Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusNORTHERN COAL FIELDS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 948
- Decided
- 3 October 2024
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
When land is acquired by the Central Government under s.10(1) of the Coal Bearing Areas Act and vested in a Government company under s.11(1) without any pre‑existing mining lease, the company does not become a deemed lessee of the State and the State has no right to claim lease rent.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to recover annual lease rent from Northern Coal Fields Ltd., a government company, for forest land transferred for mining under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The land had been acquired by the Central Government in 1981 under s.10(1) of the Act and subsequently vested in the company by a direction under s.11(1). The State argued that it was a deemed lessor and entitled to lease rent, while the company contended that no pre‑existing mining lease existed, so the provisions that create a lessee‑lessor relationship were inapplicable. The Supreme Court examined the distinction between s.10(1) and s.10(2) and between s.11(1) and s.11(2), holding that where the Central Government’s right was absolute and there was no prior mining lease, the company does not become a deemed lessee of the State. Consequently, the demand for lease rent was not supported by any statutory provision. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s order that the State could not realise further lease rent.
Issues considered
- Whether the State Government has legislative competence to demand lease rent from a Government company under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 when the land was acquired by the Central Government and vested in the company.
- Whether a Government company becomes a deemed lessee of the State under s.10(2) or s.11(2) of the Act in the absence of a pre‑existing mining lease.
- Whether the demand for lease rent is supported by any statutory provision.
Legislation cited
- Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957s. 10, s. 11, s. 18A, s. 7, s. 9
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957s. 9
Headnote
1918 : 2024 INSC 948 State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields (Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014) 03 October 2024 (Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State Government to realise lease rent from the – Vesting of land or rights in Central Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently, the said land vested in the respondent-government
Subjects
Lease rentLegislative competenceNo pre-existing leaseDeemed lessee of the StateMining leaseAcquisition by Central GovernmentVested rights in Government Company
Judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1918 : 2024 INSC 948
State of U.P. & Anr.
v.
Northern Coal Fields
(Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014)
03 October 2024
(Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.)
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State
Government to realise lease rent from the respondent-Government
Company under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957.
Headnotes†
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,
1957 – ss.10 and 11 – Vesting of land or rights in Central
Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting
of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of
land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently,
the said land vested in the respondent-government company –
State Government issuing letters to the respondent to deposit
lease rent – Aggreived thereagainst, the respondent filed writ
petition – High Court allowed the same holding that the entire
area had been acquired under the Act, under which the State
had no legislative competence, directing the State not to
realise further lease rent from the respondent – Correctness:
Held: When there is no pre-existing lease at the time of acquisition
by the Central Government and the rights are subsequently vested
in a Government Company, then such Government Company
does not become a deemed lessee of the State – Rights in
the Government Company were vested specifically by virtue of
sub-section (1) of s. 11 and at that time, there did not exist any
mining lease as provided under sub-section (2) – Rights u/s.11(1)
are vested in the Government Company in the exact nature as they
existed in the Central Government at the time – Thus, when the
Central Government’s right was free from all encumbrances and
completely absolute, the Government Company also acquired an
absolute right over the land – No question of a qualified right in
the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government arises
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1919
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields
in such a situation – This is by virtue of the fact that when Central
Government acquired such rights and also when it was further
vested in the Government Company, there was no pre-existing
mining lease in favour of any person and, thus, s.10(2) and
s.11(2) become inapplicable in the given case – Thus, the land
vested in the Government Company free from all encumbrances,
subject to the conditions imposed by the Central Government –
State Government not entitled to claim itself as a deemed lessor
of the Government Company and the demand for “lease rent”
completely unwarranted – State Government’s demand for “lease
rent” not supported by any statutory provision, such a demand
cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 12-14, 18]
Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 –
ss.10 and 11 – Interpretation – Distinction between the nature
of right accrued between s.10 (1) and (2) as also between
s.11 (1) and (2) – Discussed. [Paras 11, 12]
Case Law Cited
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha [2023] 1 SCR 1055 :
(2023) 4 SCC 343 – distinguished.
Managing Director, National Coal Development Corporation and
etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1984 Pat 280 – approved.
State of West Bengal v. Union of India [1964] SCR 1 371 : AIR
1963 SC 1241 – referred to.
List of Acts
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957; Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957.
List of Keywords
Lease rent; Legislative competence; No pre-existing lease;
Deemed lessee of the State; Mining lease; Acquisition by Central
Government; Vested rights in Government Company.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 50320 of 2010
1920 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
K M Natraj, A.S.G., Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Sudeep
Kumar, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rupali, Anuj Udupa,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Ashok Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv., Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Kshitij
Mudgal, Ms. Anshul Rajora, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 16.01.2013 in Writ (C) No.
