Disposed

Dulli Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan

NGT10 Jul 2025Original Application No. 72/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal accepted reports confirming the stone crusher operates within a valid mining lease with environmental clearance. Unit complies with emission/noise standards based on expert studies. Previous PILs regarding encroachment were disposed of by High Court. Application disposed without relief.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; application disposed of.

Dulli Chand Meena vs State of Rajasthan — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

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

¶3

Original Application No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶4

IN THE MATTER OF :

¶5

Dulli Chand Meena

¶6

S/O Shri Girraj Prasad R/O Village Bahali District-Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1	The State of Rajasthan
	through the Secretary to the
	Government, Mines Department,
	Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 01
2	The Mines Engineer Mines and Geology Department Alwar, Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 02
3	The District Collector Alwar, Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 03
4	The Regional Officer Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, Alwar, Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 04
5	The Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate
	Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 05
6	The Deputy Conservator of Forest Forest Department, Rajgarh, District Alwar Rajasthan.	Respondent No. 06
7	M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog Alwar, through Om Prakash Gupta Stone Crusher R/o H.O. Gulab Kunj, Near Railway PF No. 2, Delhi Road, P.O. -Alwar (Raj.). at Present Add. Wander
	High Flats, opposite Malviya Nagar, Alwar, Office and Plant Add. - Village	Respondent No. 07
	and Post Bahali. Tehsil Baigarh, District Alwar, Raj.

¶10

¶11

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶12

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶13

COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):

¶14

Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv.

¶15

COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv. (with Mr. Rishab Kumar, Adv.) Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. (with Ms. Vanshika Dubey, Adv.) Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Adv.

¶17

CORAM:

¶18

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

¶19

Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 03.07.2025 Date of uploading of order on website : 10.07.2025

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Issue raised in this application is illegal stone crusher machines operating in Alwar District including Bhiwadi without consent to operate and these illegal stone crusher units are affecting health and life of not only the people of the locality, but also the animals including cattle stock and agricultural land of the area. These illegal stone crusher units are causing air pollution, sound pollution as well as health pollution in the locality and the Pollution Control Board has not given consent for operating the illegal stone crusher unit respondent no. 7 without taking into consideration these aspects of the matter. In fact Alwar District falls in National Capital Project Region of the country and for stopping the pollution in National Capital Region the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Greens Tribunal, Forest Ministry, Environment Ministry of Government of India and Forest Department have been issuing instructions from time to time for stopping such pollution by such stone crusher units.

¶22

¶23

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶24

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶25

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal and notices were issued to the respondent for submission of reply and a committee consisting the representative of the Collector, District - Alwar, representative of the Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Forest Department, Alwar and one representative from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board was constituted with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. In compliance thereof, the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have filed the reply. The report of the joint committee and reply on that are on record. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

The submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that stone crusher functioning at Khasra No. 332 in the name of M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog, Alwar, Tehsil Rajgarh, District-Alwar was found to be in the forest land and some part of it was in K hasra No. 331 which is recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar in the name of forest department and Khasra No. 183 is of Abadi of Village Bahali.

¶27

That mining lease is allotted in 613/90. Khasra Nos. 328 and 329 are lands of S.T. and are in mining lease of 301/90, which is not permissible. Mandir Muafi land is in Khasras Nos. 437 and 438. These lands also cannot be allotted for mining lease, but have been allotted to respondent No. 7 in mining lease, which is illegal. Khasra No. 450 'Gair Mumkin Pahad' also cannot be allotted for mining purpose, but respondent No. 7 is doing mining in this Khasra number also. Lime stone is being crushed into missionary stone and then sold, which is diminishing the utility of the mineral and the Government is being put to loss of royalty. Rajgarh Tehsil is in N.C.R. and this respondent No. 7 Crusher Unit is also in N.C.R., which is

¶28

¶29

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶30

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶31

oprohibited. Blasting is done for mining, due to which the water level is going down.

¶32

That aggrieved by the above, the applicant filed a Public Interest Litigation being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6931/2022 (PIL) before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. However, the said writ petition was disposed of in view of the directions issued by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Meena and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/2018 disposed of by order dated 30.01.2019 directing for creation of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) for rural areas in every district. The applicant was given liberty to make a representation before the PLPC and the respondents were directed to decide the same within a period of 2 months.

¶33

In compliance of the above order, the applicant filed a representation before the Collector and the petition was dismissed and it was found that there was no encroachment on the forest land. The main submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is, order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the Collector, District - Alwar under Rajasthan Land Revenue Act under Rule 4 (C) directing authorities concerned to prohibit the establishment of crusher or polluting industries within the 1500 meter of the range of the Abadi area and this order was passed on a complaint/representation made by the villagers.

¶34

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the copy of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Hon’ble the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018 titled

¶35

¶36

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶37

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶38

Jagadish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below:-

¶39

“Application No. 97071/2018 has been filed for taking on record legal heirs of deceased-Respondent No. 9, Ram Phool Meena. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. Legal heirs of deceased-Respondent No. 9 are taken on record. Amended Cause Title annexed with the application be taken on record.

¶40

Mr. Mohar Pal Meena, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of Respondent No. 17 and 20, submits that he will take instructions of legal heirs of Respondent No. 9 and file Vakalatnama on their behalf.

¶41

Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General submits that private respondents have already been evicted from the pasture land where they were sitting as trespassers and in fact, they have been punished under Section 91 of the Rajasthan

¶42

Land Revenue Act, 1956 vide order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Tehsildar concerned with sentence of 90 days and penalty equal to 50 times of the land revenue which comes to Rs. 23/-.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submitted that although the aforesaid order may have been passed by the Tehsildar concerned in proceedings under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land

¶44

¶45

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶46

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶47

Revenue Act, 1956 but in fact, neither the private respondent have been put behind the bars pursuant to the aforesaid the Tehsildar, nor their possession over the pasture land has actually been removed.

¶48

The District Collector, Dausa shall file his affidavit with specific assertion as to whether encroachments of private respondents have been removed and the pasture land has been freed from the encroachments and whether the private respondents, who failed to remove the encroachments despite repeated notices, have been made to serve the sentence in terms of order dated 07.11.2017 by actual incarceration.

¶49

This Court is inundated with large number of writ petitions, styled as public interest litigation, from almost all the Districts of the State, with allegations of encroachment over the pasture land / land of 'johad', 'talab' / river /river bed / public way / Shamshan / Kabristan etc. In all such petitions, common allegation is that despite repeated complaints/representations to the concerned revenue officers, no steps are taken by them to remove the encroachment. This results in number of writ petitions being filed by the complainants/representationists before this Court. This Court has been passing orders in such matters requiring the respective District Collectors to examine the factual content of the allegations and take steps to remove the encroachments so as to secure such land.

¶50

¶51

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶52

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶53

In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public Land Protection -Cell (for short 'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken.

¶54

This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this

¶55

¶56

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶57

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶58

practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC.

¶59

The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be 9h restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after giving them a showcause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularizing such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan' or other public utility of the like nature on the land.

¶60

¶61

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶62

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶63

Observations of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) thus leaves no manner of doubt that removal of encroachment on all such land is a rule and regularisation an exception and that too in extremely limited number of cases, which only the Government can do by appropriate notification of the government and no other authority.

¶64

List this matter on 14.03.2019.

¶65

A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, who shall ensure compliance of this order and do the needful for creation of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) for rural areas.

¶66

A copy of this order be also provided to Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for compliance.”

