1 2026:CGHC:25555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 20/04/2026 Order Pronounced on 22/06/2026 Order uploaded on 22/06/2026 WPC No. 4557 of 2019 1. Kamlesh Rajpuria S/o Late Shri N.D. Rajpuria Aged About 59 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Heights, B- 301, Daldalseoni, Mova, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Government of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Mines, Department of Mines, Shashtri Bhavan , Dr. Rajendra Prashad Road, New Delhi. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary , Mineral Resources Department Mahanadi Bhavan , Village Rakhi , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Govt. Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Order 1. By this petition, petitioner has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 11.9.2019 passed in revision SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.06.22 19:41:00 +0530 2 No.12/(07)/2016/RC(II) filed under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act of 1957’) read with Rule 36 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (for short ‘the Rules of 2016’) by which revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and order No.F-3-28/2011-12 dated 10.3.2016 passed by the State Government dismissing application of petitioner filed under Rule 28-A (1) of the Rules of 2016 was affirmed. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the State Government has granted mining lease of lime stone (major mineral) to the petitioner over land bearing Khasra No.452 area 3.36 hectare situate in village Bandagi Tehsil Lohandiguda District Bastar for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 30.8.2003 to 29.8.2033. Lease deed was executed on 30.8.2003. The State Government thereafter had issued notice dated 20.8.2014 to petitioner to show-cause as to why lease granted to him be not declared lapsed. Petitioner submitted reply to show-cause notice contending that, petitioner wrote letter dated 12.2.2004 to the concerned authority seeking permission to enter into the land to work and further explained the reasons as pleaded therein. It is case of petitioner that respondent State without considering reply submitted by petitioner in appropriate manner had 3 passed the order dated 21.5.2015 (Annexure P-12) declaring the lease granted in favour of petitioner to have lapsed. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application under Section 4-A (4) of the Act of 1957 read with Rule 28-A(1) of the Rules of 1960 for revival of lease. The State Government considered and dismissed application for revival vide order dated 10.3.2016 only on the ground that application was submitted with inordinate delay of 10 years, observing that lease was lapsed on 30.8.2005, therefore, application for revival could have been filed within a period of six months thereafter. Order dated 10.3.2016 was put to challenge in a revision before respondent No.1 which was also dismissed by impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 as also respondent No.1 fell into error in dismissing application submitted by petitioner for revival of lease only on the ground of delay and not considering application on merits. He contended that the State Government has not passed any order declaring the lease to have lapsed prior to 21.5.2015. Respondent No.2 and 3 have taken 30.8.2005, as the date of lapse of lease which according to provision under Rule 28-A of the Rules of 1960, is erroneous. He further contended that lapse of lease is not automatic after expiry of period of two years but when the competent authority finds that lessee has 4 not commenced mining work within prescribed period or has discontinued mining operations for a period exceeding two years, the concerned authority has to issue notice seeking reply and thereafter to pass appropriate order. In this case, the competent authority had issued show-cause notice to petitioner, which was replied, and thereafter respondent No.2 had passed the order on 21.5.2015. Hence, the observation made by respondent No.2 that application submitted by petitioner after lapse of 10 years is not sustainable. He also contended that the demarcation, pursuant to the letter/direction issued by the office of the Collector (Mines Branch) on 09.7.2007, and demarcation was conducted by the revenue officer on 13.6.2007 and report was submitted before the Tahsildar. Thus, it is clear that land which was granted on lease to petitioner, was not demarcated and boundaries of lands for mining purpose was not handed over to petitioner on the date which is considered that lease lapsed on 30.8.2005 and therefore, finding recorded by respondent No.1 and 2 that lease granted to petitioner lapsed in the month of August 2005 is erroneous. He also contended that vested right of a lease holder cannot be curtailed without affording him opportunity to repudiate the impression of the competent authority. According to provision under the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1960, mining lease would not be 5 deemed to have lapsed till the State Government passes an order declaring the mining lease to have lapsed and further communicating the same to the lease holder. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause vs Union of India & ors, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 455. