Topic

mineral concession

3 articlesLatest June 2026
Section 5 Limitation Act | Statutory Authorities Cannot Condone Delay in Mining Lease Renewal Absent Explicit Rule Provision : Jharkhand HC
Case Law Analysis
|Jharkhand High Court

Section 5 Limitation Act | Statutory Authorities Cannot Condone Delay in Mining Lease Renewal Absent Explicit Rule Provision : Jharkhand HC

Jharkhand High Court rules that statutory authorities under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, lack inherent power to condone delays in mining lease renewal applications, even by a single day, unless expressly permitted by law. The judgment reinforces that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only where statutory rules explicitly incorporate it, impacting mining leaseholders and administrative bodies.

MMDR Act Section 4 | No Vested Right to Extract Minor Minerals Even on Proprietary Land; Past Practice or Ownership Irrelevant : J&K HC
Case Law Analysis
|Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

MMDR Act Section 4 | No Vested Right to Extract Minor Minerals Even on Proprietary Land; Past Practice or Ownership Irrelevant : J&K HC

J&K High Court rules that extraction of minor minerals (sand, boulders) from nallahs or private land requires statutory concession under the MMDR Act, 1957. Ownership, past practice, or royalty payments do not confer legal rights, and courts cannot direct authorities to bypass statutory compliance. The ruling reinforces the Public Trust Doctrine, impacting livelihoods dependent on unregulated mineral extraction.