JYOTI MANJARI SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010038482021 2026:CGHC:45679

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA
WPC No. 948 of 2021
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.29
17:22:18 +0530
Judgment Reserved On :23.09.2026.
Judgment Delivered On : 29.10.2026.
Jyoti Manjari Singh W/o Late Shri Rajeshwer Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Mudhena, Tahsil District Mahasamud Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thorough Its Secretary, Mineral Resources Department,
Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Director Of Geology And Mining, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Collector (Mining Section), Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 02.09.2020
(Annexure P/9) passed by Respondent No.1 whereby order dated
28.01.2020 passed by Director, Geology and Mining, Nava Raipur Atal
Nagar, Chhattisgarh in Revision Case No.68/2017 has been affirmed and
prayer of the petitioner for adjusting the litigation period in the lease period

2
thereby extending it has been rejected stating no provision for that matter in
the governing rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 (as
amended). The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“1) To quash the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the
Respondent No. 1 in Revision Application No. F-4-4/2020/12
(Annexure P-9) in the interest of justice and further the
Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to extend period
of lease for a period of 5 years which was lapsed during
litigation in the interest of justice.
2) Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner was granted a mining lease, which
was subsequently required to be renewed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Mining Act. The Petitioner submitted an application for
renewal of the mining lease and pursued the matter before the competent
authorities. The said application for renewal remained pending for a
considerable period before the concerned authorities. The Petitioner also
submitted a letter dated 29.02.2016 in relation to the pending renewal
proceedings. Ultimately, the pending application of the Petitioner was allowed
and an agreement dated 20.03.2017 was executed between the parties.
Pursuant thereto, the earlier mining lease granted in favour of the Petitioner
was renewed under the new applicable Act for the period from 13.12.2001 to
12.12.2031. Petitioner was aggrieved by the manner in which the lease
period was calculated, as the period during which the Petitioner was
prevented from enjoying/operating the mining lease on account of the
pending proceedings was not taken into consideration. The Petitioner,
therefore, preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 2, specifically

3
contending that the period consumed in litigation, i.e. 12.12.2011 to
19.03.2017, ought to be adjusted and the lease period ought to be
correspondingly extended by a period of approximately five years, so as to
ensure that the Petitioner is able to enjoy the full benefit of the lease period.
The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected by Respondent No. 2
vide order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure P/7), primarily on the ground that
there was no specific provision under the applicable Act providing for
adjustment of the period spent in litigation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the Petitioner preferred a second appeal before Respondent No. 1,
reiterating that the period during which the Petitioner was deprived of the
benefit of the mining lease on account of the pending litigation ought to be
excluded/adjusted and the lease period correspondingly extended. However,
Respondent No. 1 also dismissed the appeal on the same ground that there
was no express provision under the Mining Act permitting such adjustment.
Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner, before the
competent authority, specifically relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhejraj Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, (2003) 1 SCC 726,
wherein the principle was recognized that the period during which the
enjoyment/operation of a mining lease is affected on account of litigation is
liable to be appropriately adjusted so that the lessee is permitted to operate
the mining lease for the full period to which he is legally entitled, subject to
adjustment of the period already availed. Despite the aforesaid judgment
being specifically brought to the notice of Respondent No. 1, the said
authority failed to consider and appreciate the applicability and effect of the

4
judicial precedents relied upon by the Petitioner. The impugned order dated
02.09.2020 has been passed merely by observing that there is no specific
statutory provision for adjustment of the litigation period, without examining
whether such adjustment is permissible in view of the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the impugned order passed by
Respondent No. 1 is therefore non-speaking, unreasoned and suffers from
non-application of mind, as the material submissions and binding/pertinent
judicial precedents relied upon by the Petitioner have not been properly
considered. Respondent No. 1 has failed to adjudicate the Petitioner's claim
on its own merits and has rejected the same solely on the ground of absence
of an express statutory provision. The Petitioner submits that the period from
12.12.2011 to 19.03.2017, which was consumed in the proceedings and
during which the Petitioner could not avail the benefit of the mining lease,
ought to be duly accounted for and adjusted while determining the effective
period of the lease. Denial of such adjustment would result in the Petitioner
being deprived of a substantial portion of the lease tenure for no fault
attributable to her.
4.
Learned counsel for the State submits that the relief as prayed by the
petitioner cannot be allowed only for the reason that the said period of got
elapsed in the litigation period. He submits that it is undisputed that initially,
by exercising the statutory powers provided under Chhattisgarh Minor
Mineral Rules, 1996, the lease was provided to the husband of the petitioner
for 10 years from 13.12.2001. The period of that lease came to end on
12.12.2011. Undisputedly, the application for renewal of mines was submitted
by the petitioner's husband on 29.11.2010, but due to unprecedented

