Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Hukumchand Stone Lime Company vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:30385
1 WP-6977-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6977 of 2024
M/S HUKUMCHAND STONE LIME COMPANY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Smt. Janhavi Pandit, learned Addl.A.G. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Being aggrieved by order No.9/24 dated 31.1.2024 passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the revision has been dismissed as not maintainable and having become infructuous.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :-
The petitioner was granted a mining lease for mineral limestone of the area 17.50 hectares for the period from 14.5.1972 to 13.5.1992. On 02.6.1975, the State Government terminated the mining lease on the grounds of breach of the terms and conditions of the mining lease. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 02.6.1975 before the Revisional authority and, having been unsuccessful, filed a Civil Appeal 1219/1978 before the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 21-04-2026 19:32:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:30385 2 WP-6977-2024 Apex Court. Vide order dated 04.10.1991, the Apex Court upheld the termination of the lease but allowed the petitioner to continue with mining activities till expiry of the lease period, subject to payment of royalty and maintaining of proper accounts.
3. The petitioner submitted an application on 14.11.1991 for renewal of the lease, which was rejected by the State Government on 10.6.1993, inter alia, on the ground that the previous mining lease was terminated vide order dated 02.6.1975. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.1993, a revision petition was filed, and vide order dated 26.4.2000 the revisional authority remanded the matter back to the State Government for reconsideration. After the amendment MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015 on 12.3.2015, the State Government issued a letter to the Collectors of all the Districts to extend the period of mining lease in terms of provisions of section 8A of MMDR (Amendment) Act. Vide letter dated 20.1.2016, the Collector issued a demand notice directing the petitioner to pay dead rent, premium and advance surface rent, which the petitioner deposited vide Challan dated 16.3.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was heard on 26.4.2016 and 17.5.2016 and the State Government vide order dated 07.1.2017 rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has become ineligible in terms of section 10A(1) of the MMDR (Amendment) Act, 2015. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.1.2017, the petitioner approached the Central Government by way of revision under section 30 of the MMDR Act, 1957 and Rule 36 of the Concession Rules, 2016. Vide impugned order dated 31.1.2024, the Joint Secretary & Revisionary Authority by placing reliance on sub-section (6) of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 21-04-2026 19:32:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:30385
3 WP-6977-2024 Section 8A of the MMDR Act, dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable and having rendered infructuous.
4. We have heard Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Janhavi Pandit, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/ state.
5. The petitioner was granted a mining lease on 14.5.1972 to 13.5.1992, which was terminated by the State Government on 02.6.1975. The said termination matter travelled up to the Supreme Court of India by way of Civil Appeal No.1219/1978.The Apex Court vide order dated 09.10.1991 dismissed the civil appeal. Meaning thereby, the termination of the lease granted to the petitioner was upheld. However, the petitioner was permitted to operate and complete the lease period upto 13.5.1992. Therefore, the issue with respect to the termination of the lease had come to an end after dismissal of the civil appeal. The Apex Court did not even grant any liberty to the petitioner to apply for the renewal. The lease, which was terminated long ago, cannot be renewed or extended. The petitioner unnecessarily made an application for renewal of the lease and thereafter revision. Even the application dated 14.11.1991 cannot be considered as a fresh application for the grant of a mineral concession. The revisional authority has rightly interpreted the provision of sub-section (6) of Section 8A, which is reproduced below:-
"15. Pursuant to the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, Section 8A was also incorporated into the MMDR Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 8A, as affirmed by the Revisionist during the final hearing on 17.01.2024, is applicable to the Revisionist's non-captive Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 21-04-2026 19:32:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:30385 4 WP-6977-2024 mining lease. Section 8A delineates three contingencies wherein benefits are conferred upon leaseholders. Firstly, for a leaseholder whose renewal period expired before 12.01.2015 and who had submitted a renewal application at least twelve months before the existing lease expiration, with no consideration or rejection of the application, the lease period extends to 31.03.2020 for non-captive mines. Additionally, in such cases where the renewal period would expire after 12.01.2015 but before 31.03.2020, the lease period extends to 31.03.2020 for non- captive mines. Secondly, for lease holders with a renewal period extending beyond 31.03.2020 for non-captive mines, the lease continues as per the renewal order. Thirdly, leaseholders would have the benefit of treating the lease the original lease period as of fifty years, thereby allowing an extension beyond the renewal period. Accordingly, even during the renewal period, if the period of mining lease would get extended (beyond the renewal period) by treating the original lease as of fifty years, the leaseholder would be entitled to such benefit. Sub-section (6) of Section 8A as inserted by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 is reproduced below:-
"8A. Period of grant of a mining lease for minerals other than coal, lignite and atomic minerals.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and sub-section (4), the period of lease granted before the date of commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (10 of 2015), where mineral is used for other than captive purpose, shall be extended and be deemed to have been extended up to a period ending on the 31st March, 2020 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal last made or Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 21-04-2026 19:32:09 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:30385 5 WP-6977-2024 till the completion of renewal period, if any, or a period of fifty years from the date of grant of such lease, whichever is later, subject to the condition that all the terms and conditions of the lease have been complied with."
6. In view of the above discussion, the petition is absolutely misconceived and is devoid of substance. Hence, it is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 21-04-2026
19:32:09