¶67

Another Writ Petition was filed by the present applicant as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6931/2022 titled Dhuli Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan , in which Respondent No. 08 was the M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog, Alwar who is also arrayed as a Respondent in the present original application and after hearing the parties Hon’ble the Bench at Jaipur disposed of the application, vide order dated 11.05.2022 as follows :-

¶68

“Instant Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed with me following prayer:-

¶69

¶70

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶71

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶72

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Public Interest Litigation (writ petition) and by an appropriate writ, order or direction;

¶73

i. That the inaction-omission on the part of respondents in permitting illegal stone crushing activity being operated by M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog, Alwar at Khasra No.332, Khasra No.331 and Khasra No.450 of forest department at Village Bahali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal and accordingly the respondents may kindly be directed to take immediate steps for stopping illegal stone crusher functional at Khasra No.332 leased to M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog, Alwar of Village Bahali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.

¶74

ii. The respondents may kindly be further directed to take appropriate steps in removing the illegal encroachment over Gair Mumkin Pahad i.e. Khasra No. 450 as well as Khasra No.331 both of which are the lands of forest department as per the Revenue records.

¶75

iii. Further, a detailed inquiry and investigation may kindly be directed to be undertaken by the Anti Corruption Department in reference to the inaction of the defaulting authorities

¶76

¶77

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶78

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶79

towards encroachment of Khasra No.331 & 450 of forest department and further permitting the operation of stone crusher without any authority of law.

¶80

iv. Any other appropriate, order of direction as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court may also be passed in the matter in the interest of justice."

¶81

A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Jagdish Prashad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 10819/ 2018 vide order dated 30.01.2019 has directed creation of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) for rural areas in every district counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may permitted to submit a representation before the PLPC a respondents be directed to dispose of the same within a period two months.

¶82

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off, in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Meena (supra) and the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation and the petitioner is at PLPC and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of two months.

¶83

It is further directed that the persons who are alleged to be the encroachers, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.”

¶84

¶85

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶86

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶87

The applicant in compliance of the above order filed an application before the District Collector, Alwar and the then District Collector disposed of the application and dismissed the application vide order dated 04.04.2023 as follows:-

¶88

“कार्ाालर्जिला कलक्टरएवंजिला मजिस्ट्रे अलवर क्रम ांकःप . 12-3 (147) PLPC/ र जस्व /2022/3346 दिन ांक : 04/04/2023

¶89

- आदेशः -

¶90

श्री िुलीचांि मीण पुत्र श्री दिर ाज प्रस ि मीण दनव सी ग्र म बह ली तहसील र जिढ , दजल अलवर द्व र मीननीय र जस्थ न उच्च न्य य लय , जयपुर पीठ मेंडी . बी . दसदवल ररट सांख्य 6931/2022 िुलीचांि मीण बन म र जस्थ न सरक र व अन्य में व के ग्र म बह ली , तहसील र जिढ आर जी खसर नम्बर 332, आ०ख 0 न 0 331, आ०ख०न० 450 परखननपट्ट सांख्य 301/1990, 613/90 श्री ओमप्रक श िुप्त पुत्रश्री िुलज री ल ल िुप्त , िुल ब कुांज , अलवर द्व र अवैध क्रेशर एवांअन्यिदतदवदधय ांकेसांच लन क बन्दकरव नेहेतुय दचक प्रस्ु त कीिई।दजसमेंम ननीयन्य य लयनेआिेश दिन ांक 11.05.2022 द्व र दनणायप ररतदकय दक “In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed off, in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the matter of Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra) and the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before PLPC and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of two months.

¶91

It is further directed that the persons who are alleged to be the encroachers shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.”

¶92

¶93

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶94

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶95

म ननीय उच्च न्य य लय द्व र प ररत आिेश के क्रम में प्र र्थी द्व र अभ्य वेिन प्रस्ु त दकय िय । म ननीय उच्च न्य य लय के आिेश दिन ांक 11.05.2022 की प लन हेतु इस क य ालय पत्र क्रम ांक 3219-3220 दिन ांक 26.05.20222 द्व र प्रकरण - पीएलपीसी में िजा कर उपखण्ड अदधक रीर जिढ़क दनध ाररतसमय वदधमेंप्रकरणक दनस्त ररतदकयेज ने हेतु दनिेश प्रि न दकयेिए। दजसकीप लन मेंउपखण्डअदधक री , र जिढ ( अलवर ) ने अपने पत्र ांकः र जस्व /PLPC/2022/1401 दिन ांक 22.06.2022 एवां तहसीलि र र जिढ ने अपने पत्र ांकः र जस्व /PLPC/2022/874 दिन ांक 09.06.2022 ररप टाप्रेदित करतेहुए अवित कर य दक प्र र्थान पत्रमेंअांदकत आर जीखसर नम्बर 332 रकब 0.72 हैक्ट . दकस्मिैरमुमदकनऔध दिकक्षेत्रव केग्र मबह लीख तेि रीम ाँ सन्त िीग्रीांट उध ि अलवर केन मिजारेक डाहै। खसर नम्बर 331 रकब 0.45 हैक्ट , दकस्मब र नीउत्तमएवांखसर नम्बर 450 रकब 0.19 हैक्ट . दकस्म िैर मुमदकन पह ड ख तेि री महकम जांिल त दवभ ि के न म ख तेि रीिजारेक डाहै। मॉसांत िीग्रीट क्रेशर क कुछ आांदशक भ ि खसर नम्बर 331 मेंऔर खसर नम्बर 450 क क्रेशर सांच लक द्व र उपय ि में दलय ज रह हैएवांभ ांसांत िीक्रेशरकेप सखदनजदवभ िकेखननपट्ट व पॉल्यूशनदवभ िकीएनओसीहै।

¶96

दवदधक र य अनुस र प्रकरण में खदन दवभ ि एवां वन दवभ ि मुख्य पक्षक र ह ने के क रण इस क य ालय पत्र ांक 4184-85 दिन ांक 01.07.2022 द्व र उपवनसांरक्षक , अलवरएवांखदन अदभयन्त , अलवरसे प्रकरण केसांबांध मेंमौक ररप टाच हीियीदजसकेक्रम मेंखदन अदभयन्त , ख न एवां भू दवज्ञ न दवभ ि अलवर ने अपने पत्रक्रम ांक खअ / अल / अलप - 301/90,613/90/ क्रेशर /2022/485 दिन ांक 15.07.2022 द्व र अवितकर य हैदकखनन पट्ट 613/90 मेंखननक याबन्दहै , खनन पट्ट

