Jharkhand High Court
M/S Aaraanya Mines Private Limited Near ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 28 June, 2024
Author: Navneet Kumar
Bench: Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024
M/s Aaraanya Mines Private Limited near Ramgarh Gymkhana Club, Ranchi
Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. Marar, District- Ramgarh represented through its
Authorized Signatory namely Shailendra Kumar Lal, aged about 62 years, son
of Late Tribeni Lal, resident of 323/B, Road No.4, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Ashok
Nagar and PS Argora, District- Ranchi.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms,
having its office at Project Bhawan, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Inspector General of Registration, Department of Revenue, Registration and
Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, at Nepal House,
Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, having its office
at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Collectorate Building,
Block-C, Medininagar, P.O. Medininagar, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu,
Jharkhand.
7. The District Mining Officer, Palamu, P.O. Medininagar, P.S. Medininagar,
District-Palamu, Jharkhand.
8. The District Sub-Registrar, Medininagar, Palamu, P.O. Medininagar, P.S.
Medninagar, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
...Respondents
---------------
Listed on: 30th April 2024, 8th May 2024,15th May 2024, 16th May 2024, 24th June 2024, 27th June 2024 and 28th June 2024.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
---------------
ORDER Dated 28th June 2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
Aggrieved by the communication from the District Mining Officer, Palamau contained in Letter No. 353/N dated 15th February 2023 whereby the District Mining Officer restrained the petitioner-company from carrying mining operations till the purported dues of stamp duty are paid by it, the petitioner-company has approached this Court.
2. The petitioner-company has also questioned the direction by the Inspector General, Registration, Department of Revenue as contained in Letter No.13/Nivandhan Vividh Patrachar-02/2021 67/A dated 8th February 2023 to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau for including the "Final Price Offer" in "The Coal Mines Development and Production Agreement" (in short, CMDP Agreement) for computation of stamp duty in relation to the mining lease granted to the petitioner-company over 126.90 hectares of land at Lohari Coal Mines. Alleging that the letters dated 8th February 2023 and 15th February 2023 are illegal, the petitioner-company is also seeking a direction upon the respondents to permit it to commence the mining operations in the leasehold area under the mining lease registered on 30th December 2022.
3. The dispute involved in this case is whether the Final Price Offer "defined" in the CMDP Agreement by and between the President of India and M/s Aranya Mines Private Limited in respect of Lohari Coal Mines can be construed as premium amount for computation of the stamp duty.
4. This is the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand that as defined under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short, TP Act) the Final Price Offer in the CMDP Agreement is the price paid by the petitioner- company for exclusive possession and use of the Lohari Coal Mines and, therefore, it was the premium paid by the petitioner-company. On this premise, the respondents claim that stamp duty shall be calculated in terms of clause (c) of Article 35 to Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The 2 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 provisions for calculating the proper stamp duty under Article 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read as under:
Description of Instrument Proper Stamp-duty
35. Lease, including an under-
lease or sub-lease and any
agreement to let or sub-let--
(a) where by such lease the rent
is fixed and no premium is paid
or delivered--
(i) where the lease purports to The same duty as a Bond (No. 15) for the
be for a term of less than one whole amount payable or deliverable
year; under such lease.
(ii) where the lease purports to The same duty as a Bond (No. 15) for the
be for a term of not less than amount or value of the average annual
one year but not more than rent reserved.
three years;
(iii) where the lease purports to The same duty as a Conveyance (No. 23)
be for a term in excess of three for a consideration equal to the amount or
years; value of the average annual rent reserved.
(iv) where the lease does not The same duty as a Conveyance (No. 23)
purport to be for any definite for a consideration equal to the amount or
term; value of the average annual rent which
would be paid or delivered for the first ten
years if the lease continued so long.
(v) where the lease purports to The same duty as a Conveyance (No. 23)
be in perpetuity; for a consideration equal to one-fifth of
the whole amount of rents which would
be paid or delivered in respect of the first
fifty years of the lease.
