TIRBENI PRASAD RUNGTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rule nisi in the nature of prohibition was issued to the State of Bihar, the Certificate Officer, Daltonganj, and the District Mining Officer, Ranchi cum Palamau to show cause why the proceedings in Miscellaneous Case No. 101 of 1961-62 shall not be quashed and why the respondents will not be prohibited from taking any further steps against the petitioner in that proceeding. Return has been made by the State of Bihar.

(2.) The petitioner stated that on the 11th of July, 1919, Kuar Amar Dayal Singh, proprietor of Ladi estate, a Jagirdar, granted a mokarrari mining lease in respect of irom ore in two villages Adar and Gore to one P. K. Chatterji by a registered instrument. The lessee assigned the same to one Bymokesh Mukherji on whose death his three daughters granted a sub-lease to Madan Gopal Rungta, the father of the petitioner, for ten years under a registered instrument dated the 21st September, 1951 (Annexure 'C' to the application). Madan Gopal Rungta expired on the 15th October, 1962, and his son the petitioner succeeded him and was working the mines on the basis of the sub-lease, through his agents. On the 30th of November, 1962, the petitioner's authorised agent received a notice purporting to be under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act calling upon him to pay Rs. 66,317.93 nP. a copy of the certificate on the basis of which that proceeding was initiated was also attached to that notice, from which it appears that on the 26th November, 1962, on the requisition of the District Mining Officer a certificate was filed for recovery of that money from Madan Gopal Rungta on account of dead rent for the period from the 14th November, 1951 to the 20th September, 1961. There was a reference to the lease dated the 11th July, 1919 in that certificate. A petition under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was filed before the Certificate Officer disclaiming the petitioner's liability and the validity of the certificate. That was overruled, and the petitioner was threatened that the certificate debt would be realised by distress action". This led him to this Court to make an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) While the petitioner's father was working the mines under the sub-lease, he was prevented from doing so by the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau on or about the 2nd December, 1952 on the ground that the proprietor of Ladi estate had no right to grant any mining lease to Pran Krishto Chatterji. Soon thereafter, in March 1953, there was an arrangement between the Government and Madan Gopal Rungta for the working of the mines, on the letter's executing an agreement in writing that he would work the mines and despatch Iron ores therefrom without any prejudice to the Government's right over the mines and subject to the result of the examination of Madan Gopal Rungta's claim under his sub-lease. An agreement to that effect was executed by him on the 16th of April, 1053, and he continued the mining operation. On the 28th of January, 1955, the estate bearing touzi Nos. 161 and 130 of the Palamau Collectorate vested In the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act Whatever might have been the position prior to this vesting, all the proprietary interest, even if it included the underground mining rights, came to be possessed by the State Government and all the liabilities of the lessee to the proprietor-lessor were to be discharged in favour of the State Government.