¶97

¶98

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶99

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶100

सांख्य 301/90 मेंखनन क याच लू प य िय है। स्ट न क्रेशर यूदनट खनन पट्ट सांख्य 301/90 केस्वीकृत क्षेत्रकेअन्दर लिीहुईहै। खनन पट्टेमें खनन क यास्वीकृत खनन पटट क्षेत्रमेंहीदकय ज न प य िय है। खनन प‌ट्टे के सीम स्तम्भ व ब डा लि हुआ प य िय है। क्रेशर क सांच लन दनयम नुस र दकयेज नेपर जन जीवन प्रभ दवत नहीह ि व उक्तसांच लन क्षेत्र की 45 मीटर की पररदध में क ई आब िी , स्कूल आदि नहीांआतेंहै। वताम न मेंखनन पट्ट र जस्थ न अप्रध न खदनज ररय यत दनयम वली 2017 केदनयम ांकेतहत श्रीओमप्रक श िुप्त केपक्षमेंस्वीकृतह कर प्रभ वशील हैएवांक्रेशर यूदनट र जस्थ न अप्रध न खदनज ररय यत दनयम वली , 2017 के दनयम 21(2) केतहत सांदवि कीशतासांख्य -2 (3) केप्र वध नुस र स्वीकृत खननपट्ट क्षेत्रमेंहीस्थ दपतदकय हुआहै।उपसांरक्षक , अलवरनेअपनेपत्र क्रम ांक एफ 18 (15) एफ . सी . ए ./ उवासां - उल /2022/4295 दिन ांक 18.07.2022 सेअवित कर य हैदक श्रीओमप्रक श िुप्त केपक्षमेंवन खण्डीबह लीकी 9.8080 हैक्ट . वन भूदम केप्रत्य वतान कीस्वीकृदत भ रत सरक र के पत्र ांक 8 बी / र ज /05/148/1997/ एफसी /1174 दिन ांक 11.02.2004 एवां 706 दिन ांक 02.06.2004 सेप्रि नकीिईहै।

¶101

खदन अदभयांत एवांउप वनसांरक्षक , अलवर सेप्र प्तउक्तररप टाक दवदधक परीक्षण कर य िय दवदधक परीक्षण अनुस र अदतक्रमणह नेअर्थव नहीह नेक स्पष्टउल्लेखनहीह नेकेक रणइसक य ालयकेपत्र ांक 8831 दिन ांक 29.11.2022 द्व र प्रकरण में उप वन सांरक्षक अलवर , उपखण्ड अदधक री र जिढ , खदन अदभयांत अलवर , तहसीलि र र जसि क सांयुक्त ररप टादभजव येज नेहेतुदनिेदशतदकय िय ।दजसकीप लन मेंरर जीलि र र जिढ़ ने अपने पत्र क्रम ांक र जस्व /PLPC/2023/03 दिन ांक 03.01.2023 द्व र ररप टा प्रेदित करतेहुए अवित कर य िय हैदक उप वन सांरक्षक ( वन दवभ ि ), खनन अदभयांत एवांर जस्वदवभ ि की टीम द्व र

¶102

¶103

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶104

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶105

सांयुक्तरूप सेउक्तखसर न क मौक मुआयन दकय िय दजसमेंर जस्व रेक डा के अनुस र ग्र म बह ली आर जी खसर नम्बर 332 रकब 0. 72 हैक्ट . दकस्मिैर मुमदकन औध दिक क्षेत्रमॉसन्त िीग्रीट उध ि अलवर के न मिजारेक डाहैतर्थ खसर नम्बर 331 रकब 0.45 हैक्ट . दकस्मब र नी उत्तम एवांखसर नम्बर 450 रकब 0.19 हैक्ट , दकस्मिैर मुमदकन पह ड महकम जांिल त दवभ ि के न म ख तेि रीिजा रेक डा है। सांयुक्त टीम के स र्थखदनज दवभ ि केप्रदतदनदध ( खदन० क यािेशक ) केद्व र खनन पट्टेके दपलर ांकीसत्यत कीज ांचकरव ईिईज दकमौकेपरम प नुस रसहीप ए िए दजसेखदनज दवभ ि द्व र स्वीक र दकय । उक्तखसर नम्बर न केसांबांध मेंवनदवभ िकेअनुस रमौकेपरखननक याएवांस्ट नक्रेशरम ईदनांिलीज 301/1990 केस्वीकृतक्षेत्रमेंहीसांच दलतहै। स्वीकृतक्षेत्रसेब हर दकसी भी प्रक र क अदतक्रमण नही प य िय है। प्रकरण के सांबांध में दशक यतकत ाप्र र्थीश्रीिुलीचांि मीण एवांलीज ध रक श्रीओमप्रक श िुप्त क सुन िय ।

¶106

जॉच अदधक ररय ां से प्र प्त जॉच ररप टा एवां प्रकरण क दवस्ृ त अवल कन उपर न्तप्र र्थीकेअभ्य वेिन क ख ररज दकय ज त हैस र्थही प्रकरणक पीएलपीसीसेदनस्त ररतदकय ज त है।“

¶107

It is further submitted that the stone crusher which was previously operated by M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog was later on being operated by Mr. Om Prakash Gupta and the SEIAA/SEAC vide order dated 22.11.2022 approved the EC for stone mining project after appraisal of reports and observations furnished by State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, Rajasthan.

¶108

¶109

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶110

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶111

After taking the cognizance of the matter this Tribunal constituted a committee and called a report and in compliance thereof, member of the committee visited the site and submitted the report with following observations:-

¶112

“During field visit and on perusal of records, following observations were made:-

¶113

i. At present, there is no stone crusher with the name of M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udhyog located at the site in concern, instead a stone crusher with the name M/s Om Prakash Gupta was found established and operational.

¶114

ii. As per the earlier inspection report dated 31/08/2021 by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Official, the stone crusher with the name M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udhyog was dismantled in April, 2021, as informed by the nearby villagers.

¶115

Observations from Mining Engineer, Alwar report

¶116

dated 15/07/2022 :-

¶117

i. That Khasra No. 332, 331 and 450 comes under, and is a part of, the area of mining lease having M. L. No. 301/90, which is allotted to Sh. Om Prakash Gupta having validity up to 31/03/2041.

¶118

ii. That Khasra Nos. 331 and 450 were part of the Forest Land, under the jurisdiction of Forest Department, but the land-use of the same were diverted vide letters dated 27/02/2004 and 02/06/2004 from Regional Office, MoEF, Lucknow

¶119

¶120

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶121

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶122

(copy of both the letters are enclosed collectively as Annexure - 7). There is also 01 lease, having M. L. No. 613/90, which has been allotted in the name of Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, which is adjacent to the M. L. No. 301/90 and having validity up to 31/03/2025.

¶123

iii. As per the report, the site in concern was examined (on dated 13/09/2022) and it was noted that the mining activities were closed in the M. L. No. 613/90. In M. L. No. 301/90, the mining activities were operational and stone crusher is established in the allotted M. L. No. 301/90. That no abadi, school etc. is within the 45 meters radius of the crusher and the crusher is located in accordance with the rule 21(2) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

¶124

Observations from Deputy Conservator of Forest, Alwar

¶125

letter dated 30/09/2022 :-

¶126

i. The letter states that, as per the report dated 23/09/2022 of Regional Forest Officer, Rajgarh whole part of khasra no. 331 and some part of khasra no. 450 comes in the area of both the mining leases having M. L. No. 301/1990 and 613/1990, which were diverted from Forest land to Mining lease.

¶127

ii. Khasra No. 332 is not recorded under the jurisdiction of Forest Department.

¶128

¶129

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶130

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶131

Observations from Tehsildar, Rajgarh letter dated 03/01/2023, which reiterates/compiles the contents of joint visit report dated 30/12/2022, are as follows :

¶132

i. As per the revenue records, khasra No. 332 (0.72 Hectares) is recorded in the name of M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udhyog and duly converted for industrial purpose and khasra No. 331 (0.45 Hectares) and 450 (19 Hectares) is recorded under the jurisdiction of Forest Department.

¶133

ii. As per the Mining Department official, the location of pillars were found, during measurement, correctly established in the mining leases.

¶134

iii. As per the forest department official, the mining activities and stone crusher were operational in the approved/allotted mining lease having M. L. No. 301/1990. No encroachment was found outside the approved allotted land.

