Jharkhand High Court
Hindalco Industries Limited vs State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated.
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey, resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Union of India,
Shastri Bhawan, P.O and PS Shastri Bhawan, District
New Delhi.
6. Gaurav Singh, S/o Late Sripati Singh, R/o - Belwatika,
P.O. & P.S.-Daltanganj Town Dist-Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4213 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
1
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medíninagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Jageshwar Sao son of Late Devki Sao, resident of Village
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4214 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 through its
authorized Signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey, resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
2
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Naresh Sao son of Late Dhanu Sao, resident of Village -
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4215 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,.
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Basdev Sao son of Bhuneshwar Sao, resident of Village -
Kathautia, P.O. Naudiha, P.S. Pandwa, District
Palamau. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4216 of 2022
-----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
3
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Mandeep Sao son of Bhuneshwar Sao, resident of Village
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4217 of 2022
----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
4
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
5. Kamesh Sao son of Late Devki Sao, resident of Village -
Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No.4218 of 2022
----
Hindalco Industries Limited, a Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at Ahura Centre, 1st Floor, B Wing, Mahakali Caves
Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093 through its
authorized signatory Vijay Kant Dubey, aged about 43
years, S/o Sri Ganesh Dubey resident of Vasundhara Mega
Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO and PS Argora,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand, having its office at
Vasundhara Mega Mart, 2nd Floor, Near Argora Chowk, PO
and PS Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S
Jagganathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at
Nepal House, P. O. Doranda, P. S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Medinagar, Palamu, P.O Sadar,
P.S Medininagar, District, Daltonganj, Jharkhand.
5. Bishun Sao son of Late Nanhak Sao, resident of Village
-Kathautia, P.O Naudiha, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
: Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C. to A.G.
: Mr. Raunak Sahay, AC to G.P.-V
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
------
5
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
C.A.V. on 26.08.2025 Pronounced on 23/09/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. All the writ petitions are having the same issues and similar facts are involved and, as such, have been directed to be heard together.
2. Accordingly, the cases have been listed today for analogous hearing which have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of following reliefs :-
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2022 "(1) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus to the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamu, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over Raiyati land admeasuring 1257.19 Acres mentioned in the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines executed in favour of Hindalco Industries Limited.
AND
(ii) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus to Respondent No. 5, the Nominated Authority, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, to handover possession to the Petitioner of the Rayati Land admeasuring 1257.19 Acres comprised in the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines executed in favour of the Petitioner and undertake requisite procedure under Sections 14 and 6 2025:JHHC:29694-DB 17 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4213 of 2022 "(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.02 acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau, under Khata No. 23 and 57, plot no. 2366, 2404 and Others, from the previous land owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Jageshwar Saw S/O Late Devki Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines." Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4214 of 2022 "(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.98 acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau, under Khata No. 175 and 154, plot no. 2365, 2338 and Others, from the previous land owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Naresh Saw S/O Late Dhanu Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines." Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4215 of 2022 "(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of 7 2025:JHHC:29694-DB mandamus directing the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the physical possession of the land admeasuring 2.629444 acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau, under Khata No. 154 and 175, plot no. 2438, 2365 and Others, from the previous land owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Basdev Saw S/O Bhuneshwar Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4216 of 2022 "(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the physical possession of the land admeasuring 2.629444 acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau, under Khata No. 154 and 175, plot no. 2438, 2365 and Others, from the previous land owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Mandeep Saw S/O Bhuneshwar Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines."
Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4217 of 2022 "(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the 8 2025:JHHC:29694-DB physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.02 acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau, under Khata No. 23 and 57, plot no. 2366, 2404 and Others, from the previous land owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Kamesh Saw S/O Late Devki Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines." Prayer made in W.P.(C) No.4218 of 2022 "(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) /direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Commissioner, District Palamau, Jharkhand, to expeditiously hand over the physical possession of the land admeasuring 5.0175 acres situated within the mining lease area of Kathautia Coal Mine located at Village Kathautia, P.S Pandwa, District Palamau, under Khata No. 51 and 286, plot no. 2363, 2368 and Others, from the previous land owner, Respondent No. 5 herein namely Bishun Saw S/O Late Nanhak Saw in respect of the Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 executed in favour of Petitioner Hindalco Industries Limited in respect of Kathautia Coal Mines." Factual Matrix
4. Since facts of all the aforesaid writ petitions are almost similar, therefore, the facts of lead case, i.e., W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2022 are being referred herein :-
In December 2014, the Union of India and the Nominated Authority constituted by the Central Government under the CMSP Act issued Order dated 18.12.2014 under Rule 8(2) of the Rules for the auction of 9 2025:JHHC:29694-DB such de-allocated coal mines including open cast underground Coal Mine covering an area of 938.27 Ha situated at Kathautia, Daltonganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand ("Kathautia Coal Mine"). Tender document dated 27.12.2014 was subsequently issued by the Nominated Authority constituted by the Central Government under the CMSP Act.
5. Pursuant to placing its bid for the Kathuatia coal mine, the Petitioner was declared the successful bidder and became entitled to enter into an agreement with the Nominated Authority constituted by the Central Government under the CMSP Act, 2015 in terms of Rule 13(5) of the CMSP Rules, 2014. Accordingly, on 02.03.2015, the Petitioner entered into a Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement ("CMDPA") with the President of India (acting through the Nominated Authority constituted by the Central Government under the CMSP Act).
6. In terms of Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA, the Petitioner furnished inter-alia, a Performance Security as a "Vesting Condition" in the form of an irrevocable and unconditional revolving Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2,67,88,80,000/- (two hundred and sixty-seven crores eighty-eight lakhs and eighty thousand only) dated 18.03.2015 in favour of Respondent No. 5 calculated on the basis of estimated one year royalty payable to the State Government on the basis 10 2025:JHHC:29694-DB of peak rated capacity of the Coal mine as per the approved mining plan.
7. Further, the Petitioner also paid an amount of. Rs. 54,77,48,668/- (Rupees Fifty Four Crores Seventy Seven Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) as 'Upfront Amount' under Clause 3.1 and 5.2 of the CMDPA and an amount of Rs. 32,13,02,288 (Rupees Thirty two crores thirteen lacs two thousand two hundred and eighty eight only) as 'Fixed Amount' under Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA for inter-alia, value of Land and Mine Infrastructure, cost of preparation of geological report borne by the Prior Allottee, cost of obtaining all statutory licenses, permits, permissions, approvals, clearances or consents relevant to the mining operations, borne by the Prior Allottee, and Transaction Expense.