(b) where the lease is granted The same duty as a Conveyance (No. 23)
for a fine or premium or for for a consideration equal to the amount or
money advanced and where no value of such fine or premium or advance
rent is reserved; as set forth in the lease.
(c) where the lease is granted The same duty as a Conveyance (No. 23)
for a fine or premium or for for a consideration equal to the amount or
money advanced in addition to value of such fine or premium or advance
rent reserved. as set forth in the lease, in addition to the
duty which would have been payable on
such lease if no fine or premium or
advance had been paid or delivered:
Provided that, in any case when an
agreement to lease is stamped with the ad
valorem stamp required for a lease, and a
lease in pursuance of such agreement is
subsequently executed, the duty on such
lease shall not exceed eight annas.
3 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024
Exemption
(a) Lease, executed in the case
of a cultivator and for the
purpose of cultivation
(including a lease of trees for
the production of food or drink)
without the payment or
delivery of any fine or
premium, when a definite term
is expressed and such term does
not exceed one year, or when
the average annual rent
reserved does not exceed one
hundred rupees.
5. Briefly stated, the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India issued a vesting order on 22nd April 2015 in relation to Lohari Coal Mines and an agreement was executed on 6th May 2015 between the President of India through the Nominated Authority and the petitioner- company in respect of the said coal mines. Through a communication dated 11th April 2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was informed that the mining lease for an area of 126.90 hectares has been approved in favor of the petitioner-company for twenty years and thereafter, the amount of stamp duty was computed as Rs.85,15,500/-. However, on 5th December 2022, the District Sub-Registrar, Palamau informed the District Mining Officer, Palamau that the amount of stamp duty has been reassessed as Rs.51,41,47,409/- and then the petitioner-company was directed to pay additional stamp duty. In response thereof, the constituted Attorney of the petitioner-company gave an affidavit to the effect that in future the petitioner- company would pay stamp duty and other expenses corresponding to the applicable laws of the Government of Jharkhand for mining lease registration of coal mines. As per the previous calculation, the stamp duty of Rs.85,16,000/- was paid by the petitioner-company on 30th December 2022 and a mining lease in respect of Lohari Coal Mines was registered. It transpires that thereafter the Inspector General, Registration, Department of Revenue directed the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to add the premium amount for computation of the stamp duty as per Article 35(c) of the Stamp Act, vide letter dated 8th February 2023 and, in connection thereto, the District 4 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 Mining Officer directed the petitioner-company on 15th February 2023 to deposit the revised stamp duty and restrained the petitioner-company from carrying mining operations until the revised stamp duty is paid by it.
6. In the counter-affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau who is the respondent no. 6 and the District Mining Officer who is the respondent no.7 have taken a stand that after the petitioner-company submitted the mining lease-deed, stamp paper for Rs. 85,15,500/- and other relevant documents like the vesting order and CMPD Agreement, on the suggestion of the Joint Inspector General, Registration, Department of Revenue for calculation of the stamp duty as per Item 35 (a) (iv) and 35(c) to Schedule I of the Stamp Act, a revised calculation of stamp duty assessed to Rs.51,41,47,409/- after inclusion of the premium amount was sent to the petitioner-company on 5th December 2022 for registration of the mining lease-deed. It is further stated that the petitioner-company objected to the demand of the revised stamp duty so assessed and requested the District Mining Officer, Palamau to execute the mining lease-deed on earlier calculation. Thereafter, the petitioner-company submitted an undertaking through an affidavit dated 22nd December 2022 to the effect that it would pay stamp duty and other expenses on premium amount if the Government so directs, and then the District Sub-Registrar sent a revised stamp duty calculation through letter dated 22nd December 2022 whereunder the stamp duty was assessed as Rs.85,15,808.48/- by including the amount of royalty, surface rent, security amount and preliminary expenditure. After all this, the District Mining Officer, Palamau vide letter dated 22nd December 2022 directed the petitioner-company to submit the stamp duty of Rs.85,15,808.48/- as calculated aforesaid and the mining lease-deed was registered on 30th December 2022 upon payment of stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.85,16,000/-.