¶135

Observations from Tehsildar, Rajgarh report dated 16/05/2024 :-

¶136

i. As per the revenue records, khasra No. 332 (0.72 Hectares) is recorded in the name of M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udhyog and duly converted for industrial prupose.

¶137

ii. Khasra No. 331 (0.45 Hectares) and 450 (19 Hectares) is recorded under the jurisdiction of Forest Department.

¶138

iii. As per the report, some part of the machineries of the stone crusher, office and stock of product is in the

¶139

¶140

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶141

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶142

Khasra No. 332, whose distance from the nearest residential khasra i.e. Khasra No. 183 of Village - Bahali is 570 meters.

¶143

iv. Main crushing machineries of the stone crusher is established in the Khasra No. 331 and mining activities are being carried out in Khasra No. 450.

¶144

Status of pollution Control measures adopted by the stone crusher M/s Om Prakash Gupta :-

¶145

i. During site visit, stone crusher was found operational.

¶146

ii. Unit is having 01 Primary Crusher (Jaw Crusher of size 44" x 32"), 01 Secondary Crusher (Cone Crusher of capacity 200 TPH), 01 Vibratory screen and conveyors. 03 transfer points were provided.

¶147

iii. No D.G. set was found at the site.

¶148

iv. Unit does not have any bore-well and the raw water demand is being fulfilled by outside tanker supply. Unit has provided storage tanks for the same.

¶149

v. No separate demarcation, either by boundary wall or wire fencing has been done by the unit.

¶150

vi. All the machineries have been covered by the tin shed and conveyors were found covered from green net and also water sprinkling arrangements were provided at the suitable points e.g. inlet and outlet of primary crusher, secondary crusher, vibratory screen and conveyors (except dust conveyor).

¶151

vii.

¶152

No mechanical chute has been provided at the dust conveyor, however, arrangements have been made by

¶153

¶154

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶155

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶156

the unit for reducing the dropping height of the material, with the help of drums, from the conveyors carrying material of size less than 05 mm and also wind breaking wall, from the tin shed, have been provided between the conveyors to act as wind barriers (wind direction is predominantly from Northwest to South-East) in order to control fugitive emissions.

¶157

viii.

¶158

Unit has grown about 168 fully grown plants and medium grown plants around the periphery of the premises including the office area, entrance area etc., which is adequate in accordance with the plantation norms of 33% of the total plot area.

¶159

ix. Unit has also provided/constructed a rain water harvesting structure, for the run-off, likely in monsoon season.

¶160

x. Unit has obtained Consent to Operate from the State Board for Stone crushing unit and for mining lease having M. L. No. 301/1990, vide State Boards letters dated 09/07/2021 and 11/02/2020 respectively, both having validity up to 31/05/2031 and 31/12/2024 respectively.

¶161

xi. Photographs, with GPS co-ordinates, taken during site visit.

¶162

Other relevant observations

¶163

i. During joint committee visit, the fugitive emissions monitoring at the crusher was carried out by the RSPCB Officials and also ambient noise monitoring at

¶164

¶165

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶166

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶167

the crusher, at the nearest house and at the Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School (in Bahali Village) was carried out.

¶168

ii. Besides above, the fugitive emissions monitoring at the crusher has been carried out earlier on dated 11/01/2024, 16/01/2023, 05/04/2022 and 20/10/2021, ambient noise monitoring at crusher and at nearest house on dated 01/02/2024. Comparative statement of the above is as follows:-

¶169

Table A

¶170

		_Date of fug _	*itive emission*	*monitoring*
*Location*	*16/05/2024*	*11/01/2024*	*16/01/2023*	*05/04/2022*	*20/10/2021*
Between 03	564 µg/m³	488 µg/m³	558 µg/m³	551 µg/m³	559 µg/m³
to 10 meters
from stone
crushing
process
*(Prescribed*
*limit -600* *µg/m*³)

¶171

Table B

¶172

*Location*	*Date*	*and location*	*of ambient n*	*oise quality m*	*onitoring*
	*At the cru*	*sher site*	*At the neare* *Sh. Mahesh*	*st house (of* *Kumar)*	At *the* *Mahatma* *Gandhi* *Govt.* *School* *(in* *Bahali* *Village)*
	*16/05/2024*	*01/02/2024*	*16/05/2024*	*01/02/2024*	*16/05/2024*
Noise level in Day Time Prescribed limit -	66.6 (Leq dB(A))	64.9 (Leq dB(A))	63.1 (Leq dB(A))	58.2 (Leq dB(A))	51.9 (Leq dB(A))
Industrial -
75 (Leq dB(A)) Residential- 55
(Leq dB(A))

¶173

¶174

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶175

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶176

iii. In view of the above tables, it can be noted that the unit is complying with the fugitive emission standards as well as the ambient noise levels (for industrial categorization) and also at the Mahatma Gandhi Government School located in main Bahali Village. However, to the nearest house of Sh. Mahesh Kumar, which is located adjacent to the unit, the ambient noise levels have been found exceeding on both the occasions i.e. on date 16/05/2024 and 01/02/2024.

¶177

iv. To enquire further, the joint committee took a round of the nearest residential/agricultural establishments as well as of the main Bahali Village, which is starting from at around 570 meters (as per Tehsildar, Rajgarh report dated 16/05/2024), and gathered information from various villagers regarding problem/nuisance, if any, being created by the stone crusher in concern. Details are as follows :-

¶178

a) Sh. Sahil - Regular dust emission and noise problem, dust emission in nearby agricultural fields.

¶179

b) Smt. Chhoti Devi - Vibrations while blasting is done, dust problem is rarely happening and it is dependent on the wind direction.

¶180

c) Sh. Manohar - Dust emission due to wind direction, vibrations from blasting operation.

¶181

d) Sh. Naresh - Vibrations from blasting operation.

¶182

¶183

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶184

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶185

e) Sh. Rohitash - Vibrations from blasting operation.

¶186

f) Sh. Nitin Saini - Vibrations from blasting operation.

¶187

g) Sh. Ramesh Chand Saini - Dust emission, daily water sprinkling is not being done.

¶188

h) Sh. Sitaram Saini - No dust emission, unit gives prior information for the blasting operation, no vibration problem.

¶189

i) Sh. Sher Singh - No dust emission, no vibration problem.

¶190

j) Sh. Yogesh - No dust emission, no vibration problem.

¶191

k) Smt. Kavita - No dust emission, no vibration problem.”

¶192

When the matter was reported to the State Pollution Control Board, Alwar then the Regional Officer visited the site inspected the crusher unit and reported that officials of board visited the site on 31.08.2021 and it was found that no any stone crusher unit was at the site and as per information by nearby people, above stone crusher unit has been removed from the site before four months ago.

¶193

The submission and contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 7 are that as per para 20 of the original application the first cause of action arose for the applicant on 24.11.2021 and 29.011.2021. The applicant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court i.e. DBCW No. DBCW No. 6931/2022 titled as Dulli Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan & Others was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court on 11.05.2022. In compliance of the said order

¶194

¶195

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶196

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶197

PLPC, Alwar decided the representation filed by the applicant by order dated 04.04.2023. And the present original application was filed on 01.03.2024 i.e. more than 20 months of Hon'ble High Court and almost 12 months of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC), Alwar order. Further, applicant has completely relied on the complaints made in the year 2021 for filing this original application, which have already been adjudicated by the PLPC. Therefore, this original application barred by law of limitation and that the Public Land Protection Cell, Alwar in compliance of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court by order dated 11.05.2022 in DBCW No. 6931/2022 Dulli Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan 6 Others, has passed detailed order dated 04.04.2023 whereby the allegations made by the applicant were dismissed on the grounds of detailed reports submitted by all the concerned departments.

