N. L. TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-Firm, a holder of Mining Lease of mineral sand-stone, has filed the present revision petition U/s. 115, CPC against the order dated December 22, 1990 of Additional District Judge, Dholpur, whereby the application filed by it under Order XXIII Rule, 3, C. P. C was dismissed.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, a narration of necessary facts is given. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction on October 29, 1980 against the State of Rajasthan and other officers of Mining Department, the non-petitioners in the present revision petition. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Firm was entitled to get third renewal of the existing mining lease for 10 years from 1. 05. 1980 to 30. 04. 1990, and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing it from the lease area of 77. 36 sq. miles situated at Bareli, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur. As per the plaintiff's case, the Firm was granted mining lease of Sand-stone mineral by the erstwhile Dholpur State for the whole of Dholpur State. Subsequently, the mining lease area was reduced to 96. 7 Sq. miles by the State of Rajasthan in the year 1955 and it was further reduced to 77. 36 Sq. miles. According to the plaintiff, the Firm was having this area in its possession when the suit was filed and a patta was also executed between the parties for a period of 10 years from 1. 5. 1970 to 30. 41980. This was second renewal of the mining lease. For the third renewal of the lease, the plaintiff submitted an application on October 25, 1970 to the Assistant Mining Engineer, Bari as required under Rule 8 (2) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (for short 'mining Rules'), this application was not decided before the expiry of the lease period, as such the lease period stood extended for further six months upto October 31, 1980. The plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs as its application for the grant of third renewal of the lease was not decided by the defendants. The defendants, in their joint statement, denied the averments made in the plaint, and pleaded inter-alia the circumstances and the unsatisfactory past performance of the plaintiff disentitling it to get the renewal of the mining lease. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the renewal of mining lease for more than the prescribed area as per the Mining Rules. Various other legal objections were also taken. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court on 22. 2. 1985. On 5. 05. 1990, the plaintiff moved an application in the trial court purporting under O. XXIII, R. 3, C. P. C. with a prayer to record the compromise entered, into between the parties and to pass a decree in terms thereof. In the application, the plaintiff referred certain documents on the basis of which it was pleaded that there was a final agreement or a concluded contract between the parties. This application was vehemently opposed by the respondents on several grounds and the fact of a concluded agreement/ contract between the parties was, also denied. It was then pleaded that unless the terms of a compromise were embodied in an agreement in writing and signed by the parties, it could not be given effect to under the provisions of O. XXIII, R. 3, CPC. It was further stated that for a valid and lawful agreement, it should be in accordance with the provisions of the Mines & Mineral (Regulations of Development) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Rules of 1977 and that a formal deed under Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution was also obligatory. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the aforesaid application of the plaintiff, vide impugned order dated 22-12-1990.
(3.) MR. B. L. Sharma learned counsel, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner, in his usual perseverance contended that by a series of correspondence between the parties, there was a final agreement or a concluded contract whereby the entire controversy in the suit has been settled. Counsel argued, that once there is a concluded agreement between the parries and it is found genuine and lawful, the same has to be acted upon and in terms thereof, the suit has to be disposed of. The Court has no option but to record such agreement. On the question whether there was a concluded agreement or not, the learned counsel took me through several order-sheets from the file of the trial court and the letters which were exchanged between the parties. According to the learned counsel, the finding of the trial court that there was no concluded agreement between the parties was perverse and the same was based on mis-reading of documents. It was also urged that the Court erred in drawing an inference from various, order-sheets, that there was no, concluded agreement between the parties and that the plaintiff firm also did not accept at the relevant time that there was a concluded agreement on 27-2-1988. Mr. B. P. Agarwal, learned Advocate General appearing for the non-petitioners on the other hand, stoutly controverted the above contentions. It was submitted by him that the application filed by the plaintiff under O. XXIII R. 3 CPC on 5-5-1990 was wholly misconceived as there was neither a conclu-ded agreement on compromise between the parties, nor terms of the compromise were embodied in an agreement in writing and signed by the parties. It was contended that an agreement or a compromise cannot be acted upon under O. XXIII R. 3, C. P. C. unless it is in writing arid signed by the parties, Mr. Agarwal also contended that ihe suit was for the renewal of third term of the lease and this period has expired on 30-4-1990 as per the plaintiff's own, case, as such the suit has become infructuous, but still the plaintiff is operating the entire area of the Mining Lease under the garb of the stay order from the Court. It was then contended that on contract could be enforced against the State unless it was executed in the manner provided under Article 299 (1) of the Constitution. According to Mr. Agarwal, simply because a contract is made by the State with a view to settle a legal dispute to which it is a party, it cannot be said, that such a contract is outside the purview of Article 299 (1) and a compro-mise decree can be passed without its compliance. It was submitted that com-pliance of Article 299 (l) of the Constitution is mandatory even in a case of a compromise in a suit. Lastly, it was submitted that under the existing mining, rules, the plaintiff could be granted or renewed a mining lease for an area of 10 sq. kms. in maximum and the same has been granted to the plaintiff vide order No. F. 6 (128) Khan (Gr. II/78) dated April 24, 1990. After this order no cause of action survived for the continuation of the suit. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. I minutely perused the impugned order under challenge. The entire record of the case and the various documents, referred to have been minutely perused by me. ;