7. In the the counter-affidavit dated 8th May 2024, the respondent nos.6 and 7 took the following stand:
"21. That it is humbly submitted that thereafter, vide letter no.13/NibandhanvividhPatrachar-02/2021 67/A./Ni dated 08.02.2023, the Inspector General, Registration gave a direction to the Deputy 5 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 Commissioner, Palamu that for calculation of Stamp Duty of a mining lease deed the "Premium Amount" is also to be added as per item no. 35 sub clause (c) of the Stamp Act, 1899.
22. That in the light of above letter in reference to the Deputy and Commissioner's Palamu letter no. 122, dated 10.02.2023 wherein and whereby it was directed that no mining operations could be done before the deposition of stamp duty on Premium Amount, the petitioner was directed to submit the revised stamp duty after inclusion of Premium Amount by District Mining Officer, Palamu vide his letter no. 353/M dated 15.02.2023.
23.That it is humbly submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the letter no.13/NibandhanvividhPatrachar-02/2021 67/A.Ni dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Inspector General, Registration by which the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu has been directed that for calculation of Stamp Duty of a mining lease deed the "Premium Amount" is also to be added as per item no. 35 sub clause (c) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and for quashing of the Deputy Commissioner's Palamu letter no. 122, dated 10.02.2023 wherein and whereby it was directed that no mining operations could be done before the deposition of stamp duty on Premium Amount and for quashing of letter no. 353/M, dated- 15.02.2023 issued by District Mining Officer, Palamu by which the petitioner was directed to submit the revised stamp duty after inclusion of Premium Amount are not sustainable and are liable to be rejected at its preliminary stage as the petitioner was already directed to submit an undertaking that it will pay the Stamp Duty and other expenses on Premium Amount if the Government so directs in future by the District Mining Officer, Palamu vide letter 3369/M dated 21.12.2022 and the aforesaid undertaking had already been submitted by the petitioner by way of an Affidavit vide its letter no.AMPL/D- 46/2022-23 dated 22.12.2022.
8. The Joint Inspector General of Registration has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition whereunder he labeled the communication dated 8th February 2023 as "guidance" made available to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau regarding the chargeability of the stamp duty upon the amount of premium paid by the lessee. In this affidavit, the Joint Inspector General of Registration referred to inter-departmental communications and the provisions under Article 35(c) to Schedule I and the CMPD Agreement and took a stand that the said Agreement which defines Final Price Offer is part of the lease-deed dated 30th December 2022 which was registered without paying stamp duty on the Final Price, that is, the premium amount. There is also a reference to the Audit observation by the Principal Accountant General, Jharkhand whereunder an objection was raised regarding non-payment of stamp duty on Final Price Offer; stamp value of Rs. 8.37 crores and 6 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 registration fee of Rs.6.38 crores. It is further stated that a coal mine lease- deed was registered on 11th July 2023 in the Pakur Registry Office in which stamp duty was collected on all amounts paid as royalty, reserve price, that is, the premium amount. In this affidavit, there is also a reference of the opinion given by the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand.
9. Caught in the bureaucratic confusion, the petitioner-company made representations to the Nominated Authority which sent an advisory to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand for allowing mining operations at the Lohari Coal Mines as per the mining lease executed in favor of the petitioner-company. Through a letter dated 8th April 2024, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand was advised as under:
F.No. NA-104/30/2015-NA Government of India/भारत सरकार Ministry of Coal/कोयला मंत्रालय Nominated Authority / नामनननदि ष्ट प्रानिकारी का कायाि लय
120. F-Wing 1st Floor, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Dated: April 08, 2024 To, The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, First Floor, Project Building Dhurwa-Ranchi-834004.