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents would oppose submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submit that respondent No.2 has passed the order strictly in accordance with provisions under the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1960. Petitioner was awarded lease for a period of 30 years, starting from 30.8.2003 to 29.8.2033. According to provisions, the petitioner has to commence mining operations within a period of two years from the date of execution of lease deed. However, petitioner could not able to commence mining operation within specified period, therefore, lease has automatically lapsed after expiry of period of two years from the date of execution of lease deed according to provision under Section 4-A (4) of the Act of 1957. He also submits that petitioner was given show-cause notice to which, he submitted reply and thereafter case was registered, petitioner appeared through his counsel and the matter was heard on several dates. Petitioner has not submitted any mining 6 closure plan approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM). Referring to provisions under Rule 28-A (1) and (2) of the Rules of 1960, it is submitted that application for revival is to be filed within six months from the date of lapsing of lease i.e. 30.8.2005, whereas application for revival is submitted by petitioner after almost 10 years. 5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 6. Pleadings made in writ petition with regard to demarcation of land allotted to petitioner on lease for mining purpose on 30.6.2007 is not in dispute. In the order dated 10.3.2016 passed by the State Government on the application for revival of lease, there is mention that the Collector got executed supplementary agreement on 7.9.2009. There is further mention that petitioner had submitted/deposited the dead rent till 2014. 7. From the documents enclosed along with writ petition, in particular order dated 21.5.2015, Annexure P-12, it is mentioned that vide letter dated 2.4.2011, the proceedings have been forwarded by the Collector for declaring the lease lapsed, based upon which show-cause notice was issued to petitioner and the matter was fixed for hearing on 9.9.2014, 30.10.2014, 19.1.2015, 13.2.2015, 16.3.2015 and 23.3.2015. It is also mentioned that on the date fixed, petitioner was 7 represented through his advocate and Mining Officer Jagdalpur also appeared. 8. From the aforementioned facts, as mentioned in the order dated 21.5.2015, Annexure P-12, it is apparent that the Mining Officer had forwarded the proceeding for declaring the lease to have lapsed referring to provision under Section 4-A (4) of the Act of 1957 and Rule 28A of the Rules of 1960. 9. Respondent No.2 has passed the order declaring the lease awarded to the petitioner of land bearing Khasra No.452 area 3.36 hectare situated in village Badanji to have lapsed only on 21.5.2015. There is no order or proceeding drawn in this regard prior to 21.5.2015. 10.Sub-section (4) of Section 4-A is relevant and therefore, the same is extracted herein below:- “(4) Where the holder of a mining lease fails to undertake production and dispatch for a period of two years after the date of execution of the lease or, having commenced production and dispatch, has discontinued the same for a period of two year, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years from the date of execution of lease or, as the case may be, discontinuance of the production and dispatch. Provided that the State Government may, on an application made by the holder of such lease before it lapses and on being satisfied that it shall not be possible for the holder of the lease to undertake production and dispatch or to continue such production and dispatch for 8 reasons beyond his control, make an order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application, to extend the period of two years by a further period not exceeding one year and such extension shall not be granted for more than once during the entire period of lease: Provided further that such lease shall lapse on failure to undertake production and dispatch or having commenced the production and dispatch fails to continue the same before the end of such extended period.” 11. Perusal of order dated 21.5.2015, Annexure P-12, would show that the State Government has passed an order on 21.5.2015 declaring lapse of lease w.e.f. 30.8.2005. Application submitted under Rule 28A of the Rules of 1960 was considered and dismissed observing that application was submitted after 10 years from the date of lapse of lease i.e. 30.8.2005, without considering the fact that the land was demarcated by revenue officer only on 13.06.2007. Land awarded on lease was identified by demarcation proceeding only on 13.6.2007 and further that the order declaring the lease lapsed was passed only on 21.5.2015. 