- (1.) The petitioner seeks the following relief:- "I. Issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend lease the lapse period of the lease for the period 1 year 7 months 16 days for the gata No. 860 and 1 years 8 month 9 days for the gata No. 861 and also issue MM-11 for the plot Nos. 860, 861, situated in Village Simaria Tehsil Orai District Jalaun."
(2.) The petitioner was grantee of two mining leases over gata No. 860 area 3.25 acres and gata No. 861 area 4 acres from 6.8.2008 to 5.8.2011 i.e. for 3 years. After expiry of period of lease, the petitioner was granted renewal for the period 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2014. The petitioner claims that she could not operate the lease in respect of gata No. 860 for period of 1 year 7 months and 16 days and in respect of gata No. 861 for 1 year 8 months and 9 days. She has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P., 2003 1 SCC 726 in contending that the petitioner has a right to seek extension of lease for the obstructed period.
(3.) We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court and we find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case for more than one reason. In the matter before the Supreme Court, the lessee of the mining lease was a person who had identified and explored a new mining area and had made huge expenditure in making the area approachable. The policy of the State Government at the relevant time was to grant lease to such persons on 'first come first serve basis' for period extending from 3 to 5 years. However, the petitioner was granted lease only for one year and after its expiry, he applied for extension of lease for two years contending that under the Government order, he was entitled for lease for a minimum period of 3 years. The District Magistrate allowed his request and extended the lease for two years. In the meantime, a revision came to be filed by a third party, contending that the mining rights should have been settled by auction. The revision was allowed by the State Government holding that in case the mining rights are settled by auction, it is likely to fetch higher revenue. The order passed in revision was challenged before the High Court. Although the High Court agreed with the petitioner that the lease, as initially granted, should have been for a period of 3 years but still no relief was granted to the petitioner, as the High Court was of the opinion that the settlement of the lease by public auction would subserve public interest, by fetching more revenue. The matter was thereafter agitated before the Supreme Court, which in the facts and circumstances of that case held that once there was Government policy for grant of lease for a total period of 3 years and the High Court having found that the order passed in revision setting aside the order of the Collector granting extension of two years was invalid, it was not justified in refusing to grant consequential relief to the petitioner. The Supreme Court, while allowing the Special Leave Petition specifically took notice of the fact that no mistake was attributable to the petitioner; that no third party interest came to be created in the meantime; that the State Government was bound by the policy decision to grant initial lease for a period of 3 years; and delay in decision by the court cannot be made a ground to deny relief to the petitioner, whose rights stood crystallized on the date he approached the court. It was observed thus :- "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned counsel for the State and the private respondent, we are satisfied that the petition deserves to be allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the portals of the Court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relief in equity because of subsequent or intervening events, i.e., the events between the commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of judgments. Third party interests may have been created or allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account of events happening in between. Else the relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. A plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief, the Court would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong complained against would not have been done to him. The present one is such a case. The delay in final decision cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the petitioner. No auction has taken place. No third party interest has been created. The sand mine has remained un-operated for the period for which the period of operation falls short of three years. The operation had to be stopped because of the order of the State Government intervening which order has been found unsustainable in accordance with stipulations contained in the mining lease consistently with the G.O. issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Merely because a little higher revenue can be earned by the State Government that cannot be a ground for not enforcing the obligation of the State Government which it has incurred in accordance with its own policy decision.";