# Raj Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 655
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-31
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 28087 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-pratap-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52267
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 2021-Rules 30 & 59mining
lease
dispute-challenged
toDistrict
Magistrate
several
actions
including issuance of notice , demanding
dues for surrendering a sand mining lease
and subsequent orders canceling the lease
and
forfeiting
the
earnest
moneyappellant was granted a mining lease for
sand
extraction
in
Deoria
district
through e-auction for five year lease
period-citing an unusable road to the
mining site, the petitioner sought to
surrender
the
lease-the
District
Magistrate
demanded
payment
for
pending installments and subsequently
terminated the lease for non-paymentHeld, The amount of the security deposit
cannot
be
set-off
against
the
installments due and payable under the
terms of the lease in cases where the
surrender application is being positively
considered-Clause (i) of Part III of the
lease enables the State Govt. to forfeit
the security amount in full or in part
where
the
terms
&
conditions
are
breached-The notice dated 30.6.2023 is
only in compliance of the said provision
of lease-deed that mandates grant of
proper opportunity to the lease-holder,
therefore, the forfeiture of the security
deposit cannot be faulted-since the
application for surrender has held to be
not valid, termination of the lease by the
impugned order has been upheld-hence,
the sixth and seventh installments are
liable
to
be
recovered

from
the
petitioner.(Para 1 to 44)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,851 of 77,031. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39851 for what follows._

7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
the delivery of the child shall take place at
Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College,
Meerut. The State shall bear all the
expenses with regard to the delivery of the
child so that no hindrances exist in the course
of the same. The District Magistrate, Meerut,
is directed to be involved in the process so as
to ensure that all the medical and ancillary
expenses of the petitioner and her family are
borne by the State, which shall be inclusive
of their travel and stay in Meerut whensoever
required. The parents of the petitioner may
approach
the
Principal
and
Medical
Superintendent of the Lala Lajpat Rai
Memorial Medical College, Meerut and the
District Magistrate, Meerut, for further course
of action and proper guidance in this regard.
The Principal and Medical Superintendent of
the Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical
College, Meerut and the District Magistrate,
Meerut, are directed to contact Sri Desh
Ratan Chaudhary, Advocate at his Mobile
No.9839035080 to ensure the future course
of action.

27. Considering the fact that the
petitioner and her mother have decided to
give up the child for adoption, the Director
of
the
Central
Adoption
Resource
Authority (CARA) shall take appropriate
steps in tandem with the applicable
provisions of law to facilitate the process
and ensure that the adoption process is
expedited.

28. Keeping in mind the delicate
nature of the issue involved, all the
authorities concerned are directed to ensure
complete secrecy in the matter so that the
privacy of the petitioner and her family are
maintained and the identity of the petitioner
is not revealed in any manner whatsoever.

29. Counsel appearing on behalf of
both the parties shall keep the Court
informed of any developments that may
take place and shall be at liberty to seek
any further instructions as may be required
for the smooth and efficient carrying out of
the adoption process.

30. List this matter on August 28,
2024.

31. Since we have given directions to
certain
officers,
we
are
suo
motu
impleading them in this writ petition.

32. Accordingly, the Principal &
Medical Superintendent of the Lala Lajpat
Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut, the
District Magistrate, Meerut and Director of
the Central Adoption Resource Authority
are impleaded in this writ petition.

33. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order directly
to
the
Principal
and
Medical
Superintendent of the Lala Lajpat Rai
Memorial Medical College, Meerut, the
District
Magistrate,
Meerut,
and
the
Director of CARA forthwith. Registrar
(Compliance) is further directed to also
send copy of this writ petition to them.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 28087 of 2023

Raj Pratap Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nisheeth Yadav, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 2021-Rules 30 & 59mining
lease
dispute-challenged
toDistrict
Magistrate
several
actions
including issuance of notice , demanding
dues for surrendering a sand mining lease
and subsequent orders canceling the lease
and
forfeiting
the
earnest
moneyappellant was granted a mining lease for
sand
extraction
in
Deoria
district
through e-auction for five year lease
period-citing an unusable road to the
mining site, the petitioner sought to
surrender
the
lease-the
District
Magistrate
demanded
payment
for
pending installments and subsequently
terminated the lease for non-paymentHeld, The amount of the security deposit
cannot
be
set-off
against
the
installments due and payable under the
terms of the lease in cases where the
surrender application is being positively
considered-Clause (i) of Part III of the
lease enables the State Govt. to forfeit
the security amount in full or in part
where
the
terms
&
conditions
are
breached-The notice dated 30.6.2023 is
only in compliance of the said provision
of lease-deed that mandates grant of
proper opportunity to the lease-holder,
therefore, the forfeiture of the security
deposit cannot be faulted-since the
application for surrender has held to be
not valid, termination of the lease by the
impugned order has been upheld-hence,
the sixth and seventh installments are
liable
to
be
recovered

from
the
petitioner.(Para 1 to 44)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vipul Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C No.
17258 of 2020

2. Silppi Cons. Contrts. Vs U.O.I. & anr.(2020)
16 SCC 489

3. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & ors. Vs AMR Dev
Prabha & ors. (2020) 16 SCC 759

4. D.K. Trivedi & sons & ors. Vs St. of Guj. &
ors. (1986) Supp SCC 20

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Under challenge in the present
petition are: a notice dated 30.6.2023
issued by the District Magistrate to the
petitioner directing him to deposit all the
dues relating to the surrender of the lease,
failing which, the lease granted to the
petitioner would be cancelled; the order
dated 4.8.2023 passed by the District
Magistrate,
Deoria,
whereby
while
cancelling the mining lease granted to the
petitioner, the earnest money deposited by
the petitioner has been directed to be
forfeited; and the consequential order dated
7.8.2023 whereby an amount of Rs.
39,54,600/- payable towards the 6th and
7th instalments in respect of mining lease
has been directed to be recovered from the
petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the
State-respondent decided to allot sand
mining rights through e-tendering/e-auction
pertaining to a sand mining site near
Ghaghra river over plot no. 396/1, area
11.7 hectares situated in Tehsil Salempur,
District Deoria, for mining 1,17,000 cubic
meters per year of sand. The petitioner
deposited earnest money of Rs. 19,01,250/-
. The petitioner was the highest bidder, his
bid being Rs. 169/- per cubic meter, and a
letter of intent was issued to him by the
District
Magistrate
on
24.9.2021.
Accordingly, for the first year, the annual
value
of
the
mining
site
was
Rs.
1,97,73,000/-, twenty five percent of which
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657
was to be deposited under the head of
security amount along with twenty percent
of the annual value which would be the
first
instalment
amounting
to
Rs.
39,54,600/- as advance payment and as
such the total amount to be deposited was
Rs. 88,97,850/-. By adjusting the amount of
earnest money, the amount to be actually
paid was Rs. 69,96,600/- which was
deposited by the petitioner on 30.9.2021.

3. The lease deed dated 16.12.2022
was executed in favour of the petitioner
which granted mining rights for excavating
sand over the mining site for a period of 5
years starting from 16.12.2022, fixing nine
instalments for each of the five years of
lease, with no instalments payable for the
three monsoon months of July, August and
September in each year.

4. It is stated that the road to the
excavating site was too dilapidated and it
was impossible to transport the minerals
from the mining site which resulted in
losses and therefore, the petitioner decided
to surrender the mining lease and thus
stopped excavating work from 1.5.2023.
On receipt of a letter of 9.5.2023 from the
District Magistrate regarding default of
partial deposit of the 5th deposit and not
depositing the 6th instalment, certain
deposits were made by the petitioner on
different dates and he made complete
payment of the 5th instalment. It is stated
that other than the 5th instalment, no
further instalments under the mining lease
terms were required to be paid by the
petitioner in view of the fact that the
petitioner submitted an application dated
18.5.2023 before the District Magistrate to
surrender the mining lease.