50320/2010 wherein the Respondent’s Writ Petition was allowed,
orders dated 23.03.2010, 11.06.2010 and 31.07.2010 passed by
the Divisional Forest Officer, Renukoot, District Sonebhadra, UP1
were set aside, the State was directed not to realise further lease
rent from the Respondent and to refund/adjust the amount paid by
the Respondent for the year 2010-2011.
2. The facts of the matter, succinctly put, are that the Respondent is
a Government Company which was incorporated with an object to
carry on mining operations for extraction of coal and supply thereof
to core sector and non-core sector and is carrying on two coal mine
projects namely ‘Krishnashila Project’ and ‘Bina Project’ in the district
of Sonebhadra. The DFO had issued letters dated 23.03.2010 and
11.06.2010 to the Respondent seeking the deposit of annual lease
rent for the year 2010-2011 for the forest land which has been
transferred on lease to the Respondent for 30 years and 23 years
respectively. The Respondent deposited the said amount under
protest which further led to the issuing of letter dated 31.07.2010 by
the DFO stating that since the amount has been deposited under
protest, which is against the conditions of transfer, the matter is
being referred to the higher level of the Government for cancelling
the said transfer. Thereafter, the Respondent preferred a Writ Petition
before the High Court challenging the above-mentioned letters and
the demand of annual lease rent by the DFO.
1 Hereinafter referred to as “DFO”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1921
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields
3. Before moving further, we find it relevant to delve into the genesis of
vesting of such rights in the Respondent. On 23.12.1980, the Central
Government issued a notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 19572 of its intention to
acquire the lands admeasuring 1657.16 hectares (approximately) as
specified in the Schedule, and consequently, issued a declaration on
17.11.1981 acquiring the said land under Section 9 of CBA, 1957.
The said declaration was published in the Gazette of India, dated
05.12.1981, vesting the land and rights described in the Schedule
appended to the abovementioned notification absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances under Section 10(1) of the
CBA, 1957. Further, in exercise of powers under S. 11(1) of CBA,
1957, the Union Government, by its order dated 02.11.1982, directed
that the lands and rights so vested shall, w.e.f. from 05.12.1981,
instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest
in the Government Company named Central Coalfields Ltd. (which
was later formed into Northern Coal Fields Ltd. w.e.f. 28.11.1985,
i.e. the Respondent).
4. Thereafter, the Respondent submitted a proposal for its ‘Krishnashila
project’ of 235.99 hectares of land for obtaining approval of the
Central Government for use of the land for mining purpose under
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 19803. Similarly, another proposal
under the FCA, 1980 for usage of 258 hectares of forest land for
mining purpose for ‘Bina Coal Project’ was submitted to the Central
Government for obtaining its approval.
5. Accordingly, in pursuance of Section 2 of the FCA, 1980, the Central
Government, vide its order dated 23.05.1996, granted approval for
diversion of 258 hectares of forest land under ‘Bina Project’, which
was communicated by the State Government to the Respondent
vide letter dated 28.06.1998. Similarly, the Central Government, with
regard to the ‘Krishnashila Project’, vide its letter dated 06.07.2006,
granted approval for diversion of 235.99 hectares of forest land in
accordance with Section 2 of FCA, 1980, which was communicated
to the Respondent by the State Government vide letter dated
27.07.2007.
2 Hereinafter referred to as “CBA, 1957”
3 Hereinafter referred to as “FCA, 1980”
1922 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6. The Respondent, by virtue of Section 18A of the CBA, 1957, has
been paying money equal to royalty as determined under Section 9
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 19574.
However, the letter dated 23.03.2010 and subsequent letter dated
11.06.2010 were issued to the Respondent demanding the deposit
of “lease rent” amounting to Rs.1,24,23,015/- in accordance with
Condition No. 7 of ‘Krishnashila Project’ and Rs.1,91,25,593/- in
accordance with Condition No. 12 of ‘Bina Project’.
7. Aggrieved by the said demand for “lease rent”, the Respondent
preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court, which was allowed
while observing that the entire area has been acquired under CBA,
1957 under which the State has no legislative competence as held
in State of West Bengal v. Union of India.5 Therefore, where the
State is denuded of any power to legislate in the matter or to exercise
any executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution and no
satisfactory basis has been disclosed by the State Government for
claiming the lease rent from the Respondent, Condition No. 7 in
Government Order dated 27.07.2007 which is unsupported by any
legal basis, cannot be permitted to operate against the Respondent.
The State of UP, being aggrieved by the said judgment, is in appeal
before us.