8. After the Petitioner had complied with all Vesting Conditions, the Central Government vested the Kathautia coal mine along with the coal bearing areas contained therein upon the Petitioner by way of the Vesting Order bearing no. 104/3/2015/NA dated 23.03.2015 ("Vesting Order") issued by the Respondent No. 5.
9. Thereafter vide letter dated 10.04.2015, the Petitioner addressed Application under Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ("MCR, 1960") to the Secretary (Mines & Geology) Government of Jharkhand 11 2025:JHHC:29694-DB ("Respondent No. 2") through the concerned Deputy Commissioner cum District Mining Officer (District Palamu) ("Respondent No. 4") for grant of Mining Lease.
10. On 27.07.2015 and after much delay, the Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand ("Respondent No. 3") issued order for grant of mining lease to the Petitioner.
11. Despite the Petitioner's persistent efforts, the execution of the mining lease was further delayed and was finally registered on 07.10.2016 ("Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016") for reasons entirely attributable to the Respondents.
12. The Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 was executed in the favour of the Petitioner in respect of Kathautia Coal Mine for an area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres. The Mining Lease area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres consists of the following land types:-
Type of Land Area
Government Land 98.53 Acres
Raiyat Land 1257.19 Acres
Alleged Jungle Jhari Land 344.16 Acres
13. Since the Prior Allottee had already initiated proceedings under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 ("CNT Act"), for seeking the transfer of occupancy-holding in order to undertake mining operations at the Kathautia 12 2025:JHHC:29694-DB Coal Mines, the Petitioner continued with the same for seeking the transfer of Raiyat Land admeasuring 1257.19 Acres and the same were undertaken during the period October 2016 to August 2020. However, the proceedings have not reached a logical conclusion, thereby causing undue hardships and delays for the Petitioner.
14. The petitioner states that the surface rights over the land in question is included in the concept of mine for the reason that if the surface in question does not form part of the concept of mine it is not possible to have any excavation. The land in question that are all included in the mining lease deed and hence it is beyond any doubt that the petitioner must have access over these lands in order to exploit the minerals which are lying underneath the surface of these lands.
15. The petitioner states that it is the duty of the respondents herein to ensure that the petitioner has access over these lands to win the minerals. Reciprocal obligation has been imposed upon the petitioner achieve certain milestones within the time stipulated by the central government feeling which huge penalty has been imposed on the petitioner and in the future also the petitioner will be saddled with substantial financial liability without there being any fault on its part.
13
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
16. The petitioner purchased these lands from the private respondent only because the land were included in the mining lease deed. The coal block in question has been allocated to the petitioner in terms of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. The mining area and the leased area are not determined by the petitioner rather are decided by the respondents and in order to facilitate the mining operations the petitioner by expending a substantial sum of money purchased the land in question. The petitioner has no mechanism to take steps to evict the private respondents from the land in question and having regard to the nature of operations involved in mining activities, the respondent State cannot be a mute spectator. Once the area is covered under a mining lease, which is a statutory lease, the State cannot be said to be powerless to ensure that the area is used for the purpose for which the lease is granted. The mining lease is granted for a specified period and the entire period must be available to the lessee to win the minerals covered thereunder and for mining operations.
17. Despite the passage of over seven years since the Kathautia Coal Mine was vested upon the Petitioner, only an area of 398.12 Acres is in possession of the Petitioner pursuant to direct purchase by the Petitioner, of the total Raiyat Land admeasuring 1257.19 Acres. It is pertinent to 14 2025:JHHC:29694-DB note that an area admeasuring 859.07 Acres (out of the total Raiyati Land area of 1257.12 Acres) is still inaccessible to the Petitioner, despite the Petitioner not only adopting the proceedings under CNT Act but also incurring huge expenditure.
18. Further, possession of the Raiyati Land admeasuring 1257.19 acres comprised in the Mining Lease for the Kathautia Coal Mine is also yet to be handed over to the Petitioner.
19. Petitioner holds certain rights and obligations under the CMDPA, including the right to produce coal from the Kathuatia Coal Mine for captive use in the specified power plants as well as the obligation to produce upto 0.8 MT per annum from the Kathautia coal mine as per the production schedule fixed under the Mining Plan. That failure to discharge such obligation results in penalty in the form of appropriation of performance bank guarantee entrusted by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 5.
20. Paradoxically, despite having itself failed to handover possession of the coal bearing land comprised in the Mining Lease for the Kathautia Coal Mine, the Central Government has illegally penalised the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 53,57,76,000 and Rs. 64,29,31,200, under appropriation notices dated 25.04.2018 and 25.03.2019 respectively. The Petitioner has been constrained to 15 2025:JHHC:29694-DB challenge the notices dated 25.04.2018 and 25.03.2019 before the Part Time Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 by way of C.B.C Case Nos. 7 of 2018 and 11 of 2019, respectively which are pending.
21. Since over seven years have passed since the vesting of the Kathautia Coal Mine upon the Petitioner, yet the Petitioner has not been handed over possession of the majority of the coal bearing land comprised therein, the Petitioner addressed an application bearing no. HIL/KOCCM/LAND/2022/29 dated 04.05.2022 under Rule 72 of the MCR, 1960 to the Respondent No. 2 ("Application dated 04.05.2022") inter alia praying for the following reliefs:
(i) Handover surface rights over the government land specified in para 3 above to HIL;
(ii) Determine the annual compensation payable for surface rights with respect to the raiyat land specified in para 3 above and after taking deposit of the compensation amount facilitate handover of possession of the said land to HIL.
22. When no action was taken on the Petitioner's Application dated 04.05.2022, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 16
2025:JHHC:29694-DB Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
23. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the passage of over nine years since the Kathautia Coal Mine was vested upon the Petitioner, only an area of 398.12 Acres is in possession of the Petitioner pursuant to direct purchase by the Petitioner, of the total Raiyat Land admeasuring 1257.19 Acres. An area admeasuring 859.07 Acres (out of the total Raiyati Land area of 1257.12 Acres) is still inaccessible to the Petitioner.