5. A letter dated 22.5.2023 was issued
by the Mining Officer requiring to submit a
'no
objection'
for
transferring
the
Environmental
Clearance
Certificate
obtained by the petitioner, and a no dues
certificate. It is stated that pursuant to a
letter of 26.5.2023 written by the petitioner
in respect of surrender of the mining lease,
a note sheet was prepared by the
respondents in which it was reflected that
there was sufficient amount available as
security
money
that
was
previously
deposited by the petitioner and as such,
given the requirement of the provisions of
surrender of mining lease, twenty five
percent of the annual value pertaining to
the mining site can be adjusted from the
security amount and the mining site should
be declared vacant.

6. It is stated that noting on the notesheet were approved by all the concerned
officers including the District Magistrate.
Thereafter, the impugned notice dated
30.6.2023 was issued by the District
Magistrate, Deoria demanding the royalty
for the month of May, 2023 and for June,
2023 failing which, the lease would be
terminated. The petitioner filed a detailed
representation, whereafter the impugned
orders dated 4.8.2023 and 7.8.2023 were
passed. It is stated that provisions of Rule
59
of
the
Rules,
2021
would
be
inapplicable in view of the facts of the case
and therefore, the termination of the mining
lease is illegal. The learned counsel has
referred to a judgment dated 11.1.2021 of a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the
matter of Vipul Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.
and others passed in Writ-C No. 17258 of
2020 to contend that given the provisions
of Section 30 of the Rules, 2021, and the
letter of the Mines Officer stating that from
1.5.2023 the mining work was stopped by
the petitioner, and, given the provision of
sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Mines
and Mineral (Development and Regulation)
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, 1957, the instalments for the months
of May and June, 2023 could not be
demanded from the petitioner and neither
could the lease be terminated, but, the
surrender of the mining lease should have
been accepted with effect from 18.5.2023.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, has filed short counter
affidavits dated 30.10.2023 and 12.2.2024
on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on
behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5,
respectively. It has been stated that as per
the conditions of the lease deed the
instalments were to be deposited by the
lease-holder on the first date of every
month and as such, in view of the default of
the petitioner, notice dated 9.5.2023 was
issued, but without depositing the amount
of instalments, he moved an application
dated 18.5.2023 for surrender of the lease.
It is stated that there was an irregular
deposit of the 5th instalment and nonpayment of the 6th instalment.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has
referred to the various conditions of the
lease deed stating that in view of the
default, the lease deed was liable to be and
was correctly cancelled. It has further been
stated that the terms of the lease deed
themselves reflect that the access road to
the mining site was required to be
constructed and maintained by the leaseholder himself and no liability can be
fastened by the lease-holder/petitioner on
the State-respondents for non-maintenance
of the access road. Learned Standing
Counsel has placed a letter of the District
Magistrate dated 8.2.2024, in which, the
dues pertaining to the outstanding royalty,
D.M.F. and T.C.S. as on 18.5.2023 and
other dues have been stated. The letter is
reproduced below:

"प्रेषक,

स्िलाचिकारी,

देिररया।

सेिा में,

मुख्य थिायी अचििक्र्ा ,
मा० उच्ि न्द्यायालय

इलाहाबाद ।

सिंख्या- 48 / खनन / िाद-2024

ददनािंक- 08 िरिरी, 2024

विषय मा० उच्ि न्द्यायालय द्िारा
पाररर् आदेश ददनािंक - 31.01.2024 के
सम्बन्द्ि में।

