Disposed

The Associated Cement Co.Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jan 2016WP/4297/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ under Articles 226 and 227 directing respondents to register a mining lease deed for limestone. The court discharged the petition, directing the State Government to sanction the registration within six weeks, followed by the District Mining Officer to complete registration in another six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State Government to sanction registration within six weeks; direction to District Mining Officer to execute/registration thereafter within six weeks.

The Associated Cement Co.Ltd. Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP No. 4297 of 2004

¶4

The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having is registered ofÏce at Cement House, 121, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020, and its Cement Unit at Jamul Cement Works, Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Mineral Resources, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

The Collector/Mining OfÏcer, Mining Section, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The District Registrar, Registrar's ofÏce, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Dy. G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

18/1/2016

¶15

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

(2) This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution

¶17

of India has been preferred seeking direction to the respondents to register the lease-deed on payment of stamp duty by taking the annual rent in the lease deed as the 'annual rent reserved' instead of assessing the same on the basis of 'royalty'.

¶18

(3) Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already paid the stamp duty on the basis of royalty, therefore, the respondents, should forthwith execute the lease deed, which has otherwise been made operative till 31.03.2030 or for a period of 50 years from the date of initial lease, which ever is later. The petitioner having been granted the subject lease for mining of 'limestone' in the year 1980, the lease would be valid till 31.03.2030.

¶19

(4) Mr. Surana, learned Dy. G.A. for the State, on instructions from the Mining OfÏcer, Durg, would submit that the process for execution and registration of lease deed is underway and the same shall be completed at the earliest. He would also submit that the matter is pending approval by the State Government.

¶20

(5) In view of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the State Government shall consider and pass necessary order for sanction/approval for execution/registration of lease within a period of 06 weeks from today. After obtaining of sanction/approval, the District Mining OfÏcer shall take steps for execution/registration of lease within a further period of 06 weeks.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

(Prashant Kumar Mishra)

¶23

Shyna

The Associated Cement Co.Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Associated Cement Co.Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hiralal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.shashi Tiwari And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Abhinandan @ Mannu Nathani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kumari Chitra Rekha Sahu Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Gagan Agrawal Vs Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education

Maksud Alam Vs Union Of India