¶198

That the stone crusher i.e. M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog, Alwar as alleged by the applicant has already been dismantled by the applicant. This is evident from the letter dated 26.04.2022 by the Regional Officer, RSPCB, Alwar to District Collector, Alwar. The stone crusher is presently operated within the mining lease no. 301/1990 in the name of M/s Om Prakash Gupta. It is further submitted that the stone crusher was established in the mining lease as per the certificate dated 07.01.2021 issued by the mining department and RSPCB vide letter dated 09.07.2021 issued Consent to Operate for the stone crusher having validity from 28.06.2021 to 31.05.2031.

¶199

It is further submitted that the Mining Department had granted lease No. 613/1990 to the father of originally answering respondent and since then the said mining lease is being extended by the competent

¶200

¶201

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶202

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶203

authorities in favor of the answering respondent. The Ministry of Forest & Environment, Govt. of India vide letter dated 27.02.2004 issued diversion of 9.080 hectares of forest land in favor of the answering respondent for mining of Lime Stone. Thereafter, the answering respondent deposited the cost of NPV alongwith interest, which is evident from the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.08.2018. On the basis of NPV and interest deposited by the answering respondent, the PCCF (HoFF), Govt. of Rajasthan vide letter dated 10.08.2018 extended the period of validity under FCA, 1980 in case of diversion of 9.080 hectares of forest land for mining of Lime Stone in favor of the answering respondent for ML No. 613/90 and 301/90.

¶204

That the answering respondent is having valid Consent to Operate for the mining lease No. 613/1990; mining lease no. 301/1990 and Stone Crusher. The answering respondent is also having valid environment Clearance from SEIAA for the aforementioned mining leases and stone crusher and operating its units after due permission from the competent authorities, contrary to the allegations of illegal operation made by the applicant in the original application and that the answering respondent is having permission from the Department of Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) for use of explosives. The original permission was granted in the year 1991 and is being renewed since then. The present renewal is valid upto 31.03.2025 with license no. E/NC/RJ/22/276 (E10036).

¶205

The correspondence from the State Pollution Control Board to the District Collector, Alwar, dated 26.04.2022, discloses that the stone crusher M/s Omprakash Gupta is located on ML No. 301/1990 and

¶206

¶207

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶208

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶209

having valid consent to operate from the State Board valid upto 31.05.31. The consent to operate of ML No. 301/1990 is valid upto 31.12.2024. The crusher in the name of M/s Santoshi Grit Udyog has been dismantled and the mines ML No. 613/1990 is not under operation as the matter of Environmental clearance is pending. So far as the distance criteria Is concerned it has been clarified by HO, RSPCB, Jaipur vide letter no. 1979-80 dated 14.03.2022 directly to Dist. Collector, Alwar specially mentioning that stone crusher on mining lease can be established irrespective of distance from the nearest revenue village and hence there is no distance issue regarding the stone crusher.

¶210

The crusher was inspected on 05.04.2022 and air monitoring was conducted and the parameters of SPM (Suspended particulate matter) i.e. (559 ug/m3 on 20.10.2021 and 551 ug/m3 in 05.04.2022) are within the permissible limit. (600 ug/m3)

¶211

The dispute with regard to the identification and demarcation of the land was finalized by the Mining Engineer, Alwar reported on 07.01.2021 and the layout plan of the proposed crusher unit has been identified and reported with certificate. Vide order dated 23.11.2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (SEIAA Rajasthan), has issued EC and State Pollution Control has issued consent to operate, vide order dated 23.01.2023.

¶212

Learned counsel for the State Pollution Control Board has submitted that M/s Maa Santoshi Grit Udyog was dismantled in April, 2021 as per the inspection report dated 31/08/2021 of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board Official and that the stone crusher M/s Om Prakash Gupta has valid consent to operate issued by the State Board

¶213

¶214

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶215

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶216

vide order dated 09/07/2021. The fugitive emission monitoring of the unit was conducted by the State Board regularly on dated 11/01/2024, 16/01/2023, 05/04/2022 and 20/10/2021, and as per the monitoring report, during each monitoring the stone crusher was found complying with the fugitive emission norms. Noise monitoring at the crusher site was also conducted by the State Board on dated 16/05/2024 and 01/02/2024 and the results were found to be within permissible limit.

¶217

The applicant has contended that the conversion order is being violated by the respondent no. 7 and that converted land is being used and public utility land is also being used by the respondent no. 7, without valid permission from the prescribed authority and that there are noise pollution and vibration in the buildings.

¶218

In reply thereof, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the competent authority has passed the order under the Land Revenue Act which was challenged before Hon’ble the High Court and the petition of the applicant was dismissed, thus these issues cannot be raised before this Tribunal. So far as vibration and noise pollution is concerned, it is submitted by the respondent that some of the residents have raised their concerned with respect to vibrations being felt by them. In this regard, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, Regional Research Centre, Bilaspur, Chhatisgarh had conducted Scientific Study on Evaluation of Blast and concluded as under:-

¶219

'viii. In light of above discussion, it may be concluded that the

¶220

blast induced ground vibration and overpressure observed in

¶221

¶222

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶223

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶224

mines of Shri O. P. Gupta (ML No. 613/1990 and 301/1990) were found to be well within the recommended safe limit as per DGMS criterion standards.'

¶225

The scientific study on evaluation of blast-induced ground vibration

¶226

and air overpressure at Bahali Limestone Mine, Alwar, Rajasthan, was inspected by the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR) and a report was prepared under the Principal Scientist and Project Leader, Head of the Section, Bilaspur, and it is reported that mine leases M.L. NO 301/90 (Lease Area 2.25 ha) and M.L. No 613/90 (Lease area 7.80 ha) is located in Bahali Village of Alwar District, Rajasthan. Shri Om Prakash Gupta is mine lease holder. Mine under M.L. NO. 301/90 is operational whereas, another mine under M.L. NO 613/90 is awaiting environmental clearance. Both the mine lease areas are adjacent to each other with a common boundary at one end. Geologically, both mine leases share the same rock formation and geomining set-up.

¶227

Shri OP Gupta requested CSIR-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research, Regional Research Centre, Bilaspur for conducting scientific study to evaluate impact of Blast-induced Ground Vibration & Air Overpressure to ensure safety of the nearby habitat structures as required for environmental clearance.

¶228

CSIR-CIMFR team conducted experimental investigations at the Bahali limestone mines by conducting 12 experimental blasts which includes three experimental blast rounds in M.L. No 301/90 and remaining nine in M.L. NO. 613/90 with varying controlled blast design parameters. Concurrently, a comprehensive vibration monitoring was carried out by CSIR-CIMFR team using six sets of engineering seismographs. Vibration and air overpressure were

¶229

¶230

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶231

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶232

recorded at more than 70 monitoring locations during the experimental investigations to assess the levels of ground vibration and air overpressure/noise. All major structures around the mine operation were covered under the monitoring program.