महोदया,

कृपया
उपयुाक्र्
विषयक
के
सम्बन्द्ि में अिर्र् कराना है कक मा० उच्ि
न्द्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योस्िर् ररट सिंख्या
- 28087/2023 रािप्रर्ाप यादि बनाम
उ०प्र० सरकार ि अन्द्य में पाररर् आदेश के
क्रम में बकाया रायल्टी , डी०एम०एि ि
टी०सी०एस०
का
वििरण
ददनािंक
-
18.05.2023 र्क ननम्नसलखखर् हैः-
क्र
०
सिं
०
बकाया
रायल्टी
डी०एम०एि
०
टी०सी०एस
०
1
2
3
4
1
2477540.0
0
1186380.0
0
237276.00

इसके अनर्ररक्र् अिर्र् करना है
कक पट्टेिारक के द्िारा उ०प्र० उपखननि
पररहार ननयमािली 1963 के अनुसार पट्टा
अभ्यपाण आिेदन पत्र के साि िावषाक
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
ककथर् का 25% अचग्रम रूप से रू०4943250रू० िमा नही ककया र्या िा स्िसे
ससक्यूररटी िनरासश से समायोस्िर् करने के
उपरान्द्र् उपरोक्र् बकाया है,

इसके अनर्ररक्र् देय नर्चि से
विलम्ब भुर्र्ान करने पर 1.5% प्रनर् माह
के दर से व्याि भी पट्टेिारक पर लार्ू
होर्ा है।
ह० अप०
08.02.24
स्िलाचिकारी
देिररया।"

9. Learned Standing Counsel has
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Silppi Constructions
Contractors v. Union of India and
another, and in the case of Bharat Coking
Coal Limited and others Vs. AMR Dev
Prabha and others to contend that in the
matter of Government contracts the court
may not exercise its discretionary powers
unless there is any infirmity in the decision
making process.

10. As stated above, a letter of intent
dated 24.9.2021 was issued and, thereafter,
a lease-deed was executed in favour of the
petitioner on 16.12.2022 and was registered
on 19.12.2022.

11. On 9.5.2023, a notice regarding
violation of the terms of the lease was
issued to the petitioner in which it was
stated that payments of the fifth and sixth
instalments of the first year were not made
which are punishable under Rule 59. It was,
therefore, directed that within a period of
fifteen days, the entire outstanding amount
be deposited, failing which further legal
action would be taken. It has been stated by
the petitioner that the fifth instalment due
was paid by him.

12. On 15.6.2023, it appears that in
view of a reference raised by the petitioner
on the IGRS portal, the Mines Officer
wrote a letter to the District Magistrate
regarding the complaint made by the
petitioner of illegal mining. The Mines
Officer informed that since 1.5.2023, the
mining work in the leased area has been
stopped for which the instalment has not
been deposited by the petitioner and the
procedure for cancellation of the lease is
underway.

13. Thereafter, on 18.5.2023, the
petitioner sent a letter to the District
Magistrate informing that he has not been
able to deposit the instalment for the month
of May as the road (approach road to the
mining area) is in a very bad shape because
of which very few vehicles are able to pass.
The instalment for the month of May was
not
paid,
thus,
the
lease
is
being
surrendered. It was mentioned therein that
if the amount of security deposit is
forfeited, the petitioner would have no
objection.

14. By a letter dated 22.5.2023, the
Mines Officer wrote a letter to the
petitioner in respect of the application for
surrender of lease asking him to submit a
'No Objection' with regard to the transfer of
environment clearance certificate and to
submit 'No Dues Certificate' with regard to
mining.

15. The application dated 18.5.2023
filed by the petitioner before the District
Magistrate seeking surrender of the lease
states that in case the security amount is
forfeited, he would have no objection. The
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mines Officer by its letter of 22.5.2023 to
the petitioner has mentioned that the
aforesaid two documents pursuant to the
application for surrender dated 18.5.2023
are awaited. By means of a letter dated
26.5.2023,
the
petitioner
purportedly
complied with the aforesaid letter dated
22.5.2023 sent by the Mines Officer. In this
letter
of
26.05.2023
the
petitioner
submitted the treasury challan dated
25.5.2023 which was the balance amount
of instalment due for the month of April
2023 (that is, the fifth instalment), and, an
affidavit
containing
no-objection
with
regard to the Environment Clearance
Certificate.

