Disposed

Ravi Kumar Meena v. 1. M/S Dg Bundelkhand Granite LLP through Partner Munesh Kumar Meena

NGT8 Apr 2025Original Application No. 235/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant challenged a respondent's mining activities on adjacent land. A committee found the respondent's main site operational but pending environmental clearance for other plots. The Tribunal directed the respondent not to initiate mining on specific surveys without requisite permissions.

What did the court decide?

Directed project proponent not to initiate mining on specified survey numbers without obtaining requisite permissions.

Ravi Kumar Meena vs 1. M/S Dg Bundelkhand Granite LLP through Partner Munesh Kumar Meena — NGT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 5

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No. 235/2024(CZ)

¶4

Ravi Kumar Meena Applicant (s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

M/s D.G.Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 08.04.2025

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Mr. Kanishk Devesh Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Robin Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Theerthesh Bharilya, Adv. for Mr. Shreyas Dharmadhika, Adv. Mr. Prashant M Harne, Adv. Mr. Gaurvanvit Jain, Adv. on behalf of Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The contention and grievance of the applicant as narrated in the petition are that the applicant is a partner of the firm named "S.K. Minerals" and has obtained a land admeasuring 7.6 hectares for the purpose of mining located at the Khasra Number 551/5/1 and 552/3 at Village Baaghat, District Niwari, Madhya Pradesh and accordingly had obtained the Consent to Establish, Consent to Operate and the Environmental Clearance for the purpose of mining, however did not start with mining activity of any kind on the aforesaid land in question.

¶12

The respondent no. 1 approached the Directorate of mining and fraudulently obtained two pieces of land admeasuring 3.29 hectares and 6.7 hectares, located at Village Beejaur, Niwari, Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of mining adjacent to the land of the applicant and in

¶13

¶14

O. A. No. 235/2024 (CZ) Ravi Kumar Meena vs. M/s D.G.Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors..

¶15

the 2 O.A. No. 235/2024(CZ) Ravi Kumar Meena Vs. M/s D. G. Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors. process the respondent no. 1 declared that the land of the respondent is at least 500 meters away from the land of the applicant, however, so far as the actual state of affairs is concerned the land of the respondent no. 1 is adjacent to the land of the applicant. It is germane to mention over here that the respondent no. 1 has also not installed the pillars for demarcation of the mine and that the respondent no. 1 has started mining activities not just on the land obtained by the respondent no. 1 on lease but also on the adjoining and adjacent lands including the land of the applicant.

¶16

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant are that respondent has started the mining without any requisite permission to consent to operate from the competent authority and started excavation of the mines in the area allotted to the respondent.

¶17

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and a committee consisting one representative from the Collector Niwar(M.P.) and One representative from Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Boar was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report.

¶18

In compliance of the order the members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :

¶19

“Observations - The facts as observed by the committee as follows:

¶20

There are three mines situated in the area and the details of the same are as follows:

¶21

Sr.	Survey Number	Area (in Hectares)	Village	Remark
1.	551 / 5 / 1 and 552 / 3	7.600	Baghat	Mining activities were operational

¶22

¶23

O. A. No. 235/2024 (CZ)

¶24

Ravi Kumar Meena vs. M/s D.G.Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors..

¶25

2.	1469	6.710	Beejaur	No mining activity observed
3.	1467	3.290	Beejaur	No mining activity observed

¶26

It is pertinent to mention that the all the three mines are adjacent to each other however the mine which was operational is situated in village Baghat and the other two mines where no mining activity has taken place are situated in a different village (Gram Beejaur). These mines are situated at Survey Number 1469 admeasuring 6.710 Hectares and Survey Number 1467 admeasuring 3.290 Hectares. Since the issues raised in the Original Application are on the land bearing survey number 551 / 5 / 1 and 552 / 3 (Area 7.6 Hectares) the same are dealt with first.

¶27

The project proponent holds valid Environment Clearance from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Madhya Pradesh. The project proponent holds valid Consent To Establish and Consent To Operate from Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Bhopal. The project proponent was found complying with the terms and conditions of the consent and EC granted.

¶28

The mining department had stated that the project proponent holds valid permission from the District Collector Office, Niwari for mining of grantie at survey number 551 / 5 / 1 and 552 / 3 (Area 7.6 Hectares)

¶29

The final order of grant of permission was passed on 27.07.2018 by the Mining Division, District Collector Office, Tikamgarh under the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. It is relevant to state that earlier Niwari was a Tehseel under District Tikamgarh however from 01.10.2018, Niwari was declared as a separate District (52nd District of Madhya Pradesh).