8. Since the reasoning of the High Court is majorly based on the
judgment in the case of State of West Bengal (supra), we find it
imperative to deal with the said judgment first. In the said Constitution
Bench judgment, wherein the statutory scheme of CBA, 1957 was
discussed in detail, the relevant question of law under consideration
was whether the Parliament has legislative competence to enact
a law for compulsory acquisition by the Union of land and other
properties vested in or owned by the State. The said question was
answered in the affirmative by the majority. It was held that the power
to legislate for regulation and development of mines and minerals
being under the control of the Union, would by necessary implication
include the power to acquire mines and minerals, thereby upholding
the constitutional validity of CBA, 1957, and in particular Sections 4
and 7. It must be noted that the said judgment only delved into the
4 “MMDR Act, 1957”, hereinafter
5 [1964] 1 SCR 371 : AIR 1963 SC 1241
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1923
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields
legislative competence of the Union and State in matters relating
to acquisition of land, especially in context of mines and minerals,
and did not deliberate upon the right of the State Government to
claim lease rent by a Government Company under CBA, 1957 or
other related acts. In the instant case, the legislative competence
of neither the Union nor the State Government is under challenge.
The matter at hand only pertains to the claim of lease rent by the
State Government and therefore, the rationale in judgment of State
of West Bengal (supra) is of no avail to the Respondent.
9. Another case that has been dealt with in the impugned judgment is a
decision by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Managing
Director, National Coal Development Corporation and etc. v.
State of Bihar & Ors.6 wherein a question arose as to whether the
Petitioner-Company is liable to pay to the State of Bihar dead rent
by reason of the provisions of Section 18A of CBA, 1957 or not. In
the said case, the following was held –
“7. In the State counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. 2462 of 1979,
it has been stated that a relationship of lessor and lessee
exists between the State Government and the petitioner-
company. This stand does not appear to be correct. As
has been pointed out, the present cases do not attract
Section 10(2) of the Acquisition Act inasmuch as there
were no mining leases. Admittedly, these cases relate to
virgin mineral which continues to be unworked till now.
The case is governed by Section 10(1) and its language
in no uncertain terms states that the entire interest of the
State vests absolutely in the Central Government free from
all encumbrances. The State is completely divested of all
its rights and a relationship of lessor and lessee does not
continue between the State and the Central Government
(or for that matter the petitioner-company).
8. The next question is : does S. 18A of the Acquisition
Act create a right in the State to realise Dead Rent? The
language of Section 18A quoted above, while referring
‘royalty’ has omitted to include ‘Dead Rent’ in the Section.
‘Royalty’ and ‘Dead Rent’ are two separate and distinct
6 AIR 1984 Pat 280
1924 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
liabilities payable by lessees and have been dealt with
separately by two Sections of the Development Act, that
is, Sections 9 and 9A. The rates are also detailed in the
second and third schedules respectively. The rate of
royalty is related to the quantity of coal to be extracted
while Dead Rent is payable area-wise. Royalty is payable
on the extracted mineral while Dead Rent on area having
unworked mineral. The two expressions cannot be treated
to refer to a common claim by the State. The distinction
between the two has been appreciated and discussed
in the decisions in Bhorulal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR
1956 Raj 161), Sethi Marble Stone Industries v. State of
Rajasthan (AIR 1958 Raj 140) and Surajdin Laxmanlal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1960 MP 129). The view
of the Certificate Officer that royalty includes Dead Rent
is, therefore, clearly illegal. It must, therefore, be held
that Dead Rent is not payable by reason of Section 18A.”
10. Insofar as the instant case at hand, we are only concerned with the
observations pertaining to Section 10 of CBA, 1957 in the above
judgment and not with the claim of dead rent under Section 18A
thereof. However, before going into the applicability/utility of the above
judgment, we find it pertinent to produce the relevant provisions of
CBA, 1957, which are as follows:
“7. Power to acquire land or rights in or over land
notified under Section 4.—(1) If the Central Government
is satisfied that coal is obtainable in the whole or any part
of the land notified under sub-section (1) of section 4, it
may, within a period of two years from the date of the said
notification or within such further period not exceeding
one year in the aggregate as the Central Government
may specify in this behalf, by notification in the Official
Gazette, give notice of its intention to acquire the whole
or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such
land, as the case may be.
