Disposed

Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2018WRIC/2587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the respondents to accept the petitioner's application for a mining permit under Rule 52-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1963, for removing flood-induced sand and morrum accumulation on his agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on terms similar to Writ-C No. 5939 of 2017 directing the District Magistrate to consider the application afresh.

Kishori Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2587 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kishori Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Janam Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ram Janam Shahi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction commanding the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner for the grant of a mining permit under Rule 52-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The said prayer has been made on the allegation that the land of the petitioner as situate near a river bank, on account of which sand and morum gets accumulated. In order to remove the said minerals which have come to be accumulated, the petitioner seeks a permit as contemplated by Rule 52-A. Rule 52-A reads thus:

¶7

"52-A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 72, the bhumidhar of agricultural land may apply for grant of mining permit for removal of sand and morrum accumulated due to flood on his agricultural land in Form MM-8, in triplicate, to the District Officer, accompanied by a fee of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, and two copies of a Cadastral Survey Map on which the area, applied for, is clearly marked.

¶8

(2) The District Officer shall cause an enquiry, if deemed necessary, through concerned Tahsildar and Mines Officer/ Mines Inspector on the following points:-

¶9

(a) Whether the sand and morrum have been accumulated on the applied land due to floods;

¶10

(b) Whether the name of the applicant/ applicants is/are recorded as bhumidhars on the applied area;

¶11

(c) Whether due to accumulation of sand and morrum, the applicant/ applicants is/are suffering loss on account of non-utilization of such applied land;

¶12

(d) Whether such land was utilized for agricultural purposes during the past years.

¶13

(e) Whether the quantity of the minor mineral, applied by the applicant, is available on the applied area;

¶14

(f) Whether the applied area for mining permit is suitable for mining.

¶15

(3) In the light of aforementioned point-wise report submitted by the Tahsildar/ Mines Officer or Mines Inspector, as the case may be, the District Officer may grant the mining permit for a period not more than three months in a Fasli year in favour of the bhumidhar, after realizing the amount of royalty in advance.

¶16

(4) Except above mentioned provisions, the other provisions of these rules will apply mutatis mutandis to the mining permit granted under this rule."

¶17

Dealing with a similar issue which stood raised in Writ-C No. 5939 of 2017 (Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others), we had proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition on the following terms:

¶18

"The District Magistrate shall consider the petitioners' applications afresh under Rule 52-A of the Rules and after holding an inquiry contemplated thereunder shall record his reasons for disposing of these applications either way. It is needless to mention that the District Magistrate shall also verify the title of the petitioners over the land and may also consider the provisions of the relevant rules as also any other enactment/statutory compliance required, while passing orders on the petitioners' applications. The District Magistrate shall undertake the process and complete the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that the District Magistrate shall also take into consideration the Government Policies, if any, in respect of grant of mining permit for removal of sand/morrum accumulated due to floods on agricultural fields. Further, it is needless to mention that the District Magistrate while conducting the inquiry shall also ensure that all the points mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 52-A are inquired into."

¶19

The learned Standing Counsel states that in case the petitioner were to comply with the requirements of Rule 52-A, his application for grant of mining permit shall be disposed of in light of the directions of this Court issued in Writ-C No. 5939 of 2017.

¶20

Accordingly and with the consent of parties, we dispose of this writ petition on terms similar to those provided for in Writ-C No. 5939 of 2017.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.1.2018 RK

¶22

(Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)

Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Transport Corporation of India Saharanpur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moti Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

M/S S.S.D. and Co. a Partnership Firm and 2 Others Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority Thru Addl. Secy.

Vidya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others