TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's rights under the head lease stood extinguished on vesting of the estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, so that the appellant ceased to be bound by the sub-lease royalty stipulation; (ii) Whether the enhanced royalty payable under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 was recoverable by the appellant from the respondent.
Issue (i): Whether the respondent's rights under the head lease stood extinguished on vesting of the estate under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, so that the appellant ceased to be bound by the sub-lease royalty stipulation.
Analysis: On vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the proprietor's or tenure-holder's interests in the estate pass to the State, but interests expressly saved by the Act remain unaffected. Section 10 of the Act preserves subsisting mining leases by treating them as leases from the State Government for the residue of the term. The respondent, as head lessee of the mining interest, was therefore not divested of its leasehold rights merely because the estate vested in the State. The later insertion of section 10-A also supported the construction that subsisting mining lease interests were not intended to be extinguished by vesting.
Conclusion: The respondent's leasehold rights were not extinguished by vesting, and the appellant remained bound by the sub-lease.
Issue (ii): Whether the enhanced royalty payable under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 was recoverable by the appellant from the respondent.
Analysis: The claim for reimbursement for the earlier period failed because the appellant had not been called upon to pay the enhanced rate. For the later period, the question whether the statutory royalty burden lay on the head lessee or the sub-lessee was not finally resolved in abstract, but on the material before the Court and the contractual arrangement evidenced by the record, the burden for the relevant period was treated as falling on the appellant. Reimbursement from the respondent could not therefore be claimed.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to reimbursement from the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the decree in favour of the respondent was allowed to stand.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsisting mining lease comprised in a notified estate is preserved by the Bihar Land Reforms Act and continues as a statutory lease from the State; vesting does not extinguish the leasehold rights unless the Act expressly so provides.
TaxTMI 