Subject: Request to allow commencement of Mining operations in Lohari Coal Mine.
Reference:-
1. Letter dated 28.02.2024 and dated 20.03.2024 of AMPL.
2. Letter dated 19.05.2023 issued to IG (Registration), Department of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms by MoC regarding stamp duty on premium amount.
**** The undersigned is directed to refer to letters dated 28.02.2024 and 20.03.2024 from M/s Aaranya Mines Private Limited (AMPL), the successful allottee of Lohari coal mine and to say that AMPL has sought the intervention of this office in commencing mining operations at Lohari Coal Mine.
2. In this connection, reference is invited to earlier DO letter of even number dated 15.02.2024 (copies enclosed for ready reference) on the same for commencing work in respect of this coal blocks. Further, this office has also sent a letter dated 19.05.2023 (copy enclosed) on the request of project proponent of Lohari coal block to the IG (Registration), Department of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms, Jharkhand for resolution the issue of stamp duty demand on premium amount.
7 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 20243. It is also noted that the Government of Jharkhand granted a Mining Lease for 126.90 ha of area to M/s AMPL on 11.04.2022. The Lease Deed was executed on 30.12.2022, following the deposition of Stamp Duty and registry fee of 85,15,808.48/-as communicated by the Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 22.12.2022.
4. In view of the above, the representation of M/s Aaranya Mines Private Limited regarding the commencement of mining operations in Lohari Coal Mine is being forwarded to you for allowing the mining operations as per the executed mining lease.
Encl. as above.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Marapally Venkateshwarly) Director (Technical) Tel. No.011-23073425
10. However, on account of the delay caused in reporting compliances, the Coal Controller issued a notice to the petitioner-company requiring it to furnish an explanation for not taking steps as per the approved mining plan and not depositing money on commencement of development activity in the leasehold area. The show-cause notice dated 16th April 2024 is reproduced below:
F.NO CC/MCPS/Accounts Reconciliation/2023-24/805 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MININSTRY OF COAL OFFICE OF COAL CONTROLLER Scope Minar, Core-II, 5th Floor Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 Date: 16th April, 2024 To, The Nominated Owner, Coal/Lignite Mines SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Sub:- Show Cause Notice against non-compliance of the provisions of Para 2.15 the Guidelines for Preparation, Formulation, Submission, Processing, Scrutiny, Approval and Revision of Mining Plan for the Coal and Lignite Blocks of MoC circulated vide OM F No.-34011/28/2019-CPAM dated 29.05.2020 regarding deposition of required annual amount in accordance with Para 2.6, 2.7 & 2.8 of the aforesaid guidelines.
Reference is invited to the provisions of Para 2.15 the Guidelines for Preparation, Formulation, Submission, Processing. Scrutiny, Approval and Revision of Mining Plan for the Coal and Lignite Blocks of MoC circulated vide OM F No. 34011/28/2019.-CPAM dated 29.05.2020.
2. As per Para 2.15 of the aforesaid guidelines the owner shall submit to the Coal Controller a yearly part before 1st July of every year setting forth the extent of protective and rehabilitative works carried out as envisaged in the 8 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 approved mine closure plans (Progressing and Final Closure Plans). The money to be provided per hectare of total Project Area for the purpose is to be deposited every year on commencement of any development activity on the land for the mine after opening a Fixed Deposit Escrow Account prior to obtaining mine opening permission from Coal Controller. Mining company/owners including all Public Sector Undertakings shall deposit the yearly amount in a Scheduled Bank. If the Mine owners fail to deposit the required annual amount in accordance with Para 2.6, 2.7 & 2.8, the Government can withdraw the mining permission.
3. It has been observed that annual mine closure cost (refer para 2 above) has not been deposited for the F.Y. 2023-24 as per the guidelines.
