D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents not to make settlement of any land in any manner with any person which is within the lease hold area of 13007 Bighas of the petitioner as mentioned and described in the indenture dated 1st March, 1946 and as accepted by the State of Bihar by indenture dated 29th March, 1973 and for a further writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents not to pass any order with regard to any claim made by any person in respect of any surface land in lease hold area of the petitioner with an additional direction to the Respondents to refrain from interfering in any manner directly or indirectly with the possession of the petitioner over the lease hold land.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the then Maharaja Kamakhya Narayan Singh, Raja of Ramgarh being the proprietor of villages Durukasmar, Banji, Parej, Pundi, Barughuttu, Kedla, Parsabera and Duni within the Mandu Police Station in the District of Hazaribagh executed a mining lease on 21st November, 1946 and the supplemental of the same deed (Annexure -1/1A) in favour of Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd. for a period of 999 years commencing from 1st March, 1946 with liberty to the lessee that on payment of Salami and royalty on coal to search, raise coal from quarries or through pits, inclines, or shalts, work, make market and carry away coal and further power for all other purposes connected therewith. The lessee under the terms and conditions and the covenants were entitled to have right and interest of the surface rights and in the properties demised by the lease deed, which may be required for colliery purposes. The total area of the land so leased out was more or less 13007 Bighas. The Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd. thereafter executed a sub -lease and its supplemental in favour of West Bokaro Ltd. both on 23rd January, 1947 (Annexures -2 and 2/A). The terms and conditions of the sub -lease were the same as in the Head lease executed on 21.11.1946. Later the entire right, title and interest of the properties of Ramgarh Raja vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 on 3rd November, 1951. Upon such vesting, the State of Bihar filed Title Suit No. 45 of 1960 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh against Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd., claiming Royalty payable under the lease deed. The West Bokaro Ltd., being the sub -lessee was also made a party to the said suit. Pursuant to the amendment in the Bihar Land Reforms Act by the amendment No. 4 of 1965 in Section 10A of the Act, the sub -lessee, namely, the West Bokaro Ltd. became a direct lessee of the State. An amicable settlement between the State of Bihar and the West Bokaro Ltd. was made and the same was filed in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 45 of 1960 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh. On 29th March, 1973, an agreement (Annexure -3) was entered into by and between the State of Bihar and the West Bokaro Ltd. on the basis of the out of court settlement arrived at between the parties, whereby the State of Bihar admitted and acknowledged the West Bokaro Ltd. on the lessee of the State of Bihar on the same terms and conditions and the covenants as embodied in the sub -lease with regard to the area and land mentioned in the Head -lease dated 21st November, 1946, namely, Annexure -1A and 1B. Later by an order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court passed in Company Petition No. 353 of 1973 connected with Company application No. 204 of 1973, the West Bokaro Ltd. was amalgamated with the petitioner -Company with effect from 1st April, 1973. The petitioner became thus a statutory mining lessee under the State of Bihar in terms of the lease granted to the West Bokaro Ltd and accepted by the State. The further case of the petitioner is that out of the entire 13,007 Bighas (4,299.88 acres) of land covered under the lease and an area of about 2,054.70 acres of land recorded as Gair Majarua lands in possession of the State. The petitioner in order to carry out its mining operations, both underground and open cast mining, required the surface right and, accordingly, applied to the State of Bihar for permission in response vide different letters (Annexure -4 series), under Rule 27(i)(d) of the M.M.R.D. Act, the State of Bihar granted permission to the petitioner for use and occupation of the entire 2054.70 acres of Gair Majarua lands located within the petitioner's colliery lease and the petitioner has been paying rent regularly to the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such recognition of the petitioner's surface rights and acceptance of surface rent paid every year, the respondents in recent years have been making arbitrary and illegal settlements of the Gair Majarua lands to the villagers on the plea of grant of lands to the landless under the Bihar Bhudan Yojna Act and also under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The petitioner contend that the Respondents have been indiscriminately receiving applications from the outsiders for the settlement of grant of lands, and have been making settlements without giving notice of any such applications to the petitioner. By such illegal settlements of the surface land made by the Officers of the State Government within the lease hold area of the petitioner, the Respondents have been creating complications and interference in the petitioner's use of lands for its smooth mining operations in the area. The further contention of the petitioners is that in view of the permission granted to it under Rule 27(i)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for payment of surface rent, the petitioner is entitled to use the surface area of the lands for its mining operations and the State Government has no right to make settlements of such lands in favour of any person. The further contention of the petitioner is that in order to increase the total coal supplies, it was necessary for the petitioner to expand production at the West Bokaro Collieries and, therefore, by way of abundant caution, the petitioner applied, vide