16.

The
respondents'
office
noting/report of 29/31.5.2023 reflects that
the lease holder (petitioner) had deposited
the instalment for the month of April, 2023.
It was further mentioned that the petitioner
would be issued a separate notice and
recovery
certificate
with
regard
to
payments pertaining to DMF and TCS.
Accordingly, the report was put up that 25
percent of the annual instalment be
adjusted against the security deposit and,
while prohibiting the lease holder from
carrying out mining activity, the lease area
be declared vacant. The District Magistrate
noted on the aforesaid report as follows:-

"O.K.

अग्रेतर कायगिाही भी सम्पन्ि
कराएिं

(Further
proceeding
also
be
taken)

02.06.2023"

17. However, after nearly a month,
the impugned notice dated 30.6.2023 was
issued by the District Magistrate stating
that for purposes of 'No Dues Certificate'
the 'royalty' for the month of May, 2023
has not been deposited by the petitioner and
as such the certificate for 'No Dues' cannot
be issued and also the dues for the ensuing
month (June, 2023) is also due. It was
mentioned that the dues be deposited
without any delay failing which, the lease
deed would be terminated. The petitioner
replied to the said notice by his letter dated
7.7.2023 stating that the royalty up to
18.5.2023 demanded by the letter dated
30.6.2023 is wrong and, accordingly,
sought refund of the security amount after
adjusting the due royalty.

18. By means of the impugned order
dated 4.3.2023, exercising powers under
Rule 59, the mining lease granted to the
petitioner was terminated by the District
Magistrate.

19. Some questions that would arise
for consideration in the aforesaid petition
are as follows:-

(i) Once the surrender application
was
moved
on
18.5.2023
without
depositing the instalments due till then and
once the admitted case is that mining has
been stopped in the leased area since
01.5.2023 then, are the respondents bound
to accept the surrender application with
effect from 18.5.2023 and, as a corollary,
can the lease-deed be terminated?

(ii) Whether, under the terms and
conditions of the lease deed and / or the
applicable
law,
the
earnest
money
deposited by the petitioner is liable to be
forfeited?

(iii) Whether the amounts payable
under the lease towards the sixth and
seventh instalments (i.e. for the months of
May and June, 2023, respectively) are
liable to be recovered from the petitioner.
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661

20. The Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 20213 was published
in U.P. Gazette by means of a notification
on 29.10.2021. The preamble reads that "in
exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section l5 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 (Act no. 67 of 1957), read with
section 2l of the General Clauses Act, 1897
and in supersession of the Uttar Pradesh
Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963,
the Governor is pleased to make the
following rules with a view to regulating
the concession of minor minerals and other
purposes connected therewith". Therefore,
even though the lease deed of 16.12.2022
refers to the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 19634, on the date of
execution of the lease-deed the Rules, 2021
were applicable in the case of the
petitioner. The procedure adopted by the
State Government was by way of e-tendercum-e-auction and as such is covered under
Chapter IV of the Rules, 2021, which
Chapter contains Rules 23 to 31. Under
sub-rule (3) of Rule 23, the provisions of
Chapter II, III, VI and IX except Rule 10,
17 and 95 are not applicable to the area
leased to the petitioner.

21. Consequently, under Chapter IV,
the relationship between the petitioner and
the State-respondents is governed by the
terms of the lease-deed. The lease was
granted in Form MM-6 for a period of five
years which provides, inter alia, that for the
subsequent years, the amount payable will
be increased at the rate of 10% on the
preceding year's payable amount. The lease
was for mining ordinary sand to the extent
of 1,17,000 cubic meters per annum in
respect of which for the first year an
amount of Rs.1,97,73,000 was payable in
the instalments fixed as per Schedule V of
the Rules.