4. In view of the above, this Show Cause Notice has been issued and you are hereby directed to submit your response in writing with supporting documentation within 15 days of receipt of this Notice as to why action including withdrawal of mining permission as per Para 2.15 the Guidelines for Preparation, Formulation, Submission, Processing, Scrutiny, Approval and Revision of Mining Plan for the Coal and Lignite Blocks of MoC circulated vide OM F No. 34011/28/2019- CPAM dated 29.05.2020 should not be taken by the Coal Controller's Organization.. The response may be sent to the following address: -
Coal Controller's Organization 5th Floor, Core-II, Scope Minar Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 [email protected] [email protected]
5. In case no response is received within 15 days of receipt of this notice it shall be deemed that the allocatee has no response to the offer against the notice unless the Competent Authority decides otherwise.
6. This is being issued on behalf of the Competent Authority and with its approval.
Sd/-
Aarti Mahawar (Deputy Director)
11. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company submits that the Final Price Offer is not the premium amount paid for the transfer of a right to enjoy the property. Section 105 of the TP Act which defines lease and talks of premium contemplates one-time payment of price which is known as "Salami" in common parlance and the Final Price Offer which is "defined" under the CMDP Agreement means an amount equal to INR 2438 per tonne of coal and nothing more; and not being one-time payment cannot be labeled as premium. It is submitted that a mining lease holder is required to comply with the conditions under the statutory Form-K and no charge which is not provided 9 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 thereunder or referable to any of the components under Form-K can be levied by the State Government. In short, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner-company is that there is no provision under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, MMDR Act) or the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 mandating payment of stamp duty on the Final Price Offer which has been erroneously labeled as premium amount by the State-authorities.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that the dispute sought to be raised by the State of Jharkhand can be set at rest on a mere look at the provisions under section 26 of the Stamp Act which provides under 1st proviso that in case of the lease of a mine in which royalty or a share of the produce is received as the rent or part of the rent, it shall be sufficient to have estimated the value of stamp duty. The learned counsel submits that it is specifically provided under clause (a) to 1st proviso of section 26 that the Collector may having regard to all the circumstances of the case shall estimate the amount of royalty or share payable to the Government under the lease if the lease is granted by or on behalf of the Government for an amount or a value and, therefore, nothing beyond section 26 can be added for calculating stamp duty in the present case. The learned counsel further submits that the direction contained in the impugned letter dated 15th February 2023 and other communications are illegal and liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction. The provisions under section 26 of the Stamp Act are extracted hereunder:
26. Stamp where value of subject-matter is indeterminate.--Where the amount or value of the subject-matter of any instrument chargeable with ad valorem duty cannot be, or (in the case of an instrument executed before the commencement of this Act) could not have been, ascertained at the date of its execution or first execution, nothing shall be claimable under such instrument more than the highest amount of value for which if stated in an instrument of the same description, the stamp actually used would, at the date of such execution, have been sufficient:
Provided that, in the case of the lease of a mine in which royalty or a share of the produce is received as the rent or part of the rent, it shall be sufficient to have estimated such royalty or the value of such share, for the purpose of stamp duty,--10 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024
(a) when the lease has been granted by or on behalf of the Government, at such amount or value as the Collector may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, have estimated as likely to be payable by way of royalty or share to the Government under the lease, or
(b) when the lease has been granted by any other person, at twenty thousand rupees a year, and the whole amount of such royalty or share, whatever it may be, shall be claimable under such lease:
Provided also that, where proceedings have been taken in respect of an instrument under Section 31 or 41, the amount certified by the Collector shall be deemed to be the stamp actually used at the date of execution.
13. Per contra, the learned Advocate General would submit that the expression Final Price Offer must necessarily be construed as premium amount as defined under section 105 of the TP Act. It is submitted that the mining lease is nothing but a right to carry on mining operations in land to extract a specified mineral and such right shall be a right to enjoy immovable property within the meaning of section 105. The learned Advocate General referred to "Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co." (1979) 3 SCC 106 to support chargeability of stamp duty on the Final Price Offer, that is, the premium amount. The learned Advocate General also referred to the correspondences and the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-company to raise a contention that the petitioner-company had proper notice and it gave the undertaking to pay the stamp duty over the premium amount and, therefore, now it cannot backtrack and deny its liability to pay stamp duty.
