Petitioner alleged unauthorized mining lease encroaching on a temple area. Court directed District Magistrate to act within one month if excavation exceeds assigned limits, disposing of the writ petition.
District Magistrate directed to pass appropriate order in case excavation exceeds assigned mining area within one month.
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. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40664 of 2019
Petitioner :- Bharat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Samujh Singh,Dilendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Shri Ram Samujh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner claims himself to be 'Pujari' of Shiv temple situated at Dalua Ghat, Tehsil Gola, District Gorakhpur. The petitioner has raised a complaint that the respondent no. 5 has been granted mining lease of Village Soharabhar for a period of five years, but respondent no. 5 instead of excavating the minerals from the mining area she has exceeded the said area and excavating the minerals from near the temple and mela area which has threatened the existence of temple itself. The petitioner has filed khasra of 1424-1429 fasli years wherein Plot No. 186 measuring 0.1780 hectare has been shown as Dev and Mela Sthan in Village Dalua, Tehsil Gola, District Gorakhpur.
Learned Standing Counsel Shri P.K. Tripahti has received instruction and has submitted that the mining lease has been executed in favour of respondent no. 5 on 17.10.2018 for a period of five years. So far as complaint of the petitioner is concerned, the location of the petitioner's temple is not in the mining area but a different place for which the petitioner, if he has any grievance, can make a complaint to the District Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already made a complaint to the District Magistrate but no orders have been passed.
The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case it is true what the petitioner claims himself to be and excavation of minerals is being done other than the assigned mining area, the District Magistrate will take appropriate action against the person concerned and in this regard he will pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as far as possible, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before it.
Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Sunil Kr. Gupta
(Prakash Padia, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Magistrate should take action if the mining lease area exceeds the assigned zone and threatens a temple.
Whether a complaint regarding unauthorized excavation in a temple vicinity warrants immediate judicial intervention.
Bharat
State Of U.P.
Abhinava Upadhya
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