5
situation, the mining lease was not renewed on time and by virtue of Rule 18
(a) of Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, the lease granted to the petitioner was
lapsed. At this stage, it is worthy to state here that, the matter was remanded
to the Collector by the Director, Geology and Mining on 10.10.2012. Since,
10.10.2012, the matter was subjudice and during the pendency of the
renewal, by repealing the Rules of 1996, the State government has
formulated new rules known as Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015. It
came into effect from 27.03.2015. Rule 38 (a) of this Rule provides for a
period of quarry lease where sub-rule of Rule 38 (a) specifically provides that
all quarry leased granted before the commencement of this rule for minerals
specified in Para 8 and Para C of the Schedule 1 and Para A of Schedule 2
shall be extended and to be deemed to have been extended upto period
ending 31.03.2020 with effect from the date of expiry of the period of renewal
last made from till the completion of renewal period if any, or a period of 30
years from the date of grant of such lease whichever is later subject to
conditions that all terms and conditions of the lease stand complied with.
Meaning thereby, Rule 38 (a) comes to levy to the lessee i.e. if their mining
lease lapses prior to coming of its mining, then it may be deemed to be
extended upto 31.03.2020 or for a period of 30 years from the date of grant of
such lease whichever is higher. It is undisputed fact that the present lease fall
under Part C of Schedule 1 and the mining lease of the said mine was
already lapsed in the year 2011. Therefore, for the benefit of the petitioner,
the respondent has calculated the higher period of 30 years from the date of
initial grant of lease i.e. 12.12.2031 and therefore, as per the statutory
guidelines and rules framed there under, the mining lease was extended to

6
2031 from the date of initial grant. This extension of period of 30 years from
the date of initial grant includes all the time period which was spent for the
litigation etc.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the
petition carefully.
6. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether, in addition
to the statutory tenure already granted up to 12.12.2031, the petitioner is
entitled to a further extension equivalent to the period spent in the renewal
proceedings/litigation.
7. In my considered view, the answer must be in the negative. The tenure of a
mining/quarry lease is governed by the statutory provisions applicable to
such lease. The petitioner has not been able to point out any provision under
the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Rules, 2015 which mandates exclusion of the
period spent in renewal proceedings from the statutory lease tenure or
authorizes a further extension of the lease on that account.
8. The benefit available under Rule 38(a) of the 2015 Rules has already been
extended to the petitioner by treating the lease as continuing for a period of
thirty years from the original date of grant. Thus, the petitioner has been
granted a lease tenure up to 12.12.2031. The period spent in the intervening
proceedings cannot be added once again to the statutory tenure in the
absence of any enabling provision under the governing Rules.
9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment
in Bhejraj Singh does not advance the petitioner’s case in the facts and
circumstances of the present matter. The entitlement of the petitioner has to

7
be determined in the light of the statutory scheme governing the lease in
question. The petitioner cannot claim an additional period beyond the tenure
prescribed and granted under the applicable statutory provisions merely on
the ground that the renewal proceedings consumed time.
10.It is also relevant that the authorities have not curtailed the statutory tenure
available to the petitioner. Rather, upon application of Rule 38(a) of the 2015
Rules, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of the thirty-year period
calculated from the original date of grant, resulting in continuation of the
lease up to 12.12.2031. The period spent in the intervening proceedings thus
stands subsumed within the statutory period so determined.
11.In the absence of any statutory provision conferring a right upon the
petitioner to seek exclusion of the litigation/renewal period and consequential
extension of the lease beyond 12.12.2031, no mandamus can be issued
directing the respondents to grant a further extension of approximately five
years.
12. Consequently, I find no jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference
with the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by Respondent No.1 or the order
dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Director, Geology and Mining.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash

8
The date when the
The date when the
The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved
judgment is
uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
23.09.2026 29.10.2026 ------ 29.10.2026