24. The writ petitioners have tried to utilize the land for the purpose of mining operation but serious interruption has been caused by the raiyats, the owners of the lands in question, due to which the lands have not been utilized for the purpose of mining operations.
25. The Petitioner addressed an application dated 04.05.2022 to the Respondent No. 2 inter alia praying therein to handover surface rights over the government land to HIL and to determine the annual compensation payable for surface rights with respect to the raiyat land and after taking deposit of the compensation amount facilitate handover of possession of the said land to HIL. Hence, the State is duty bound to provide free access to the lands in question for the purpose of mining operation but 17 2025:JHHC:29694-DB the State has not taken any endeavour so as to allow the writ petitioners to carry out the mining lease.
26. The petitioners have taken the ground that so far as the grievance of the petitioner which pertains to the compensation and other allied benefits is concerned, the petitioner company is only liable to compensate the owners of the lands in view of the provision or Rule 72 and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rule, 1960").
27. It has been contended that the CMSP Act, 2015 also cast liability upon the State Government to allow the writ petitioner to carry out the mining operation, as would be evident from the provision of Section 8, particularly 8(4)(a) wherein it has been provided that vesting order shall transfer and vest upon the successful bidder all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee, in Schedule I coal mine concerned with the relevant auction and, therefore, the writ petitioner herein, by virtue of vesting of the rights, which has been utilized by the prior allottee, cannot be compelled to make payment of compensation deviating from the provision as provided under Rule 72 and 73 of the Rule, 1960.
28. The reference of the provision of Section 8(7) and 8(8) of the CMSP Act, 2015 has also been made wherein it has been provided that after the issuance of a vesting order 18 2025:JHHC:29694-DB under Section 8 and its filing with the Central Government and with the appropriate authority designated by the respective State Government, the successful bidder shall be entitled to take possession of the Schedule I coal mine without let or hindrance. While Section 8(8) thereof provides that upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
29. The learned counsel, therefore, has made submission that it is the accountability of the State Government to execute the vesting order in accordance with M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 but the State Government, instead of doing so, is insisting upon the writ petitioner to utilize their land by seeking permission as required under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
30. It has been contended that the provision of C.N.T. Act, 1908 as available under Section 49 will not be applied in the matter of execution of right vested under the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 in view of the provision of Section 8(8) of CMSP Act, 2015.
31. The ground has been taken to substantiate the argument that the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 is a self-content 19 2025:JHHC:29694-DB code and the same since is applicable in view of the mandate of the CMSP Act, 2015, it has got overriding effect upon the other statutory provisions as provided under Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015.
32. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the provision provided under Rule 72 and 73 of the Rule, 1960, the writ petitioners are willing to pay compensation at the stage as provided as also will restore the land after reclaiming the same after conclusion of the mining operation. As such, since the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 is to be read along with the CMSP Act, 2015, there is no scope of applicability of the provisions of C.N.T. Act, 1908 in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015 which has got overriding effect upon all the statutes. Submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-State
33. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, has submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit filed that the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 or the CMSP Act, 2015 have been enacted but the question herein is of the transfer of land of the raiyats by way of lease who belong to SC/ST community and, as such, the tenancy law since is applicable in the area, will have its force.
34. It has been contended by referring to Section 46, 47 and 48 read with Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 that 20 2025:JHHC:29694-DB there is bar in transfer of the land by any means even by way of lease which would be evident from the provision of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 wherein for the limited purposes the land is to be transferred, i.e., for the purpose of industry or the mining operation but subject to satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner or adequate compensation to be paid in favour of the raiyats.
35. The question herein which requires consideration is that when the tenancy law is holding in the region, then the applicability of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 read with CMSP Act, 2015 can be allowed to be operated without giving any adherence to the tenancy Act.
36. The argument has been advanced that it is not a question to have the overriding effect of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, rather, the question herein is of harmonious construction of the provisions of the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957, the CMSP Act, 2015 and the C.N.T. Act, 1908. It is for the reason that the mining operation is to be carried out by the mining operators to extract the natural resources but that does not mean that the same is to be allowed at the cost of the tribal/raiyat, rather, for the purpose of carrying out the mining operation, due adherence is to be given to the tenancy laws also. Therefore, the provision as provided under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 is required to be followed by the lease holders which has been enacted for 21 2025:JHHC:29694-DB the purpose of benefit to the raiyats by making adequate compensation before granting permission by the Deputy Commissioner.
37. The said fact has also been stated by the State in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit that the State is regularly granting permission under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 in favour of the writ petitioner and as on date, almost 400 acres of raiyati land out of 1257.19 acres, has been granted. The said statement has not been refuted, meaning thereby, the writ petitioner is also adhering to the statutory mandate as conferred under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908. But, here the contrary stand is being taken.
38. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that it is not the case of inconsistency in any of the legal provisions, rather, it is a case where the object of the benevolence provisions enacted by enacting the C.N.T. Act, 1908 is also to be adhered to and once it has been admitted for part of the land, then there cannot be two different parameters for rest of the lands.
39. The contention has been raised that the writ petitioner had been impleaded as Respondent No.8 in writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 and Batch cases as also and W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 and Batch cases. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 22 2025:JHHC:29694-DB 05.03.2020 and 03.03.2020 respectively by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner for redressal of grievance.
40. The Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on the representation filed on behalf of the raiyats in a full- fledged proceeding being Misc. Case No.45/2020-21, in which the writ petitioner had also participated and in their presence an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner as has been brought on record in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of newly impleaded respondent.
41. It has been contended that though the writ petitioner was party to the proceeding arising out of W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 & Batch cases/W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 & Batch cases and Misc. Case No.45/2020-21, but the aforesaid fact has not been brought to the notice in the writ petition, rather, the same has been brought to the notice by the newly impleaded respondent.
42. The contention, therefore, has been raised that since the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in a proceeding drawn on the basis of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 05.03.2020 and 03.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 & Batch cases and W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 & Batch cases respectively wherein the restriction has been imposed that without having permission of the Deputy 23 2025:JHHC:29694-DB Commissioner as required under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, no mining operation is to be carried out, has not been challenged and in absence thereof, no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner. Submission made on behalf of newly impleaded respondent
43. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel, has appeared for the newly impleaded respondent who has been impleaded on the strength of the order passed in interlocutory application filed for intervention being I.A. No.5391 of 2023 which was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2023 passed in this proceeding.