¶30

That it is necessary to mention that back in 2018 the respondent no. 1 had proposed to transfer his mining lease to the partnership firm of the original applicant as per rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.

¶31

That with regards to the mining at Survey Number 1467 admeasuring 6.710 Hectares and Survey Number 1469 admeasuring 3.290 Hectares, the joint committee found that no mining activity had taken place at these survey numbers

¶32

The project proponent also holds conditional permission for mining at these survey numbers from the Directorate, Mineral and Resource Department, Madhya Pradesh. The

¶33

¶34

O. A. No. 235/2024 (CZ)

¶35

Ravi Kumar Meena vs. M/s D.G.Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors..

¶36

conditional permission for survey number 1469 (3.290 Hectares) was granted vide letter no. 5879 dated 28.04.2022 is filed .

¶37

This conditional permission was granted on the basis of the order dated 26.09.2018 was passed by the Mining Department, Collector Office, District Tikamgarh. This order was passed after grant of NOC from Gram Sabha, Beejuor (15.08.2018), from District Forest Officer, Tikamgarh (13.08.2018) and inspection report from Tehseeldar Office (24.07.2018) as well as the mining officer (17.07.2018).

¶38

Similarly the conditional permission for survey number 1467 admeasuring 6.710 Hectares was granted by the Directorate, Mineral and Resource Department, Madhya Pradesh vide letter number 7370 dated 25.05.2022. For the mine situated at survey number 1467 admeasuring 6.710 hectares the grant to Environmental Clearance is under process and thus in absence of EC no mining activity could take place. The project proponent has to take EC from SEIAA and CTE, CTO from MP PCB before initiating the mining activities in these survey numbers.

¶39

That only after grant of the above permissions the project proponent will execute the mining lease with the Mining Department. The exercise of demarcation by pillars and putting up of the sign board declaring the area as a mine shall be undertaken after execution of the mining lease.

¶40

The applicant had contended that the mine situated at survey number 551 / 5 / 1 and 552 / 3 (Area 7.6 Hectares) was leased to Ravi Kumar Meena (applicant) however no such documents like mining lease, orders from Collector office, Mining Department etc. have been provided in order to establish the ownership

¶41

Hence the mining activities by the project proponent at survey number 551 / 5 / 1 and 552 / 3 (admeasuring Area 7.6 Hectares ) is valid and with regards to mines bearing survey number 1467 (6.710 Hectares) and 1469 (3.290 Hectares) the process of grant of Environmental Clearances is pending and thus no mining activity has started on these mines.

¶42

Learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 has filed the reply and submitted that the Joint Committee was constituted with direction to submit the factual reply. Report says that no mining activity have been taken place on survey no. 1467 and 1469 and the environmental clearance is pending with the competent authority.

¶43

¶44

O. A. No. 235/2024 (CZ)

¶45

Ravi Kumar Meena vs. M/s D.G.Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors..

¶46

It is further submitted that the authorities have directed the project proponent not to commence the mining activities without due approval from the competent authorities.

¶47

In view of the above facts, since the EC is pending with the competent authority and no mining activity has started on these mines, thus we direct the Project Proponent not to initiate mining activity at the survey number under question without obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority and after that the terms and conditions or environmental clearance and consent condition must be strictly complied with.

¶48

With these observations, the O.A No. 235/2024 stands disposed of.

¶49

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶50

Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM

¶51

8^th April 2025 O. A. No. 235/2024(CZ) K

¶52

¶53

O. A. No. 235/2024 (CZ)

¶54

Ravi Kumar Meena vs. M/s D.G.Bundelkhand Granite LLP & Ors..

Ravi Kumar Meena v. 1. M/S Dg Bundelkhand Granite LLP through Partner Munesh Kumar Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Meena v. 1. M/S Dg Bundelkhand Granite LLP through Partner Munesh Kumar Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Muthuvel vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

Janardan Chandar Patil vs Union of India Department of Environment Forest and Wild Life through Secretary

Dr Pg Najpande vs Union of India through Secretary

Satyam Shekhar vs District Conservator Forest Alwar

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

News Item Titled "77 Cases of Illegal Felling of Conifer Trees Reported in J & K,S Doda" Appearing in the Daily Excelsior Dated 27.11.2024. vs

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala Environment Department

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Bakir Ali Rangwala S O Haji Ghulam Ali vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary

Dr Pg Najpande vs Union of India through Secretary

Hakimuddin Husain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Manish Singh Gahlot vs State of Chhattisgarh through Its Principal Secretary (Minerals)

Jai Chaudhary vs District Collector Jaipur