14. Under sections 9 and 9-A of the MMDR Act, the holder of the mining lease is required to pay royalty and dead rent. Similarly, the surface rent is payable by the mining lease holder under Rule 27(1)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The underlying principle running through the mining laws is that the control of mines shall always remain with the State and on mere payment of royalty, dead rent, surface rent etc. a mining lease does not assume the character of sale. The lease as indicated under section 105 of the TP Act shall have the following ingredients: (a) there should be a transfer of a right to enjoy an immovable property (b) such transfer may be for a certain term or in perpetuity (c) the transfer should be in consideration of a premium 11 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 or rent and (d) the transfer should be a bilateral transaction. Section 105 of the TP Act brings out a distinction between the price paid for the transfer of a right to enjoy a property and the periodic payment of rent and other payments to the lessor. The price paid is considered as premium or salami only where the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price and not where periodical payments are made by the lessee. In "Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu" a lease of land was granted by a private person for raising and taking sand from inside the land for a period of 9 years for a price fixed on yearly basis irrespective of quantum of sand extracted. The renewal of the lease was stated as "License" and on failure of the lessees to pay the price a suit was filed. The defendants raised a plea that the land had vested in the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and, that, they were tenants and not licensees and had become direct tenants under the State after the date of vesting. What is important to notice in the discussions under paragraph no.37 of the reported judgment is that the respondents therein had a right to be in exclusive khas possession for a specified period and except for the price fixed they were not required to pay any royalty, dead rent, surface rent etc.
15. In "Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu" the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
"37. A right to carry on mining operations in land to extract a specified mineral and to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a "right to enjoy immovable property" within the meaning of Section 105; more so, when -- as in the instant case -- it is coupled with a right to be in its exclusive khas possession for a specified period. The "right to enjoy immovable property" spoken of in Section 105, means the right to enjoy the property in the manner in which that property can be enjoyed. If the subject-matter of the lease is mineral land or a sand-mine, as in the case before us, it can only be enjoyed and occupied by the lessee by working it, as indicated in Section 108, Transfer of Property Act, which regulates the rights and liabilities of lessors and lessees of immovable property."
16. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner- company rightly pointed out that essentially there shall be a distinction in the case of a lease-deed executed by a private person in favor of a private party. The mining lease executed by the State of Jharkhand to the petitioner- company grants only a permission to do mining operations in the leasehold 12 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 area and its possession shall always be partial. Except to that extent, the petitioner-company shall have no right over the leasehold area and that is the reason the petitioner-company is required to pay surface rent only for the mining area under its occupation at a particular point in time, and the surface rent is therefore paid periodically.
17. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is exhaustive and embodies therein the provisions which alone can be taken into consideration for deciding the liability to pay stamps on the instruments chargeable with duty under section 3. The object of the Stamp Act is not to enable the State-authority to make unreasonable demands and its provisions must be construed only as fiscal measures to secure due revenue for the State. Therefore, it must be remembered that a pecuniary burden not backed by law cannot be fastened and considering the implications the provisions under the Stamp Act have to be construed liberally in favor of the citizen. Furthermore, the legislative mandate cannot be subservient to any personal whim or caprice and the provisions under the Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and effect. Therefore, the provisions under the Stamp Act shall prevail over the communications exchanged between the Inspector General of Registration and the Deputy Commissioner. The promise made by a lessee to deposit a specified amount shall not fall within the realm of estoppel if the State of Jharkhand cannot trace a source under the Stamp Act for demanding further payments.
