AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 351 wordsThe petitioner is the lease holder for the period of five years. He filed an application before the expiry of the period for renewal of the same within the time. However the lease was renewed on 6.8.2009 and lease deed executed on 22.8.2009.
In the renewed lease deed it was mentioned that it was for the period of five years from the date of the expiry of the previous lease deed. The petitioner has challenged this condition mentioned therein on the ground that the petitioner is entitled for five years lease from the date of execution of renewal of the lease deed.
We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.
A Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition no. 67371 of 2009, Ajai Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 21.12.2009 has held that:
''Under Rule 14 (4) of the Rules 1963 the date of commencement of renewed mining lease would be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed, or the date of actual commencement of mining operation whichever is earlier.''
In another Division Bench this Court in Writ Petition No. 58734 of 2010 Hanuman Pathak vs. State of U.P. and others connected with Writ Petition No. 68005 of 2010 Sri Shanker Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 73783 of 2001 Sharda Devi vs. State of U.P. and others has followed the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ajai Kumar Singh (supra) and had held that the petitioner therein would be entitled for five years lease from the date of execution of lease deed.
In these cases it is not disputed that the mining operations had not started prior to renewal of the lease deed. In view of this and for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners would be entitled to work for the period of five years from the date of execution of the lease i.e. 22.8.2009.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