¶233

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis of observed frequency data revealed that dominant frequency of vibration is in the range of 8 to 25 Hz. However, there was few observations of dominant frequency value of less than 8.0 Hz. Therefore, as per DGMS (Tech) (S&T) Circular No. 7 dated 29th August, 1997, the dominant frequency of the blast vibration is considered in the range of 0-8 Hz for Bahali Mines (M.L. No. 613/90 and 301/90). Therefore, the safe maximum peak particle velocity (PPV) corresponding to 0-8 frequency criterion of DGMS is 5.0 mm/s for all the domestic structures not belonging to owner near the mine. The safe maximum value of PPV for structures belonging to owner is 10 mm/s. As per recommendations of United States of Bureau of Mines (USBM), the permissible level of air overpressure for Bahali Mine (M.L. No. 613/90 and 301/90) is recommended to be 134 dB measured in linear units as safe air overpressure limit.

¶234

The observed blast induced ground vibration and air overpressure were analysed. Maximum value of vibration observed is 4.06 mm/s at a distance of 28.0 m. Average value of observed vibration is 1.5 mm/s. It was also found that vibration values at many sensor locations were less than the instrument's minimum trigger level (0.25 mm/s). Similarly, the average observed AOP value is close to 105 dB(L) and the majority of the values are less than 108 dB(L). It may be concluded that the observed blast induced ground vibration at Bahali Mine pertaining to M.L. No. 301/90 and M.L. No. 613/90) are

¶235

¶236

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶237

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶238

found to be well with the safe permissible limits as per DGMS Standard.

¶239

The results and discussions with conclusions as submitted by the expert body are enumerated in paragraph 9 and 10 which is as follows:-

¶240

“CSIR-CIMFR team have carried out 12 experimental blasts in the Bahali mines of Sri O P Gupta (M.L. No. 613/90 and 301/90). The details of the experimental blast are presented in Table 1. Concurrently, a comprehensive vibration monitoring was carried out to assess the damage potential of the blast vibration using six sets of advanced seismographs. The observed results of the vibration and air overpressure are presented in Table 2. Both near filed as well as far filed vibration monitoring was carried out by CIMFR team.

¶241

Based on the frequency spectrum of the vibration recorded at these two mines and other international standard, as discussed in this report under Section 8.0 of this report, 5.0 mm/s and 134dB(L) has been recommended as a safe Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) and Air Overpressure limit respectively as per DGMS standard and other international standards.

¶242

The analysis of the observed vibration data reveal minimum and maximum PPV value observed is 0.520 mm/s to 4.0 mm/s for a corresponding distance of sensor location 289.0 m and 28.0 m respectively. Majority of the vibration values remained less than 2.5 mm/s. In many

¶243

¶244

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶245

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶246

sensor locations the vibration values were less than minimum trigger level of the instrument (0.25 mm/s). All such values have been marked as NT i.e., not triggered in Table 2. A consolidated event reports of observed vibration is appended as Annexure-I towards end of this report.

¶247

Similarly, observed air overpressure values also were observed significantly less. The maximum AOP value observed is 120 dB(L) against a safe recommended safe value of 134 dB(L) at a distance of approximately 28 m. Average observed AOP value is close to 105 dB(L) and majority of the values are less than 108 dB(L).

¶248

In light of above discussion, it may be concluded that the blast-induced ground vibration and overpressure observed in mines of Shri OP Gupta (M.L. NO 613/90 and 301/90) were found to be well within the recommended safe limit as per DGMS criterion and other international standards.

¶249

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

¶250

Based on the results of experimental blasts, observations made in the field and analyses of the data collected, the following conclusions and recommendations are made for safe and optimum deep-hole controlled blasting operations in mines of M/s OP Gupta M.L. No. 613/90 and 301/90.

¶251

i. Preliminary site investigation by CSIR-CIMFR team reveals that the mines under ML NO 613/90 and ML. No 301/90 are adjoining mines with common

¶252

¶253

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶254

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶255

boundary. M/s OP Gupta is the mine lease holder of both the mine lease. Mine lease NO 301/90 is operational pit whereas the ML No 613/90 is under consideration for Environmental Clearance.

¶256

ii. CIMFR Investigations of blasting practices in operational pit revealed that small dia jack hammer holes with small dia cartridge explosives are used for overburden removal. Occasional deep hole blasting with 89mm dia and maximum 6.0 m hole depth is used for cracking in rock formation. In such deep hole blasting operations maximum no of hole in a blast round does not exceed 10 holes. Average blast size constitutes of 4 to 5 holes with maximum depth of 6.0 m. The total charge in a blast round on an average is less than 100 kg with maximum charge per hole of less than 20 kg in each round. Large diameter cartridged slurry explosive of 83 mm diameter, 2.78 kg weight per cartridge were used with NONEL (shock-tube) initiation system in all the experimental blasts. Blast holes were stemmed with drill cutting materials. Shock tube initiation system is used for initiating the blast holes with 450 ms of DTH and 17, 25 ms and 42 ms of Noiseless-Trunkline delay detonators (TLD). This is effective system for mitigating blast-induced ground vibration and air overpressure and same is recommended to be continued in blasting practices.

¶257

¶258

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶259

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶260

iii. Altogether, twelve rounds of experimental blasts were conducted during the field investigation by CSIR-CIMFR Team which includes three experimental blast rounds in ML. No 301/90 and remaining nine in M.L. NO. 613/90.

¶261

iv. A comprehensive vibration monitoring was carried out by CSIR-CIMFR team using six sets of engineering seismographs. Vibration and air overpressure were recorded at more than 65 monitoring locations during the experimental investigations to assess the levels of ground vibration and air overpressure/noise. All major structures around the mine operation were covered under the monitoring program. The distances of ground vibration monitoring points from the different blasting sites varied between 28 m to 290 m.

¶262

v. Analysis of the more than 65 observed vibration records on the distance of vibration monitoring point from the blast site, the maximum charge per delay and total number of holes fired in the blasting round, the magnitude of ground vibration data recorded varied between 0.520 mm/s at 289 m to 4.06 mm/s at 28.0 m.

¶263

vi. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis of the observed frequency data were revealed that dominant frequency of vibration is in the range of 8 to 25 Hz. However, there were few observations of dominant frequency value less than 8.0 Hz.

¶264

¶265

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶266

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶267

Therefore, as per DGMS (Tech) (S&T) Circular No. 7 dated 29th August, 1997 the dominant frequency of the blast vibration is considered in the range of 0-8 Hz for Bahali Mines (M.L. No. 613/90 and 301/90). Therefore, the safe maximum peak particle velocity (PPV) corresponding to 0-8 frequency criterion of DGMS is 5 mm/s for all the domestic structures (Kuchha brick and cement) not belonging to owner near the mine. The safe maximum value of PPV for structures belonging to owner is 10 mm/s. As per recommendations of United States of Bureau of Mines (USBM), the permissible level of air overpressure for Bahali Mine (M.L. No. 613/90 and 301/90) is recommended to be 134 dB measured in linear units as safe air overpressure limit.

¶268

vii. The levels of air overpressure recorded from the different experimental blasts varied between 103.5 and 120.6 dB (L). The levels of air overpressure/noise recorded during the period of field investigation at different locations of the mine are well within the safe limits.

¶269

viii. In light of above discussion, it may be concluded that the blast induced ground vibration and overpressure observed in mines of Shri O P Gupta (M.L. NO 613/90 and 301/90) were found to be well within the recommended safe limit as per DGMS criterion and other international standards.