Annexure -5, to the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh on 09.09.1976 for permission under Rule 27(i)(d) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for carrying out mining operations over the entire surface land measuring 775.12 acres of mining land belonging to the State of Bihar and in confirmation that the permission was granted with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, a letter dated 05.08.1977, issued by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh was received by the petitioner. Similarly, in respect of some surface lands in Village Barughuttu, which was one of the villages covered under Annexure 1, the petitioner had filed a similar application for grant of settlement and while the matter was pending before the concerned authority, the Respondents had granted a Cinema Hall license to one Pyara Singh for construction of the Cinema Hall on part of the land for which the petitioner had already applied and when the petitioner's objection proved futile, he filed a writ application before the Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 573 of 1985 (R), challenging the jurisdiction of the State to grant the aforesaid Cinema license. The writ application was allowed by the Court and vide order passed in the writ application, the order issuing Cinema license was quashed. By way of a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has given details of settlements of lands made in favour of private individuals within the petitioner's lease -hold area over a period of time in spite of persistent protests made by the petitioner. The settlements, according to the petitioner were made without the knowledge of the petitioner and from the details as collected subsequently, the petitioner learnt that the settlements were made under the four heads, namely, (i) Bihar Bhudan Yojana Act, 1954 (ii) under the land to landless Scheme under the 20 Point Programme (iii) under Section 67A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and (iv) on the basis of the ex -landlord's papers. The petitioner's contention is that the settlement of lands under the Bihar Bhudan Yojana Act is prohibited since no such settlement of lands, where mining is carried on, can be made. The questions of law, which have been raised for adjudication are given herein below: (i) Whether the Respondents have jurisdiction to settle Surface lands in Raiyati or otherwise, which is within the subsisting lease of the petitioner and whether the Respondents can entertain any claim of any person with regard to any surface land within the lease -hold area, without the knowledge of the petitioner? (ii) Whether the State -Respondents can deprive the petitioner -lessee of coal bearing areas under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, from any portion of lands, which is part of the lease by making settlement with third parties?
(3.) THE Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by filing their counter affidavit, denying and disputing the entire allegations of the petitioner. The Respondents contend that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed under the facts and circumstances of the case. The Respondents have opposed the claims of the petitioner on the ground that neither the indenture executed by the Raja of Ramgarh in favour of the Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd. (Annexure -1 and 1/A), nor the indenture dated 29th March, 1973 between the Government of Bihar and the West Bokaro Ltd. (Annexure -3), inhibits the Government or the Collector of Hazaribagh from settling any piece of land comprised in the lease -hold area, for agricultural purposes since there is no provision in the aforesaid lease deeds, which could prevent the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh from granting permissions to the legal claimants under the provisions of Section 4 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. It is further contended that the aforesaid lease deeds cannot deprive the statutory rights of occupancy in Korkar lands under Section 67 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The further ground advanced by the Respondents is that though the petitioner may have availed the lease -hold rights for mining purposes but the petitioner is not in actual possession of the entire lands, so far the surface area is concerned. The petitioner -Company has been authorized only to carry out underground coal mining operations and nothing else. The Respondents have claimed that they are entitled to settle the rent of lands, which has been granted to the Bihar Bhudan Yojana Committee under the Bihar Bhudan Yojana Act, since under the terms and conditions of the lease agreement (Annexure -3), only the underground coal mining rights have been given unto the lessee while the proprietary rights of the Government on the surface lands remained intact. While acknowledging the fact that settlements have been made in favour of private individuals, the Respondents contend that such settlements either under the Bihar Bhudan Yojana Act or under the provisions of the Chhotnagpur Tenancy Act have been made only after proper enquiry and prior public notice inviting objections but the petitioner had never raised any objections in the process of the settlement of the lands. Referring to the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition, the Respondent -State contend chat even the petitioner has admitted the fact that there were some tenants who were in occupation of pieces of lands in one or the other eight villages demised under the original Head lease (Annexure -A) and this clearly indicates that the surface rights was reserved to the raiyats and Sariyati interest or the tenure in the surface lands was reserved to the Raja and after vesting of estate or tenure, such right had vested to the State and not to the Company. The further contention of the Respondents is that the authority to grant permission for surface rights for the purpose of the mining operations is vested only with the State and no application was ever made by the petitioner under Rule 31 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1936 for the grant of any such permission.;