44. The contention has been raised that the raiyats are making opposition based upon the fact that the land was earlier acquired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but subsequently it was denotified and in consequence thereof, the land has again been restored in favour of the raiyats. The said notification has come on the basis of the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5749 of 2012 and Batch cases.
45. The contention has been raised that the writ petitioners, therefore, are having two options, first either to acquire the land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or after having permission as 24 2025:JHHC:29694-DB required under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 subject to satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance to the provision as contained under Section 49(4) of the C.N.T. Act, 1908. But, the writ petitioners are not intending either to go for the acquisition mechanism by making requisition to the State Government for the purpose of adequate compensation/rehabilitation or willing to comply with the direction passed by the Deputy Commissioner for making adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner as per the provisions under Section 49(4) of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 and straightaway intends to utilize the land by taking aid of Rule 72 and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
46. Learned counsel has taken the ground that Rule 72 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 although speaks for payment of compensation to owner of surface right vis-à- vis the compensation for damage but it is to be taken into consideration in the light of the provisions as contained under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 since the tenancy law is operating in the area.
47. The submission has also been made that the land of the raiyats are being used and the nature of the land is being changed by carrying out the mining operation and herein the issues have been raised that it is being reclaimed for restoration of the land in favour of the raiyats but the 25 2025:JHHC:29694-DB question herein is if the entire area will be dug-out for the purpose of mining operation, then what will be the use of the land for the raiyats which cannot be utilized for the agricultural purposes for which the protection has been granted under the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
48. The question has also been raised that in no case the nature of land is to be changed, however, in view of the exception carved out by virtue of amendment in Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, the land can be leased out for the purpose of mining operation but subject to payment of adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner.
49. Learned counsel, in addition to the aforesaid, has adopted the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General.
Response of the learned counsel for the petitioner
50. Mr. Indrajit Sina, learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent, has submitted that it is totally incorrect notion and only for the interest of the tribal, the law holding the field for the purpose of carrying out the mining operation as available under the M.M.D.R. act, 1957 or Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and CMSP Act, 2015 cannot be allowed to be frustrated.
26
2025:JHHC:29694-DB Consideration
51. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder filed thereto.
52. It is evident from the factual aspect that the Petitioner was declared the successful bidder for the Kathuatia coal mine and accordingly, on 02.03.2015, the Petitioner entered into a Coal Mine Development and Production Agreement ("CMDPA").
53. In terms of Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA, the Petitioner furnished inter-alia, a Performance Security as a "Vesting Condition" in the form of an irrevocable and unconditional revolving Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2,67,88,80,000/- in favour of Respondent No. 5 calculated on the basis of estimated one year royalty payable to the State Government on the basis of peak rated capacity of the Coal mine as per the approved mining plan.
54. Further, the Petitioner also paid an amount of. Rs. 54,77,48,668/- as 'Upfront Amount' under Clause 3.1 and 5.2 of the CMDPA and an amount of Rs. 32,13,02,288 as 'Fixed Amount' under Clause 3.1 of the CMDPA for inter- alia, value of Land and Mine Infrastructure, cost of preparation of geological report borne by the Prior Allottee, cost of obtaining all statutory licenses, permits, 27 2025:JHHC:29694-DB permissions, approvals, clearances or consents relevant to the mining operations, borne by the Prior Allottee, and Transaction Expense.
55. After the Petitioner had complied with all Vesting Conditions, the Central Government vested the Kathautia coal mine along with the coal bearing areas contained therein upon the Petitioner.
56. On 27.07.2015, the Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand issued order for grant of mining lease to the Petitioner which was finally registered on 07.10.2016.
57. The Mining Lease dated 07.10.2016 was executed in the favour of the Petitioner in respect of Kathautia Coal Mine for an area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres. The Mining Lease area of 687.92 Hectares or 1699.88 Acres.
58. The issues have been raised in all these writ petitions that the lands in question belong to the raiyats and have been allotted in favour of the erstwhile lease holder but after the judgment having been delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principle Secretary & Others, (2014) 9 SCC 516, the lease granted in favour of the lease holders deemed to be cancelled and the allotment since was to be made by way of auction, hence, the rule has been formulated known as Coal Mines (Special provisions) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred to as "CMSP Act, 2015").
28
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
59. The present allottees, the writ petitioners herein, being successful bidder, has been granted in their favour, the lease to carry out the mining operation over the lands in question.
60. The questions which have been raised and which are to be considered by this Court based upon the pleading and the arguments are -
(i) Whether the provisions of tenancy law enacted by way of C.N.T. Act, 1908 can be given go bye for the purpose of carrying out mining operation as per the allotment made under the CMSP Act, 2015?
(ii) Whether the provision as carved out under Rule 72 and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 will operate for the purpose of carrying out the mining operation over and above the provision of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908?
(iii) Whether the duty which has been commanded to the Deputy Commissioner to look into the interest of the Tribal of the Schedule/non-Schedule area as per the protection granted under C.N.T. Act, 1908, can it be allowed to be frustrated at the cost of the interest of the raiyats and for the purpose of benefit to be given to the mining operators without making any adequate compensation as per the satisfaction of the Deputy 29 2025:JHHC:29694-DB Commissioner as required under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
61. All the issues are interlinked and, as such, are being taken into consideration together. But, before considering the aforesaid issues and before adverting to the factual aspects, the underlying objects of the CMSP Act, 2015, the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 and the C.N.T. Act, 1908 are required to be referred herein.
62. The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 has been enacted to provide for allocation of coal mines and vesting of the right, title and interest in and over the land and mine infrastructure together with mining leases to successful bidders and allottees with a view to ensure continuity in coal mining operations and production of coal, and for promoting optimum utilisation of coal resources consistent with the requirement of the country in national interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
63. The nominated authority has been conferred with the power to notify the prior allottee of Schedule I coal mines to enable them to furnish information required for notifying the particulars of Schedule I coal mines to be auctioned in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. The same is provided under Section 8(4) thereof wherein it has been stipulated that the vesting order shall 30 2025:JHHC:29694-DB transfer and vest upon the successful bidder, the following, namely:-
"(a) all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee, in Schedule I coal mine concerned with the relevant auction;
(b) entitlement to a prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease, as the case may be to be granted by the State Government;
(c) any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent required to undertake coal mining operations in Schedule I coal mines if already issued to the prior allottee;
(d) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior allottee;
(e) any right, entitlement or interest not specifically covered under clauses (a) to (d)."