¶270

¶271

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶272

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶273

i. No flyrock was observed in any of the experimental blasts. The throws of the blasted materials were also controlled and restricted within the blasting areas only. The control of flyrock was achieved through the proper blast design patterns along with their proper implementation and supervision of the total blasting operations.

¶274

ii. It is recommended that all safety precautions and standard practices as suggested by DGMS shall be complied in all mine operation. In particular, use of safety fuse, detonating cord shall be avoided for initiating the blast round and standard DGMS approved exploders shall be used. In all the controlled blast operations, the maximum charge per delay shall be restricted to 20 kg. The NONEL (Shock-tube) system consisting of DTH of 250/450 ms and TLD of 17ms, 25ms and 42 ms shall be continued in practice for providing delay time between blast holes in a blast round.”

¶275

In additional replies submitted by the applicant, it is submitted that the witnesses, namely Mr. Sitaram Saini, Mr. Sher Singh, Mr. Yogesh, and Ms. Kavita are directly or indirectly influenced by the owner of the mining and crusher unit and thus their evidence cannot be relied upon. Since the expert report has been called by the competent

¶276

¶277

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶278

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶279

authority, thus the report of the expert authority is more correct and based on scientific study, which may be relied on.

¶280

The submission of the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan are that the complaints dated 24.11.2021and29.11.2021 filed by the applicant, as well as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6931/2022 (titled Dulli Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) filed before the Hon’ble High Court, Jaipur Bench, were considered. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 11.05.2022, and further in compliance with the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition PIL No. 10819/2018 (Jagdish Prasad Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and Others), representations made by the complainant were heard by the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC), Alwar on 20.05.2022. Based on the reports submitted by the concerned departments, mining operations conducted by Respondent No. 07under Mining Lease Nos. 301/90 and 613/90 were found to be within the approved areas and adhered to the required permissions. Furthermore, the stone crusher plant was found to be established and operated in compliance with the terms of the lease. No significant irregularities were identified. The application was dismissed and the matter was decided on 04.04.2023.

¶281

It is further argued that the interpretation of the order dated 19.01.2022 provided by the complainant in the relevant paragraph is incorrect. The said order pertains to the conversion of agricultural lands and is governed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agriculture Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007, along with the amendment notification dated 10.04.2015 issued by the Revenue Department. In the present case, the mining lease is validly granted to Mr. Om Prakash Gupta under the provisions of the

¶282

¶283

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶284

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶285

Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. The stone crusher unit is established solely within the approved mining lease area in accordance with Rule 21(2) of the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and clause No. 2(3) of the lease. The mining lease, sanctioned as per the applicable rules, is further substantiated by Contract No. 301/90 and Condition No. 02 (3) for the stone crusher plant. This has been confirmed through a letter dated 07.01.2021 from Respondent No. 2. Additionally, the consent to operate, effective from 09.07.2021, remains valid until 31.05.2031.

¶286

In connection with the case registered with the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC), a spot inspection was conducted on 30.12.2022 by a joint team comprising officials from the Revenue, Mines, and Forest Departments. The inspection report, submitted by the Tehsildar of Rajgarh to Respondent No. 03 on 03.01.2023, confirmed that Respondent No. 07's stone crusher plant was established and operated within the approved area of Mining Lease No. 301/90.

¶287

As per the Rajasthan Gazette dated02.02.1961, published by the Department of Mines and Geology, Alwar, an auction was held on 08.03.1961, awarding the mining lease for mineral limestone to the highest bidder. The original mining lease, covering an area of 320.04 m × 243.84 m (equivalent to 7.8039 hectares), near Village Baasha, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, was approved by Directorate Order No. 734 in favour of Mr. Guljari Lal Gupta, son of Mr. Sohan Lal, resident of Gulab Kunj, Alwar. The lease was granted for a period of five years from the date of contract registration, which was executed on 29.03.1961, and the mining lease was formally registered on 01.04.1961. The first renewal of the mining lease was approved at

¶288

¶289

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶290

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶291

double the fixed rent, and the second renewal at triple the fixed rent. The fourth renewal was granted through Order No. P-41 (02) Mine/Group-2/81 Jaipur, dated 29.01.1983, for a period of 10 years from01.04.1981to31.03.1991, with the registration completed on 15.05.1985. Upon the death of Shri Guljari Lal on 25.01.1989, the Government issued an order transferring the mining lease to Shri Om Prakash Gupta, son of Shri Guljari Lal, through Order No. P- 4/102/Mine/Group-2/01, dated11.07.1991.

¶292

The fifth renewal, approved by Directorate Order No. 22 dated 17.01.1992, set an annual rent of Rs. 1,08,539/- for the period 01.04.1991 to 31.03.2001. Under Rule 9(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, the mining lease period was conditionally extended for 50 years through an office letter dated 06.10.2017, valid until 31.03.2025, with the supplementary contract executed on 12.12.2017. For Mining Leases 613/90 and 301/90, which partially include Khasra Nos. 419, 433/567, 439, 440, 444, 331, 441, 450, covering 9.080 hectares of forest land, approvals were granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India (Regional Office, Central Region, Lucknow) via letters 8/Raj/05/148/1997/FC/1174 dated 27.02.2004 and 8/Raj/05/148/1997/FC/1174/706 dated 06.02.2004. Further, letters from the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jaipur dated 10.08.2018 and the Conservator of Forests, Alwar dated 10.08.2018 confirmed the conditional extension of forest land reversion to match the mining lease duration, valid from 01.04.1961 to 31.03.2025.

¶293

¶294

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶295

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶296

Environmental clearance for the mining leases was issued by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Rajasthan through letter No. F1 (4) SEIAA/SEAC-Raj/Sectt/Project/CatB1(21047)/2021-22 Jaipur, dated 22.11.2022. Additionally, the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, Alwar Office, issued a Consent to Operate (Order No. 2023/202: Mines/10701), dated 23.01.2023, valid from 23.01.2023 to 31.03.2025, for an annual limestone (ROM) production of 995,770 tonnes. Respondent No. 07 has appointed qualified mine manager as per MMR, 1961, with necessary permissions from the DGMS. The groundwater table has not been intercepted during mining operations. By a letter dated 08.06.2022, the Directorate of Mines permitted the inclusion of mineral masonry stone, cury rabies, and quartz with limestone under Rule 28(1)(xv) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, for Respondent No. 07. No loss of royalty revenue has occurred, as royalties on limestone are being paid as per the prescribed rate.

¶297

That the mining leases 613/90 and 301/90 partially include Khasra Nos. 419, 433/567, 439, 440, 444, 331, 441, and 450, covering 9.080 hectares of forest land. Necessary approvals were obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India (Regional Office, Central Region, Lucknow) through letters 8 / Raj / 05 / 148 / 1997 / FC / 1174 dated 27.02.2004 and 8 / Raj / 05 / 148 / 1997 / FC / 1174 / 706 dated 06.02.2004. Further, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jaipur, through letter F16(0)98/FCA/PRMUVSAN/3324 dated 10.08.2018, and the Conservator of Forests, Alwar, through letter F(O)FCA/UVS/201819/5656-61 dated 10.08.2018, approved the conditional extension of the mining lease duration from 01.04.1961 to 31.03.2025, in

¶298

¶299

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶300

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶301

accordance with Condition No. 2(3) of the contract under Section 2 of the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

¶302

This provision allows the lessee to bring and use machinery and equipment, and to construct or maintain necessary infrastructure, such as engines, machinery, plants, workshops, storehouses, and other buildings, for operational purposes on or under the approved mining land. As per the reports, the stone crusher unit of Respondent No. 07 is established and operated strictly within the approved area of Mining Lease No. 301/90, with no population, schools, or similar establishments located within a radius of 45 meters of the operational area.

