Lessee Cannot Challenge Lease Expiry Date After Voluntarily Signing Supplementary Deed: Orissa High Court

"Petitioner having accepted the tenure reflected in the supplementary lease deed signed and executed the same... he is rather estopped to plead contrary to the recitals contained in the supplementary lease deed," Orissa High Court, in a definitive judgment, held that a mining lessee who voluntarily executes and registers a supplementary lease deed accepting a specific expiry date is precluded from later challenging that date under the doctrines of waiver and acquiescence.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that once a party acts upon the terms of a registered contract for several years without protest, they cannot seek to "turn around" and claim a different commencement date for the lease period.

The Suleipat Iron Ore Mines were originally granted in 1975 and later transferred to the petitioner, Birat Chandra Dagara, in 1984. Following the 2015 amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act), the lease was extended to a 50-year tenure via a supplementary deed executed in 2019, which fixed the expiry at October 24, 2025. The petitioner later approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to extend this validity to May 23, 2026, arguing that the period should be reckoned from the date of the deed's registration in 1976, rather than its execution in 1975.

The primary issue before the court was whether the 50-year lease period envisaged under Section 8A of the MMDR Act must be calculated from the date of the original grant/execution or the date of registration. Additionally, the court examined whether the petitioner’s act of signing the 2019 supplementary lease deed, which explicitly noted the October 2025 expiry, constituted a waiver of any right to claim a longer tenure based on previous government correspondence.

Supplementary Lease Deed Binding On Parties

The Court emphasized that the covenants of a registered lease deed are binding between the lessor and the lessee. It noted that the petitioner was fully aware of the State’s stance on the expiry date when the supplementary deed was presented for execution in 2019. Despite having raised objections in a representation months prior to the signing, the petitioner proceeded to execute the deed and continued mining operations under its terms for over five years.

Execution with Conscious Awareness Precludes Later Challenge

The bench observed that if the petitioner was not agreeable to the stipulated validity period, he should not have executed the deed on July 1, 2019. By signing the document and providing an undertaking to abide by its terms, the petitioner effectively abandoned his previous claim that the lease should be reckoned from the date of registration. The court noted that the petitioner took no immediate remedial measures to rectify the date mentioned in the registered instrument.

Doctrine of Waiver and Acquiescence Applied

Relying on the precedent set in Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Odisha, the Court discussed the legal nuances of waiver. It reiterated that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and can be deduced from a party's conduct. The court found that the petitioner’s continued mining activity without demur for half a decade after signing the supplementary deed established a clear case of acquiescence.

Court Refuses to Resurrect Stale Claims at the Fag End of Lease

The court expressed strong disapproval of the petitioner approaching the judiciary at the "fag end" of the lease tenure. It noted that the representation seeking the extension was filed just two days prior to the calculated expiry of the lease. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in C. Jacob Vrs. Director of Geology & Mining, the bench held that representations regarding stale or dead claims do not furnish a fresh cause of action and cannot be used to unsettle settled matters.

Interpretation of Section 8A of the MMDR Act

The bench analyzed the significant paradigm shift brought by the 2015 MMDR Amendment, which introduced auctioning as the sole method for granting mineral concessions. It noted that Section 8A was specifically inserted to address hardships regarding renewals by granting a uniform 50-year period. However, the court held that this statutory extension is subject to the conditions of the lease and the terms agreed upon in the supplementary deeds executed between the State and the lessee.

"Compensation for 'Lost Period' Not Available under Writ Jurisdiction"

Regarding the petitioner's claim for an additional 20 months of extension as compensation for periods where the mine was allegedly non-operational due to State inaction, the Court found no merit. It referred to the case of Ramesh Prasad Sao Vrs. State of Odisha, affirming that the period of a lease cannot be extended beyond the prescribed 50-year statutory limit under Section 8A, even by invoking force majeure clauses or alleging administrative delays.

Court Cannot Rewrite Commercial Contracts

The High Court clarified that its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not empower it to rewrite the terms of a contract that the parties have entered into with full consciousness. Since the petitioner had "consciously signed and executed" the deed acknowledging the 1975 commencement date, the court refused to issue any directions to the State to reconsider the tenure based on equity or alternate interpretations of the law.

Statutory Lease Creates Vested Interests Subject to Contractual Acceptance"

The court concluded that while a statutory lease creates a vested interest protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, such interests must be exercised within the framework of the agreed lease deeds. The bench found that the petitioner’s arguments failed to account for his own conduct in accepting the tenure recorded in the 2019 instrument.

Consequently, the Court found the writ petition to be devoid of merit. The bench refused to exercise its discretionary power, holding that the petitioner had waived his rights by acquiescence and was bound by the expiry date specifically recorded in the supplementary lease deed.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2026