18. The pleadings on behalf of the respondents are hazy and completely contradictory. On the one hand, there is an Audit observation from the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand whereunder stamp duty comes to Rs.8,37,17,520/- on including the Final Price Offer. On the other hand, there is an order of computation of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.85,15,808.48/-. There is also an opinion of the learned Advocate General which has been brought on record in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7 which talks of hearing to the petitioner-company and assessment under section 47-A of the Stamp Act. And now, there is an 13 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 alleged recalculation of stamp duty at Rs. 51,41,47,209/- at the prompting of different authorities. This is also a matter of record that there is no specific denial by the respondents to the stand taken by the petitioner-company that no stamp duty was charged from M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. and M/s J.S.W Steel Ltd which are also granted mining leases after they were declared successful bidders for different coal blocks. Of course, a faint attempt has been made to justify charging of stamp duty from the petitioner-company on the Final Price Offer by giving an example of a lease executed in the Pakur Registration Office, but that is no answer to the plea raised by the petitioner- company that the State-authorities are acting arbitrarily and have adopted a pick and choose method. As to the affidavit filed by the authorized agent of the petitioner-company, we may observe that when the authorities themselves are not clear but rather completely confused the affidavit like the present one shall have no relevance and cannot be enforced against the petitioner- company. The equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India protects a person who has no choice or rather no meaningful choice but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted lines howsoever unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable the demand may be.
19. This is recorded in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7 that the petitioner-company objected to the subsequent demand for payment of stamp duty of Rs. 51,41,47,209/- but no hearing was given to the petitioner-company and there was no adjudication by the competent authority under the Stamp Act in this regard. Still, a direction was issued to the petitioner-company to make payment of Rs. 51,41,47,209/- as stamp duty for execution of the mining lease for Lohari Coal Mines and to further coerce it the District Mining Officer issued a restraining order prohibiting the mining operations at Lohari Coal Mines till the time the aforementioned amount of stamp duty is paid by it. Quite obviously, the affidavit filed by the petitioner-company which does not have equal bargaining powers cannot be enforced against it. The public policy is not a policy of a particular authority or the particular government and it connotes 14 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024 some matters in concern with public good and in public interest. The declaration under section 2 of the MMDR Act that the Central Government alone can deal with major minerals is the mandate of the Parliament and, in fact, the Nominated Authority wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand on 8th April 2024 for allowing the petitioner- company to commence mining operations as per the mining lease executed on 30th December 2022.
20. In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the rival submissions and the contentious issues raised by the petitioner-company challenging the jurisdiction of the statutory Authority to force it to pay Rs. 51,41,47,209/- on the alleged recalculation of stamp duty after including the Final Price Offer as the premium amount, a serious issue in law arises whether the impugned orders can be sustained which were passed in breach of natural justice. The answer must come in an emphatic "no". It is widely recognized that natural justice is another name for common sense justice. By now this is quite a settled proposition in law that any administrative order which ensues serious civil and financial consequences to the citizen must pass the test of fairness and reasonableness and cannot be made without an effective opportunity of hearing to the affected party. The rules of natural justice are followed even in cases where the statute does not make a provision for a hearing before passing an order. In "Canara Bank v. Debasis Das"
(2003) 4 SCC 557 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that natural justice is another name of common-sense justice and are not codified canons but they are principles ingrained into the conscience of men.
21. For the foregoing reasons, the further demand for paying stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 51,41,47,209/- is declared illegal. The communications dated 8th February 2023 and 15th February 2023 are also held illegal and, therefore, quashed. Now in the changed circumstances, the show- cause notice dated 16th April 2024 cannot proceed further and is accordingly quashed.
22. In compliance of the order dated 16th May 2024, the petitioner-
15 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024company has filed an affidavit dated 13th June 2024 providing details of the compliances secured by it. The petitioner-company shall be at liberty to commence the mining operations at Lohari Coal Mines forthwith if it has obtained statutory clearances for doing so.
23. WP(C) No. 1909 of 2024 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated:28th June 2024 R.K./Sudhir/Amit/Tanuj .A.F.R 16 W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2024