The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings for mining royalty. The court held that without a valid, registered mining lease in favour of the respondent, the land holder is primarily liable to pay royalty, leaving any claim against the lessee for a separate civil remedy.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29062 of 2008 Petitioner :- Ram Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan,J.H. Khan,W.H. Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. D. K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent.
According to the office report dated 05.08.2008, the service upon respondent No.4 is deemed to be sufficient.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality and propriety of the recovery proceedings pursued against the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not mining on the land in question and rather he leased out the land in favour of the respondent No.4 who had dugged the earth and, therefore, the royalty, if any, can be realized from the person, namely, respondent No.4 in this petition.
Per contra, the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that the mining has been done by the petitioner himself and he is not able to establish that there was any valid lease and agreement in favour of the respondent No.4 in respect of land in question for mining purpose or that any transfer of possession had taken place for the purposes of mining lease pursuant to any licence for mining lease. He has drawn our attention to the notary
document, Annexure 4 to the writ petition, that bears signature of various persons but that cannot be held a valid lease enforceable in law to create any third party right. We made a pointed query to learned counsel for the petitioner whether this agricultural land which was according to his own admission was leased out subject to any registered lease or not and what could be the consequences if the lease of an agricultural land is executed, in reply he admits to the extent that the lease is not permissible and transfer of land cannot take place for mining purpose unless there is a valid licence for the said purposes issued under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 to carry out digging of earth from the agricultural land.
In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in absence of any valid lease executed in favour of the respondent No.4, primarily liability to pay even the royalty under Rule 58 would be a person who is holder of the land in question. It is a case where the petitioner may avail remedy of instituting an appropriate civil suit proceedings for damages in lieu thereof, from the respondent No.4.
The writ petition lacks merits and so we do not find it to be a fit case to interfere.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Nitin Verma
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is primarily liable to pay royalty under Rule 58 in absence of a valid mining lease in favour of the third party respondent.
Whether the writ court can interfere with the recovery proceedings when the petitioner admitted the lack of a registered agricultural lease for mining purposes.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy through an appropriate civil suit against the lessee for damages.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Pal
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