(2) If no notice to acquire the land or any rights in or
over such land is given under sub-section (1) within the
period allowed thereunder, the notification issued under
sub-section (1) of section 4 shall cease to have effect on
the expiration of three years from the date thereof.”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1925
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields
9. Declaration of acquisition.—(1) When the Central
Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if
any, made under Section 8 that any land or any rights in or
over such land should be acquired, a declaration shall be
made by it to that effect [, and different declarations may
be made from time to time in respect of different parcels
of any land, or of rights in or over such land, covered by
the same notification under sub-section (1) of Section 7,
irrespective of whether one report or different reports has
or have been made (wherever required) under sub-section
(2) of section 8]:
[Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular
land, or rights in or over such land, covered by a notification
under sub-section (1) of section 7, issued after the
commencement of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Amendment and Validation Act, 1971
(54 of 1971), shall be made after the expiry of three years
from the date of the said notification:
Provided further that, where a declaration] relates to any
land or to any rights in or over land belonging to a State
Government which has or have not been leased out, no
such declaration shall be made except after previous
consultation with the State Government.
(2) [Every declaration] shall be published in the Official
Gazette, and—
(a) in any case where land is to be acquired, shall state
the district or other territorial division in which the land is
situate and its approximate area; and, where a plan shall
have been made of the land, the place where such plan
may be inspected;
(b) in any case where rights in or over such land are to
be acquired, shall state the nature and extent of the rights
in addition to the matters relating to the land specified in
clause (a); and
a copy of every such declaration shall be sent to the State
Government concerned.
1926 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10. Vesting of land or rights in Central Government.—
(1) On the publication in the Official Gazette of the
declaration under section 9, the land or the rights in or
over the land, as the case may be, shall vest absolutely
in the Central Government [free from all encumbrances].
(2) Where the rights under any mining lease granted or
deemed to have been granted by a State Government to any
person are acquired under this Act, the Central Government
shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed
to have become the lessee of the State Government as if
a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules had
been granted by the State Government to the Central
Government, the period thereof being the entire period
for which such a lease could have been granted by the
State Government under those rules.
11. Power of Central Government to direct vesting of
land or rights in a Government company.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, the
Central Government may, if it is satisfied that a Government
company is willing to comply, or has complied, with such
terms and conditions as the Central Government may think
fit to impose, direct, by order in writing, that the land or the
rights in or over the land, as the case may be, shall, instead
of vesting in the Central Government under section 10 or
continuing to so vest, vest in the Government company
either on the date of publication of the declaration or on
such other date as may be specified in the direction.
(2) Where the rights under any mining lease acquired
under this Act vest in a Government company under sub-
section (1), the Government company shall, on and from
the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become
the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease
under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by
the State Government to the Government company, the
period thereof being the entire period for which such a
lease could have been granted by the State Government
under those rules; and all the rights and liabilities of the
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1927
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields
Central Government in relation to the lease or the land
covered by it shall, on and from the date of such vesting,
be deemed to have become the rights and liabilities of the
Government company.”
11. A bare perusal of Section 10 and 11 clearly brings forth a plain
distinction in the nature of right conferred and liabilities accrued
between sub-section(1) and (2) of Section 10, as also between
sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 11. Further, Section 10(1) clearly
provides that when the said provision is applied, the land or rights
in or over the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government
free from all encumbrances. The words “free from all encumbrances”
become of vital importance as it clarifies that from such point onwards,
the Central Government becomes the absolute owner and has sole
rights and claim over the land. However, when the State Government
has already granted rights to any person under any mining lease
and the Central Government subsequently acquires such landunder
Section 10(2), then the rights acquired by the Central Government are
limited to the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State Government.
Therefore, the rights conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 10
are limited in nature as compared to sub-section (1) and such a
distinction must be appreciated when determining the nature of
acquisition by the Central Government. It must be noted that such
a contrast in rights under Section 10(1) and (2) is rooted solely
in the fact if the rights under any mining lease are granted to any
person at the time of acquisition by the Central Government or not.
The Central Government shall acquire the character of a deemed
lessee of the State Government only if a mining lease granted by
the State Government in favour of any person existed already before
the Central Government acquired the land and rights over it.
12. Similarly, Section 11 which talks about the power of Central
Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government
Company draws an identical distinction between its two sub-
sections. Section 11(1) specifically provides that, notwithstanding
anything contained in Section 10, upon the satisfaction of the Central
Government, the land or the rights in or over the land shall, instead
of vesting in the Central Government under Section 10, vest in the
Government Company from the specified date onwards. This means
that sub-section (1) of Section 11 blanketly vests the land or rights
in or over the land in the Government Company, as it vested in the
1928 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Central Government, without any further stipulations. The nature of
right that passes onto the Government Company shall be exactly
identical to the right that existed with the Central Government itself.