12. In case of Common Cause (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the operation of Section 4A(4) of the Act of 1957 and automatic lapse of lease, has observed thus:- “35.It is not possible for us to accept, that vital vested rights in a leaseholder can be curtailed without affording him an opportunity to repudiate the 9 impression(s) of the competent authority, namely, that the leaseholder could not have (or had actually not) carried out mining operations, for a continuous period of two years. Our instant contemplation stands affirmed through Rule 28 of the Mineral Concession Rules. The same is reproduced below: “28. Lapsing of leases – (1) Subject to the other conditions of this rule where mining operations are not commenced within a period of one year (sic. two years) from the date of execution of the lease, or is discontinued for a continuous period of one year (sic. two years) after commencement of such operations, the State Government shall, by an order, declare the mining lease as lapsed and communicate the declaration to the lessee. (2) Where a lessee is unable to commence the mining operation within a period of one year (sic. two years) from the date of execution of the mining lease, or discontinues mining operations for a period exceeding one year (sic. two years) for reasons beyond his control, he may submit an application to the State Government, explaining the reasons for the same, at least three months before the expiry of such period. (3) Every application under sub-rule (2) shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.200. (4) The State Government may on receipt of an application made under sub- rule (2) and on being satisfied about the adequacy and genuineness of the reasons for the non- commencement of mining operations or discontinuance thereof, pass an order before the date on which the lease would have otherwise lapsed, extending or refusing to extend the period of the lease: Provided that where the State Government on receipt of an application under sub-rule (2) does not pass an order before the expiry of the date on which the lease would have otherwise lapsed, the lease shall be deemed to have been 10 extended until the order is passed by the State Government or until a period of two years, whichever is earlier. Explanation 1. - Where the non-commencement of the mining operations within a period of two years from the date of execution of mining lease is on account of – (a) delay in acquisition of surface rights; or (b) delay in getting the possession of the leased area; or (c) delay in supply or installation of machinery; or (d) delay in getting financial assistance from banks, or any financial institutions; or (e) ensuring supply of the mineral in an industry of which the lessee is the owner or in which he holds not less than 50% of the controlling interest, and the lessee is able to furnish documentary evidence supported by a duly sworn affidavit, the State Government may consider if there are sufficient reasons for non- commencement of operations for a continuous period of more than one year (sic. two years). Explanation 2. two years). Explanation 2. - Where the discontinuance of mining operations for a continuous period of two years after the commencement of such operations is on account of – (a) orders passed by any statutory or judicial authority; or (b) operations becoming highly uneconomical; or (c) strike or lock out, and the lessee is able to furnish documentary evidence supported by a duly sworn affidavit, the State Government may consider if there are sufficient reasons for discontinuance of operations for a continuous period of more than one year (sic. two years). Explanation 3. - In case of mining lessee who has undertaken reconnaissance operations or in case of mining lessee whose capital investment in mine development is planned to be in excess of Rs. 200 crores and where the mine development 11 is likely to take more than two years, the State Government shall consider it to be sufficient reason for non-commencement of mining operations for a continuous period of more than two years.” (emphasis supplied) It is apparent from a perusal of sub-rule (1) extracted above, that the State Government is mandated to pass an order, and thereby, declare that a mining lease had lapsed. It is also the mandate of sub-rule (1) aforesaid, that such an order passed by the State Government, must be communicated to the leaseholder. On a conjoint reading of Section 4A(4) and Rule 28(1), we are satisfied to hold, that a mining lease under Section 4A(4) would not be deemed to have lapsed, till the State Government passes an order, declaring the mining lease to have lapsed, and further communicates the same to the leaseholder.” 13. In aforementioned decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in categorical terms that a mining lease under Section 4A (4) would not deemed to have lapsed till the State Government passes an order declaring mining lease to have lapsed and further communicates the same to the lease holder. Lapse of mining lease is not automatic. Respondent No.2 as also respondent No.1 has not taken into consideration this aspect that lapsing of lease would be from the date of order passed by the State Government and fell into error in taking into consideration two years period from the date of execution of lease deed only without there being any order of the competent authority and dismissing the application submitted 12 by the petitioner under Rule 28A of the Rules of 1960 only on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure P-16) is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure P-16) is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 to consider the application submitted by petitioner under Section 4A (4) of the Act of 1957 read with Rule 28A of the Rules of 1960 afresh on merits keeping in mind relevant provisions and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (supra). 15. Considering the fact that order declaring the lease lapsed is dated on 21.5.2015 (Annexure P-12), respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the application submitted by petitioner expeditiously within outer limit of three months from the date of recept of copy of order. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-