64. Sub-section (7) thereof provides after the issuance of a vesting order under this section and its filing with the Central Government and with the appropriate authority designated by the respective State Governments, the successful bidder shall be entitled to take possession of the Schedule I coal mine without let or hindrance.
65. Sub-section (8) provides that upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
66. For ready reference, Section 8 with relevant sub- sections of the Act 2015 is being referred as under: - 31
2025:JHHC:29694-DB "8. Nominated authority to issue vesting order or allotment order.--(1) The nominated authority shall notify the prior allottees of Schedule I coal mines to enable them to furnish information required for notifying the particulars of Schedule I coal mines to be auctioned in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.
(2) The information required to be furnished under sub- section (1) shall be furnished within a period of fifteen days from the date of such notice.
(3) A successful bidder in an auction conducted on a competitive basis in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed, shall be entitled to the vesting of Schedule I coal mine for which it bid, pursuant to a vesting order drawn up in accordance with such rules.
(4) The vesting order shall transfer and vest upon the successful bidder, the following, namely:-
(a) all the rights, title and interest of the prior allottee, in Schedule I coal mine concerned with the relevant auction;
(b) entitlement to a prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence-cum-mining lease, as the case may be to be granted by the State Government;
(c) any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent required to undertake coal mining operations in Schedule I coal mines if already issued to the prior allottee;
(d) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior allottee;
(e) any right, entitlement or interest not specifically covered under clauses (a) to (d).
(5) The nominated authority shall, in consultation with the Central Government, determine the floor price or reserve price in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed. (6) The successful bidder shall, prior to the issuance and execution of a vesting order, furnish a performance bank guarantee for an amount as notified in relation to Schedule I coal mine auctioned to such bidder within such time, form and manner as may be prescribed.32
2025:JHHC:29694-DB (7) After the issuance of a vesting order under this section and its filing with the Central Government and with the appropriate authority designated by the respective State Governments, the successful bidder shall be entitled to take possession of the Schedule I coal mine without let or hindrance.
(8) Upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence- cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957).
(9) ... ... ...
(10) ... ... ...
(11) ... ... ...
(12) ... ... ...
(13) ... ... ...
(14) ... ... ...
(15) ... ... ...
67. Further, Section 21 provides that all existing land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in relation to Schedule I coal mines, shall continue in respect of such areas of land in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, for ready reference, Section 21 is being referred herein:-
"21. Acquisition of land.--(1) All existing land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), in relation to Schedule I coal mines, shall continue in respect of such areas of land in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.33
2025:JHHC:29694-DB (2) All such areas of land which are not subject matter of land acquisition proceedings, in relation to the coal mines, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), may be proceeded with by the Central Government in terms of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).
(3) The State Governments which have initiated land acquisition proceedings under provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), and all such lands which are also subject matter of the said Act in respect of Schedule I coal mines, shall-
(a) not transfer any land to the prior allottees which have been acquired under the said Act;
(b) continue the land acquisition proceedings till the appointed date;
(c) for such Schedule I coal mines which have not vested in the successful bidder or the allottee, as the case may be, by the appointed date, continue the land acquisition proceedings for and on behalf of the Central Government;
(d) upon the vesting or the allotment, as the case may be, after the appointed date, continue such land acquisition proceedings on behalf of the successful bidder or the allottee."
68. Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law, for ready reference, Section 29 is being referred herein :-
"29. Act to have overriding effect.--The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in 34 2025:JHHC:29694-DB force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law."
69. It needs to refer herein the core object of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals in India under the control of the Union Government.
70. The reference of the provisions of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 also need to be made in view of the fact that the same has been referred to be made applicable under Section 8(8) of the CMSP Act, 2015 wherein it has been stipulated that upon the execution of the vesting order, the successful bidder of the Schedule I coal mine shall be granted prospecting licence, mining lease or prospecting licence- cum-mining lease as applicable, by the concerned State Government in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
71. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has been enacted and in the year 1960 the Mineral Concession Rules has been formulated.
72. The said Rule contains a provision under Rule 72 and 73 under Chapter-X which provides therein the payment of compensation to owner of surface rights. It is stipulated therein that the holder of a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease shall be liable 35 2025:JHHC:29694-DB to pay to the occupier of the surface of the land over which he holds the reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease as the case may be, such annual compensation as may be determined by an officer appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the manner provided in sub-rules (2) to (4), for ready reference, Rule 72 is being referred herein :-
"72. Payment of compensation to owner of surface rights etc. - (1) The holder of a reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease shall be liable to pay to the occupier of the surface of the land over which he holds the reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease as the case may be, such annual compensation as may be determined by an officer appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf in the manner provided in sub-rules (2) to (4).
(2) In the case of agricultural land, the amount of annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of the average annual net income from the cultivation of similar land for the previous three years.
(3) In the case of non-agricultural land, the amount of annual compensation shall be worked out on the basis of average annual letting value of similar land for the previous three years.
(4) The annual compensation referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be payable on or before such date as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf.
73. Rule 73 of Rule 1960 thereof contains the provision for assessment of compensation for damage. It has been stipulated therein that after the termination of a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease, the State Government shall assess the damage, if 36 2025:JHHC:29694-DB any, done to the land by the reconnaissance or prospecting or mining operations and shall determine the amount of compensation payable by the permit holder or licensee or the lessee as the case may be to the occupier of the surface land. Further, every such assessment shall be made within a period of one year from the date of termination of the reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease and shall be carried out by an officer appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf, for ready reference, Rule 73 is being quoted hereunder as :-
"73. Assessment of compensation for damage. - (1) After the termination of a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease, the State Government shall assess the damage, if any, done to the land by the reconnaissance or prospecting or mining operations and shall determine the amount of compensation payable by the permit holder or licensee or the lessee as the case may be to the occupier of the surface land;
(2) Every such assessment shall be made within a period of one year from the date of termination of the [reconnaissance permit or prospecting licence or mining lease] and shall be carried out by an officer appointed by the State Government by notification in this behalf."