¶303

Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent are that for redressal of grievances the aggrieved party moved before Hon’ble the High Court more than two times and Hon’ble the High Court had directed the Collector/PLPC to dispose of the matter and the matter was disposed of by the order of the Collector, dated 04.04.2023 and aggrieved by the above order the applicant Dulli Chand Meena filed a D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 886/2022 and this Contempt Petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 29.04.2024 and the relief as sought was turned down by Hon’ble the High Court. The order is quoted below:-

¶304

1. This petition is filed pleading non-compliance of directions of this Court issued on 11.05.2022 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.6931/2022. The operational part of the order dated 11.05.2022 is quoted as under:-

¶305

"In that view of the matter, the writ petition

¶306

stands disposed off, in view of the directions

¶307

¶308

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶309

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶310

issued by the Division Bench in the matter of Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra) and the

¶311

petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before PLPC and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of two months.

¶312

It Is further directed that the p are alleged to be the encroachers, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.”

¶313

2. The respondents have filed reply annexing the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the District Collector, Alwar on the representation filed by the petitioner.

¶314

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation has wrongly been rejected. In the first part of the order there is a finding that some of the land was being unauthorizedly used by the lease holders and later it was written that it was not evident that there is an encroachment.

¶315

4. The directions of this Court to consider and decide the representation have been complied with and the correctness of the order cannot be scrutinized in the contempt proceedings.

¶316

5. The contempt petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for redressal of surviving grievance, if any.”

¶317

¶318

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶319

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶320

In view of the above facts, it is clear that the aggrieved/ applicant has moved twice or more than twice before Hon’ble the High Court for the redressal of grievances and in compliance thereof, the matter has been finally resolved. The order passed by the Collector has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court which was also turned down and disposed of without granting any relief in favour of the applicant.

¶321

The submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant are that the points in issue as raised by the applicant before Hon’ble the High Court are different from the points in issue as raised in the present application. The main thrust of the applicant are the conversion of land and in reply thereof, the learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that it is governed by the Government of Rajasthan, Revenue Group-IV Department Notification dated 02.04.2007, where the provisions with regard to conversion of lands are given as below:-

¶322

“Section 5 –

¶323

Conversion for Dwelling House, cattle-shed or store-house without conversion charges -A Khatedar tenant shall be entitled to convert his agricultural holding for construction of a dwelling house or cattle shed or store house on an area not exceeding 500 Sq. mts. without any conversion charges payable under rule 7. The area so converted shall continue to be in his khatedari tenant.

¶324

Section 6-

¶325

Use of khatedari land for establishment of small scale industries and kjawa etc.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no permission for conversion shall be required where a Khatedar tenant desires to

¶326

¶327

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶328

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶329

establish micro, small scale industrial unit, kjawa (small brick kiln) or desires to use of land for the purpose of institutional, medical facilities or public utility on his own khatedari land upto an area not exceeding one acre. The area so used shall continue to be in his khatedari.

¶330

Section – 11

¶331

Provided that any transfer made without permission from the prescribed authority prior to commencement of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in rural areas) (Amendment) Rules, 2012, may be regularized by the prescribed authority on application made by the transferee along with payment of 25% of the conversion charges.]

¶332

Section – 12

¶333

Entry in revenue record after conversion.- (1) After issue of conversion order by the prescribed authority, the Tehsildar shall reduce the area from Khatedari land by making necessary entries in the revenue records.

¶334

(2) After the conversion of land it shall be entered as nonagriculture land along with the purpose for which land has been converted in column of soil classification of jamabandi.

¶335

(3) The copy of approved layout plan superimposed on converted khasra numbers shall be attached with jamabandi.

¶336

¶337

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶338

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶339

(4) In case of transfer of converted land by the khatedar tenant, he shall inform about such transfer to the Tehsildar. On the basis of deed of transfer the Tehsildar shall open mutation in Form P-21 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. The Tehsildar shall maintain a separate mutation register for land converted for non-agricultural purposes. On subsequent transfer of land converted for non-agricultural purposes in favour of any other person, the subsequent entry shall be made in the mutation register.

¶340

(5) Any person who got converted his agricultural land under these rules or the rules time being in force in rural areas for conversion of agriculture land, for any nonagricultural purposes or his transferee may, apply at any time along with conversion order and deed of transfer of land in his favour, to the Tehsildar concerned for entry of his name and soil classification in the mutation register. On receipt of application, the Tehsildar shall make necessary entries in the mutation register maintained for the purpose.”

¶341

Tahsildar Alwar has reported the matter to the Collector vide report dated 03.01.2023 that the mining is being done on the area allotted for the mine holder and it was not found in any way beyond the area of the allotted land and it is not under the forest land. So far as conversion is concerned, the order has been issued by the competent authority which is Annexure-R/9.

¶342

¶343

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶344

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶345

The matter of noise pollution and air pollution was continuously watched and monitored by the State PCB and relevant report by the Tahsildar-Alwar dated 02.02.2024 and report of the Regional Officer, State PCB dated 14.02.2024 has been attached and necessary actions are being taken in the cases where the air pollution is found to be beyond the standard limit.

¶346

It is further submitted that the order of conversion of land or encroachment has already been disposed of by the order of the Hon’ble High Court and the Collector concerned and if the applicant is aggrieved by the order of the Collector, he may approach before the appropriate forum. The order of the Collector cannot be challenged before this forum. So far as the consent conditions and environmental clearance are concerned, the unit has valid environmental clearance and consent conditions from the State PCB/competent authority. The vibration and the noise pollution has also been raised for which an expert report has been called from the Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CSIR) and nothing was found in violation of DGMS standard and the vibrations were found to be well within the safe permissible limit as prescribed by the DGMS and there are no violations.

¶347

Noise pollution and air pollution are the matters which are to be regularly monitored at the time of operation for which State PCB is regularly conducting the inspections and notices were issued according to rules.

¶348

In view of the above discussion, the violations with regard to the EC and consent conditions are not found correct. The vibrations are also within the permissible limit as reported by the expert body.

¶349

¶350

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶351

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

¶352

In view of the air pollution and noise pollution, we direct the State PCB to periodically monitor the noise pollution and air pollution while the unit is functioning and operational and in-case of any violation and the air pollution or noise pollution beyond the permissible limit necessary remedial measures must be taken according to rules and in-case remedial measures are not taken by the authorities concerned or the project proponent, necessary action be initiated according to rules.

¶353

With these observations Original Application No. 72/2024 stands disposed of.

¶354

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶355

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶356

10^th July, 2025 OA No. 72/2024(CZ) PN

¶357

¶358

O.A. No. 72/2024(CZ)

¶359

Dulli Chand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Ors.

Dulli Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dulli Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Green Space through Its President Mr Praveen Dlima vs State of Goa

Babul Ali vs State of West Bengal

Hemant Kumar vs State of Bihar

Ranjan Singh vs Bihar Pollution Control Board

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Savitri Nagar Gram Vikas Manch vs District Magistrate (South)

Surendra Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Chandikant Jha Son of Shri Vijay Kumar Jha vs Chief Secretary

Chandikant Jha Son of Shri Vijay Kumar Jha vs Chief Secretary

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Naresh Vashisth vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India