THE INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the Indian Iron and Steel Company limited herein after to be referred to as "the petitioner Company", for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Annexures 4, 5, and 7 and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the orders contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 7 to the application. The petitioner is a public limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and it carries on coal mining operations at various places including village Jitpur -Noonodih in the district of Dhanbad. The material facts which are alleged in the application are these. On the 28th of May, 1902, two persons named Shri Kristo Kishore Adhikary and Shri Hardayal Singh took settlement both of underground and surface land of Mauza Jitpur from the then tenure -holder Raja Shri Durga Prasad Singh, ex -zamindar of Jharia. There was a stipulation in the deed that the lessee would be at liberty to occupy as much surface land as may be required by it for carrying out coal mining operations and for all surface land held or owned by the lessee for the said mining operations, the lessee would be liable to pay surface rent at the flat rate of Rs. 2/ - per bigha for Danga lands and Rs. 5/ - per bigha for cultivable lands. By a registered sub -lease dated the 29th of April, 1904, Shri Adhikary and Shri Singh made a settlement of the underground and surface land of village Jitpur in favour of Messrs Bengal Iron & Co. Ltd., the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner Company. Thereafter the mining operations and colliery work in village Jitpur were started by the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner Company. Subsequently the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner Company as well as the petitioner Company, to facilitate their mining operations, acquired the surface land as a working mining lessee and constructed labour quarters, offices, bungalows, engine house, power house etc. Thus, according to the petitioner Company, the entire surface land in Mouza Jitpur, which is in possession of the petitioner Company, is being exclusively used for colliery purposes and no part of the same is being used for agricultural, horticultural or commercial purposes. It is also alleged that the State of Bihar through its agent, the District Mining Officer, Dhanbad, has been receiving royalties and surface rent in terms of the mining lease. It appears that on the 17th of March, 1966, the petitioner Company received a notice from the Circle Officer, Jharia (respondent no. 4), calling upon it to show cause as to why fixation of their rent proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act should not be initiated in respect of certain plots of land of village Jitpur recorded in Khata Nos. 25, 33, 36, 38 and 54, having a total area of 39.32 acres. A copy of the notice has been made Annexure '2' to the application. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner Company filed a petition objecting to the fixation of the fair rent on the ground that in terms of the registered lease executed by the zamindar of Jharia in favour of the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner Company, the petitioner Company was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per bigha. A copy of the objection filed by the petitioner Company has been made Annexure '3' to the writ application. The Circle Officer (respondent no. 4) by his order dated the 14th of March, 1967 (Annexure 4) fixed the rent at Rs. 450/ - per acre, besides cess and education cess, and transmitted the records to the Lard Reforms Deputy Collector for necessary action. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector by his order dated the 23rd of March, 1968 (Annexure 5) accepted the recommendation of the Circle Officer and fixed rent for 39.32 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 450/ - per acre besides cess and education cess. The total rent along with cess amounted to Rs. 19,905.75. According to his order the rent was to be realised from the date of the vesting of the tenure. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the petitioner Company filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. The Additional Collector by his order dated the 16th of July, 1968 (Annexure 7) modified the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector to the extent that he fixed the rate of rent at Rs. 360/ - per acre in respect of 25.60 acres of land. With regard to 13.62 acres of land he took the view that the said portion of land had been subsided and as such he petitioner Company was not liable to pay rent in respect of that portion of the land. He upheld the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector with regard to the liability of the petitioner Company to pay cess and education cess. The petitioner Company thereupon filed the present writ application in this Court on the 28th of January, 1969, challenging the validity of the orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 7.

(2.) Mr. Ranadev Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Company, raised the contention that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to fix the rent under Sec. 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter to be called "the Act". According to learned Counsel the relevant provisions which are applicable are Ss. 10, 11 and 12 of the Act. There is substance in the contention raised. As defined in Sec. 2(r) of the Act.

(3.) In the instant case there being no agreement between the petitioner Company and the State Government as to what should be the fair and equitable ground -rent for the lands, the proper procedure which ought to have been followed was to refer the matter to the Mines Tribunal appointed under Sec. 12 of the Act. Instead of doing that, the revenue authorities wrongly applied the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act and purported to fix the fair and equitable ground -rent under that provision by the impugned order (Annexures 4, 5 and 7). It is manifest that in fixing the fair and equitable ground -rent under Sec. 7 of the Act the revenue authorities committed errors of law which are apparent on the face of the record. The application, therefore, must succeed. In the result, the application is allowed and the orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 7 are quashed by a writ of certiorari and the respondents are directed not to give effect to the impugned orders. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. I may observe that it will be open to the State Government to proceed in accordance with law and to refer the matter to the Mines Tribunal for fixation of a fair and equitable ground -rent.