74. It requires to refer herein that the primary objective of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act of 1908 is to protect the land rights of the indigenous and tribal populations of the Chota Nagpur region, primarily.
75. The provisions of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 also need to be referred herein.
37
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
76. It is evident from the provision of C.N.T. Act, 1908, after going through all the statutory provisions together, that there are restrictions imposed in the transfer of the land either by way of lease or any mode of transfer. The relevant provision is Section 46 which is being referred herein :-
"46. Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat. - (1) No transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof,-
(a) by mortgagte or lease for any period expressed or implied which exceeds or might in any possible event exceed five years, or
(b) by sale, gift or any other contract or agreement, shall be valid to any extent:
Provided that a Raiyat may enter into a 'bhugut bundha' mortgage of his holding or any portion thereof for any period not exceeding seven years or if the mortgagee be a society registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (B&O Act VI of 1935) for any period not exceeding fifteen years:] Provided further that,-
(a) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is [a member of the Scheduled Tribes] may transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift or will to [another person, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and], who is a resident within the local limits of the area of the police station within which the holding is situate;
(b) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the [Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes] may transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift, 38 2025:JHHC:29694-DB will or lease to another person, who is a member of the [Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, Backward Classes] and who is a resident within the local limits of the district within which the holding is situate;
(c) any occupancy-Raiyat may, transfer his right in his holding or any portion thereof to a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), or to the State Bank of India or a bank specified in column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) or to a company or a corporation owned by, or in which less than fifty-one per cent of the share capital is held by the State Government or the Central Government or partly by the State Government, and partly by the Central Government, and which has been set up with a view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators; and
(d) any occupancy-Raiyat, who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or Backward classes, may, transfer his right in his holding or any portion thereof by sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or otherwise to any other person.
(2) A transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof under subsection (1) shall be binding on the landlords.
(3) No transfer of contravention of sub-section (1), shall be registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court, whatever in exercise, of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction.
[(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature relating to 39 2025:JHHC:29694-DB any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suits is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and the other party is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes.] (4) At any time within three years after the expiration of the period or which a Raiyat has under clause (a) of sub-section (1) transferred his right in his holding or any portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall on the application of the Raiyat put the Raiyat into possession of such holding or portion in the prescribed manner.
(4-A) (a) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application filed before him by an occupancy- Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes, for annulling the transfer on the ground that the transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner to determine if the transfer has been made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1):
Provided that no such application be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner unless it is filed by the occupancy-tenant within a period of twelve years from the date of transfer of his holding or any portion thereof:
Provided further that before passing any order under clause (b) or clause (c) of this subsection, the Deputy Commissioner shall give the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter.
(b) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that there was no contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-
section (1) in making such transfer, he shall reject the application and may award such costs to the transferee to be paid by the transferor as he may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit.
(c) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that such transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), he shall annul the transfer and eject the transferee from such holding or portion thereof, 40 2025:JHHC:29694-DB as the case may be and put the transferor in possession thereof:
Provided that if the transferee has constructed any building or structure, such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same within a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed:
Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before the commencement of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969 (President's Act 4 of 1969) he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, validate such a transfer made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), if the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion of a holding, as the case may be, of the equivalent value, in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor.
Explanation. - In this Section "substantial structure or building" means the structure or building of the value exceeding five thousand rupees on the date of holding inquiry, but it does not include such structure or building of any value the materials of which cannot be removed without incurring substantial depreciation in its value. (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the validity of any transfer (of otherwise invalid) of a Raiyats right in his holding or any portion thereof made bona fide before the first day of January 1908 in the Chota Nagpur Division except the district of 'Manbhum', or before the first day of January 1909, in the district of 'Manbhum'.
(6) In this Section [and in Section 47,-41
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
(a) "Scheduled Castes" means such castes, races or tribes as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950;
(b) "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; and
(c) "Backward classed" means such classes of citizens as may be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be socially and educationally backward."
77. Section 49 of the Act 1908 also needs to be referred herein which contains five sub-sections. It is evident from the provisions of Section 49 that for the limited purposes the land can be transferred notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 46, 47 and 48 and in such eventuality, the transferee in such cases shall not be entitled to use the land so transferred for any other purpose except for which it was transferred. But, before consenting to any such transfer, the Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself that adequate compensation is tendered to landlord for the loss (if any) caused to him by the transfer, and, where only part of a holding or tenure is transferred, may, if he thinks fit, apportion; between the transferee and the original tenant the rent payable for the holding or tenure, for ready reference Section 49 is being referred herein :-
"49. Transfer of occupancy-holding or Bhuinhari-Tenure for certain purposes - [(1) Notwithstanding anything 42 2025:JHHC:29694-DB contained in Sections 46, 47 and 48 any occupancy Raiyat or any member of a Bhuinhari family, who is referred to in Section 48 may transfer his holding or tenure or any part thereof for the following purposes,-
(a) in any case, the use of the land for any industrial purposes or for any other purposes which the State Government may, by ratification declare to be subsidiary thereto or for access to land used or required for any such purpose.
(b) in any case, the use of the land for the purpose of mining or for any other purposes which the State Government may, by notification, declare to be subsidiary thereto or for access to land used or required for any such purpose.
(2) The transferee in such cases shall not be entitled to use the land so transferred for any other purpose except for which it was transferred.
(3) Every such transfer must be made by registered deed, and before the deed is registered and the land transferred, the written consent of the Deputy Commissioner must be obtained to the terms of the deed and to the transfer. (4) Before consenting to any such transfer, the Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself that [adequate compensation is tendered to landlord for the loss (if any) caused to him by the transfer, and, where only part of a holding or tenure is transferred, may, if he thinks fit, apportion; between the transferee and the original tenant the rent payable for the holding or tenure.
(5) The State Government may, at any time within a period of twelve years from the date on which written consent is given by the Deputy Commissioner in regard to the transfer of any holding or part thereof belonging to an occupancy-
Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes either on its own motion or on an application made to it in this behalf set aside such written consent and annul the transfer, if after holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner and after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to be heard it finds that the consent had been obtained in 43 2025:JHHC:29694-DB contravention of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) by misrepresentation or fraud, and in case any holding or part thereof has been transferred on the basis of such written consent direct the Deputy Commissioner to take further necessary action under clause (c) of subsection 4-A of Section 46."
