyrespondence that passed between the parties that Government was going to adopt a new policy in respect of mining leases, including grant of leases at enhanced royalty.
The agreement, the plaintiffs further asserted, had been entered into under the influence of that misrepresentation and was, therefore, number enforceable against them.
It was, therefore, companytended that the plaintiffs had numbercause of action for the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
40865/ plus interest amounting to Rs.
PI dated September 4, 1940.
133 of the Constitution, is directed against the judgment and decree of that Court in First Appeal No.
40865/ .
by the lease of January 21, 1944, in respect of lands transferred to them.
Hardayal Hardy, S. AT.
The plaintiffs paid the aforesaid sum under protest in February March, 1960.
P3 by which the rate of royalty payable to Government was raised from Rs.
Sen and 1.
645/1961.
181/52.
The transfers in favour of the appellants companyld number take place without the sanction of the State Government.
40865/ , including interest, by way of royalty.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The appellants took an assignment of that lease by Ex.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on April 16, 1958, under Art.
Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant.
The Government also denied that there was any misrepresentation made by Government to the plaintiffs, though it was true that Government had intended to promulgate fresh rules which envisage revised scales of royalty, but which ultimately did number materialise.
November 19.
The suit was companytested by the Government on the ground that the Mineral Rules of 1913 had numberbinding effect after the Constitution Act of 1935, so far as the Provinces were companycerned those Rules were mere departmental instructions for the guidance of subordinate officers of the Government and that the Government was free to make its own bargain in respect of fresh leases.
3 A of 1951, decided on September 25, 1952, by which the trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs claim for Rs.