However, the language of sub-section (2) of Section 11 is direct and
absolutely unclouded when it specifically talks about the situation
“where any rights under any mining lease acquired under this Act
vest in a Government company” and on the fulfilment of such pre-
requisite alone, the Government Company shall become a deemed
lessee of the State Government as if the State Government had
granted a mining lease in the favour of that Government Company
under the Mineral Concession Rules. This provision pre-supposes
the existence of a mining lease granted by the State Government
prior to the Central Government acquiring it under the CBA, 1957.
No relationship of a lessor and lessee shall come into existence
between the State Government and the Government Company if
there did not exist any mining lease under the Mineral Concession
Rules, at the relevant point of time, when such right is being vested in
the Government Company. Simply put, when there is no pre-existing
lease at the time of acquisition by the Central Government and the
rights are subsequently vested in a Government Company, then
such Government Company does not become a deemed lessee of
the State Government.
13. Having clarified the legal position and interpretation of the two
provisions, we now move to the factual analysis of our case. It is
undisputed that by virtue of the notification in the Official Gazette
dated 05.12.1981, the land and rights vested absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances under Section 10(1) of the
CBA,1957. This means that the Central Government became the
absolute owner of the land and rights over the land from 05.12.1981
onwards.
14. Further, the Government Order dated 02.11.1982 published by the
Government of India, which was produced as Annexure P-1 before
us, clearly provided that in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 11(1) of the CBA, 1957, the Central Government had directed
the vesting of such land and rights in the Government Company,
with effect from 05.12.1981. It is to be noted that the rights in the
Government Company were vested specifically by virtue of sub-
section (1) of Section 11 and at that time, there did not exist any
mining lease as provided under sub-section (2). As explained above,
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1929
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields
the rights under Section 11(1) are vested in the Government Company
in the exact nature as they existed in the Central Government at
the time. Therefore, when the Central Government’s right was free
from all encumbrances and completely absolute, the Government
Company also acquired an absolute right over the land. No question
of a qualified right in the capacity of a deemed lessee of the State
Government arises in such a situation. This is by virtue of the fact
that when Central Government acquired such rights and also when
it was further vested in the Government Company, there was no
pre-existing mining lease in favour of any person and, therefore,
Section 10(2) and Section 11(2) become inapplicable in the given
case. Thus, the land vested in the Government Company free from
all encumbrances, subject to the conditions imposed by the Central
Government. Therefore, the State Government is not entitled to
claim itself as a deemed lessor of the Government Company in the
given situation and the demand for “lease rent” becomes completely
unwarranted.
15. The findings of the Patna High Court in Paragraph 7 of the judgment
in the case of Managing Director, National Coal Development
Corporation (supra) is in lines with our analysis as even in that
case, it was held that Section 10(2) is not attracted because there
existed no mining lease prior to acquisition. The situation therein was
also governed by Section 10(1) and hence, it was rightly held that
the State Government is divested of all its rights and a relationship
of lessor and lessee does not continue between the State and the
Central Government (or for that matter the petitioner-company).
16. There is another judgment of this Court in Mahanadi Coalfields
Ltd. v. State of Odisha7 that was placed before us during the course
of arguments. However, since in the said judgment, the dispute
was with regards to the payment of premium and compensation, as
opposed to the demand for “lease rent” in our case, the judgment,
being distinguishable on facts, is not applicable to the case at hand.
Moreover, in the said case, the right of the State Government to
claim compensation/premium under section 18A of the CBA, 1957,
was recognized by virtue of State Government being a “person
interested” under Section 2(d) of the Act. Herein, there arises no
7 [2023] 1 SCR 1055 : (2023) 4 SCC 343
1930 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
question of an “interested person”. The said judgment did not delve
into the question at hand currently, that is the distinction between
the nature of right acquired under Section 11(1) and (2), and there
was no discussion whether there was a pre-existing mining lease
at the time of acquisition or vesting of rights or not. Hence, the said
judgment, is clearly distinguishable on facts.
17. Lastly, we also observe that the State Government has raised multiple
contentions that no prior consultation of the State Government was
made for the transfer or acquisition of the reserved forest block in
question under CBA, 1957. The said contention is unfounded in view
of notification dated 23.12.1980 under Section 7, declaration dated
17.11.1981 under Section 9, Gazette publication dated 05.12.1981
under Section 10 and Government Order dated 02.11.1982 under
Section 11 of the CBA, 1957 which were never challenged by the
State Government for any infirmity. Therefore, this contention is of
no avail to the Appellant-State now.
18. Having held that the State Government’s demand for “lease rent”
was not supported by any statutory provision, such a demand cannot
be sustained in law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, albeit for
reasons different than the one provided by the High Court in the
impugned judgment.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Lease rent"Sign in to search