78. It further needs to refer herein that the whole purpose of the promulgation of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 was that in no circumstances the nature of land is to be changed. However, exception in view of Section 49 has been carved out but the Deputy Commissioner while granting such permission is to be satisfied with respect to the issue of adequate compensation to be paid in favour of the raiyats.
79. It needs to refer herein the very object of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The CNT Act, 1908, is a land rights legislation that was created to protect the land rights of the tribal. Major feature of the C.N.T. Act is that it prohibits the transfer of land to non-tribals to ensure community ownership. The areas of North Chotanagpur, South Chotanagpur and Palamau Division are included in the jurisdiction of C.N.T. Act.
80. The CNT Act has been enacted by keeping the principle that the tribal people are novice and as such, in each and every proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner has been made to be a necessary party so that they may not be subjected to any exploitation.
44
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
81. The Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 also includes all those tribal land tenures which were under the earlier land laws. It also makes provisions for Bhuinhari and other land tenures, such as Bhootkhet, Dalikatari, Pahnai etc. which had already been included under the Chotanagpur Land Tenure Act, 1869.
82. The, provisions have been made in the Chotanagpur Tenancy-CNT Act, 1908 for the protection of almost all tribal land tenures. It is also noteworthy that under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 keeping in view the customs and social traditions existing among the tribes, Provisions have been presented. In this Act, prohibition has been presented regarding the transfer of tribal land, and at the same time, very farsighted steps have also been taken regarding their economic development.
83. Under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908, not only have the tribes been given their land rights, but proper guidance has also been provided for the smooth implementation of government policies. Provisions have also been made in it for change in the nature of land under the control and direction of the government, timely settlement of land, encouragement of proper transfer and ban on illegal transfer so that the tribes can be saved of their traditional rights and their rights can be protected. 45
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
84. Thus, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act has been implemented as a guideline for individuals, society, state and governments against the problems of eviction from tribal land, illegal land grabbing, displacement and migration existing among the tribes. This is the reason that the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 AD has been included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
85. The object of the C.N.T. Act, as has been referred hereinabove is to protect the interest of the tribal but the legislature has taken care of with respect to the issue of development including the mining operation and hence, the amendment was carried out in Section 49 in the year 1996 by CNT (Amendt.) Act, 1996 inserting therein the conditions as quoted and referred hereinabove subject to permission to be granted by the State Government for the purpose of mining operation, meaning thereby, mining operation can be carried out but subject to payment of adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner so that in case of change in nature of land, the raiyats may be adequately compensated.
86. The other way of acquisition of the land is by taking recourse of acquisition mechanism. However, we are not delving upon the issue of land acquisition mechanism since herein the case of the State as also the private respondent is the applicability of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act,1908, for 46 2025:JHHC:29694-DB the purpose of making payment of adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner as per the material available on record also.
87. The issue herein is of the mining of the coal. The mining was going on not on the basis of auction but on the basis of the linkage system. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principle Secretary & Others (Supra) has declared all allocations of the coal blocks made through Screening Committee and through Government Dispensation route since 1993 as illegal and has cancelled the allocation of 204 coal blocks out of 218 coal blocks (i.e. except, Tasra coal block allocated to Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Pakri Barwadih coal block allocated to National Thermal Power Corporation and 12 coal blocks allocated for Ultra Mega Power Projects) the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred herein:-
110. The above facts show that it took almost 8 years in putting in place allocation of captive coal blocks through competitive bidding. During this period, many coal blocks were allocated giving rise to present controversy, which was avoidable because competitive bidding would have brought in transparency, objectivity and very importantly given a level playing field to all applicants of coal and lowered the difference between the market price of coal and the cost of coal for the allottee by way of premium which would have accrued to the Government. Be that as it may, once it is laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Natural Resources Allocation, In re [Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special 47 2025:JHHC:29694-DB Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1] that the Court cannot conduct a comparative study of various methods of distribution of natural resources and cannot mandate one method to be followed in all facts and circumstances, then if the grave situation of shortage of power prevailing at that time necessitated private participation and the Government felt that it would have been impractical and unrealistic to allocate coal blocks through auction and later on in 2004 or so there was serious opposition by many State Governments to bidding system, and the Government did not pursue competitive bidding/public auction route, then in our view, the administrative decision of the Government not to pursue competitive bidding cannot be said to be so arbitrary or unreasonable warranting judicial interference. It is not the domain of the Court to evaluate the advantages of competitive bidding vis-à-vis other methods of distribution/disposal of natural resources. However, if the allocation of subject coal blocks is inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution and the procedure that has been followed in such allocation is found to be unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, non-
transparent, capricious or suffers from favouritism or nepotism and violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution, the consequences of such unconstitutional or illegal allocation must follow.
160. The entire exercise of allocation through Screening Committee route thus appears to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and not following any objective criteria in determining as to who is to be selected or who is not to be selected. There is no evaluation of merit and no inter se comparison of the applicants. No chart of evaluation was prepared. The determination of the Screening Committee is apparently subjective as the minutes of the Screening Committee meetings do not show that selection was made after proper assessment. The project preparedness, track record, etc. of the applicant company were not objectively kept in view. Until the amendment was brought in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act w.e.f. 9-6-1993, the Central Government alone was permitted to mine coal through its companies with the 48 2025:JHHC:29694-DB limited exception of private companies engaged in the production of iron and steel. By virtue of the bar contained in Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, between 1976 and 1993, no private company (other than the company engaged in the production of iron and steel) could have carried out coal mining operations in India. Section 3(3) of the CMN Act, which was amended on 9-6-1993 permitted private sector entry in coal mining operations for captive use. The power for grant of captive coal block is governed by Section 3(3)(a) of the CMN Act, according to which, only two kind of entities, namely, (a) the Central Government or undertakings/corporations owned by the Central Government; or (b) companies having end-use plants in iron and steel, power, washing of coal or cement can carry out coal mining operations. The expression "engaged in"
in Section 3(3)(a)(iii) means that the company that was applying for the coal block must have set up an iron and steel plant, power plant or cement plant and be engaged in the production of steel, power or cement. The prospective engagement by a private company in the production of steel, power or cement would not entitle such private company to carry out coal mining operation. Most of the companies, which have been allocated coal blocks, were not engaged in the production of steel, power or cement at the time of allocation nor in the applications made by them any disclosure was made whether or not the power, steel or cement plant was operational. They only stated that they proposed to set up such plants. Thus, the requirement of end-use project was not met at the time of allocation.
