MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Opens Door for Mining Lease on Raiyat Land

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has provided clarity on the use of Raiyat land for mining purposes and the interpretation of a State Government's letter of approval in a mining lease dispute. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Aravind Kumar delivered the verdict on September 12, 2023.

The case revolved around the classification of land as 'Raiyat' and its subsequent allocation for mining activities, raising questions about land usage and ownership.

In their judgment, the bench addressed the pivotal issue of whether the State Government's letter of approval could be considered a "Letter of Intent." They examined the legal definitions and referred to relevant cases. Rejecting the contention that the letter constituted a Letter of Intent, the bench emphasized that the letter was recommendatory in nature and did not signify a commitment to enter into a future contract. The judgment clarified that this situation did not fall under clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act [Para 15-16].

"Interpretation of State Government's letter of approval – Whether the letter constitutes a Letter of Intent – Examination of legal definitions and relevant cases – Rejecting the contention that the letter is a Letter of Intent due to the lack of previous Central Government approval – Clarification that the letter was recommendatory and not a commitment to enter into a future contract – Not covered by clause (c) of Section 10-A of the Act," the Court observed.

The Court also delved into the restrictions imposed on Raiyat land use for mining, citing provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The judgment highlighted the contradiction between classifying land as 'Dungri' and granting it as Raiyat land for cultivation.

"Legal issues surrounding the consent letters of landowners (Raiyats) and changes in ownership – Uncertainty regarding the Respondent's eligibility for Rule 61 benefits – Non-impleadment of WBMDTCL – The remand order is not appropriate at this stage," the Court noted.

The Court also addressed the ownership dispute, recognizing the appellants' claim to 20.87 acres of the land in question. The judgment cleared the way for granting a mining lease for this portion to Respondent No. 1 while rejecting the remainder of the claim.

 Date of Decision: September 12, 2023

 STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER vs M/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/12-Sep-2023_State_WB_Vs_Chrianjilal_Industries.pdf"]

Latest Legal News