163. To sum up, the entire allocation of coal block as per recommendations made by the Screening Committee from 14- 7-1993 in 36 meetings and the allocation through the Government Dispensation Route suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and legal flaws. The Screening Committee has never been consistent; it has not been transparent; there is no proper application of mind; it has acted on no material in many cases; relevant factors have seldom been its guiding factors; there was no transparency and guidelines have seldom guided it. On many occasions, guidelines have been 49 2025:JHHC:29694-DB honoured more in their breach. There was no objective criteria, nay, no criteria for evaluation of comparative merits. The approach had been ad hoc and casual. There was no fair and transparent procedure, all resulting in unfair distribution of the national wealth. Common good and public interest have, thus, suffered heavily. Hence, the allocation of coal blocks based on the recommendations made in all the 36 meetings of the Screening Committee is illegal.
88. Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case i.e Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy., (2014) 9 SCC 614 has cancelled the coal block, the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
32. As far as the first category of coal block allotments is concerned, they must be cancelled (except those mentioned in the judgment). There is no reason to "save" them from cancellation. The allocations are illegal and arbitrary; the allottees have not yet entered into any mining lease and they have not yet commenced production. Whether they are 95% ready or 92% ready or 90% ready for production (as argued by some learned counsel) is wholly irrelevant. Their allocation was illegal and arbitrary, as already held, and therefore we quash all these allotments.
33. The learned Attorney General identified 46 coal blocks that could be "saved" from the guillotine, since all of them have commenced production or are on the verge of commencing production. As these allocations are also illegal and arbitrary they are also liable to be cancelled. However, the allotment of three coal blocks in Annexure 1 is not disturbed and they are Moher and Moher Amroli Extension allocated to Sasan Power Ltd. (UMPP) and Tasra [allotted to Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), a Central Government public sector undertaking not having any joint venture].
89. herein, this Court is only delving upon implication of Section 49 C.N.T. Act, 1908, in such situation where the 50 2025:JHHC:29694-DB allotment of the coal mines has been given in favour of the writ petitioner which can be allowed to be given a go bye to the provision of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
90. Since we have already dealt with herein that the interest of the raiyats is the foremost consideration for the purpose of enactment of C.N.T. Act, 1908, as such, their interest cannot be given a go bye otherwise the whole purpose of the enactment of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 will be frustrated and the important question would be that what will happen to the interest of the raiyats in absence of adequate compensation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner.
91. However, the argument has been advanced that the petitioners are ready to make payment of compensation as per the provision of Rule 72 of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 at the time of entering into the surface land or in view of Rule 73 at the time of handing over the land on closure of the mining operation.
92. The said provision is under the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and the argument has been advanced by referring to Section 29 of the CMSP Act, 2015 that the same will have the overriding effect and since the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 is to be acted upon in view of the provision of CMSP Act, 2015, hence the M.M.D.R. Act, 1957 will also have the overriding effect over and above the C.N.T. Act, 1908.51
2025:JHHC:29694-DB
93. Herein, it is the admitted case that the writ petitioner is not averse to making payment of compensation but the same is being contested by the raiyats and the Deputy Commissioner being the protector of the interest of raiyats also.
94. The purpose of enactment of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, in no case, can be allowed to be given go bye. If any statute has been formulated, then the same is to be acted upon by all functionaries including the Centre, State or the litigant concerned who wants to utilize the land for the mining purposes.
95. It is not that there is any opposition either being made on behalf of the raiyats or the State in not carrying out the mining operation save and except the permission of the Deputy Commissioner who is also ready to permit allowing the writ petitioner to carry out mining operation but subject to certain condition of making payment of adequate compensation as per the provision under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908.
96. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where there is the consideration of overriding effect of one Act over the other, rather, it is a case where the statutory command is to be taken into consideration on the principle of harmonious construction so that a balance is created and maintained in between the mining operators 52 2025:JHHC:29694-DB and the raiyats because of the reason that both are to survive as also the natural resources are to be excavated but one cannot be allowed to operate at the cost of others.
97. Although Section 21 of CMSP Act, 2015 speaks about the applicability of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 but as we have observed herein that we are only concerned with the issue of adequate compensation as per the mandate of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 and it is also the case of the State and the newly impleaded respondent that the applicability of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 in view of the order already passed by the learned Single Judge being acted upon by the Deputy Commissioner, a decision has also been taken.
98. The question of making payment of compensation under Rule 72 and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960, if will be allowed, then what would be the situation of observing the provision of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, particularly, in the area where the tenancy law is applicable and there is no restriction rather the exception has been carved out.
99. In addition to the above, the writ petitioners were party to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 & Batch cases as also W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 & Batch 53 2025:JHHC:29694-DB matters disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2020 and 03.03.2020 and in pursuance thereto, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 24.06.2023 by initiating a miscellaneous case being Misc. Case No.45/2020-21 as available in the counter affidavit filed on 21.07.2023. But the said order has not been challenged by the writ petitioners even though they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner by acting upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1326 of 2019 & Batch cases as also in W.P.(C) No. 4357 of 2019 & Batch matters.
100. Further, the writ petitioners have also admitted of taking recourse of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, as would be evident from the statement made at paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit dated 31.01.2023, wherein out of 1257.19 acres of land permission has been granted for almost 400 acres of the raiyati land under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908, meaning thereby, the writ petitioners are also admitting the fact that the permission under Section 49 of the Act, 1908 is required, for ready reference, the statement made at paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit is being quoted hereunder as :-
"16. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 29 of the writ petition, under reply, it is stated that the same is matter of record, hence, require no comment. However, it is stated that answering respondent is regularly granting 54 2025:JHHC:29694-DB permission under section 49 of the CNT Act, 1908 in favour of the petitioner and as on date almost 400 Acres of Raiyati land out of 1257.19 Acres has been granted."
101. The said statement has not been rebutted even though rejoinders have been filed.
102. Accordingly, all the issues are being answered.
103. In consequence thereof, the writ petitions lack merit and accordingly, dismissed.
104. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Date: 23rd September, 2025
A.F.R.
Birendra/
55