22. The provision of surrender of
mining lease was inserted by Rule 29-A in
the Rules, 1963 by means of the Uttar
Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession)
(Forty Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2019
which was notified on 13.08.2019. It read
as under:-

"29-A. Surrender of Mining
Lease- Lease holder, on the intended day
of surrender, shall submit over and above
security deposit, an amount equivalent to
25% of the annual installment of that year
and apply for surrender along with the
following documents-

(a) No objection for transfer of
Environment
Clearance
Certificate
obtained for the concerned lease area in
favour of the State Government or
subsequent proponent.

(b)
Certificate
of
money
deposited for difference between quantity
mentioned in Environment Clearance and
mined out quantity or in case of no
difference, a Certificate in this regard for
the concerned lease issued by Mines
Officer/Mines Inspector.

In accordance with the above,
lease-holder will be prohibited from
carrying out mining activities from the date
of application for surrender of lease and the
area will be deemed to be vacant."

23. Now, Rule 30 of the Rules, 2021
provides for surrender of mining lease and
it reads as follows:-

"30.
Surrender
of
Mining
Lease- Lease holder, on the intended day
of surrender, shall submit an amount
equivalent to twenty-five percent of the
annual instalment of that year which may
be adjusted against the security deposit and
apply
for
surrender
along with
the
following documents-
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a) no objection for transfer of
Environment
Clearance
Certificate
obtained for the concerned lease area in
favour of the State Government or
subsequent proponent.

(b)5
certificate
of
money
deposited for difference between quantity
mentioned
in
Environment
Clearance
Certificate and mined out quantity or in
case of no difference, a Certificate in this
regard for the concerned lease issued by
Senior Mines Officer/Mines Officer/Mines
Inspector.

In accordance with the above,
lease-holder will be prohibited from
carrying out mining activities from the date
of application for surrender of lease and the
area will be deemed to be vacant."

24. Rule 59, under which the lease of
the petitioner has been terminated, reads as
follows:-

"59.
Consequences
of
nonpayment of royalty rent or other dues-
(1) The State Government or any officer
authorised by it in this behalf may
terminate the mining lease after serving a
notice on the lessee to pay within thirty
days of the receipt of the notice any amount
due or dead rent under the lease including
royalty due to the State Government if it
was not paid within fifteen days next after
the date fixed for such payment. This right
shall be in addition to and without
prejudice to the right of the State
Government to realise such dues from the
lessee as arrears of land revenue.

(2) Without prejudice to the
provisions of these rules, simple interest at
the rate of 18 percent per annum may be
charged on any rent, royalty, demarcation
fee and any other dues under these rules,
due to the State Government after the
expiry of the period of notice under subrule (1);

Provided
that
the
District
Magistrate, after adjusting the security
money against the total amount due, shall
issue recovery certificate for recovery of
the outstanding amount."

25. Under the lease-deed, the
instalments payable for the first year were
as follows:-

भार्-2
इस पट्टे द्िारा सिंरक्षक्षर् थिासमत्क्ि

1. थिासमत्क्ि
की िनरासश
:
पट्टेदार इस पट्टे की अिचि में राज्य
सरकार को पट्टे पर ददये र्ये क्षेत्र में
उसके द्िारा हटाये र्ये सभी बालू/मोरम के
सम्बन्द्ि में उ०प्र० उपखननि (पररहार)
ननयमािली-1963
के
ननयम-27(3)
के
अनुसार ननविदा/नीलामी की िनरासश पिंिम
अनुसूिी में दी र्यी व्यिथिा के अनुसार
थिासमत्क्ि का भुर्र्ान करेर्ा।

देय िनरासशयों के िमा करने की
पिंिम अनुसूिी

(1) प्रिम िषा की ननिााररर् ककचर्े
:-
क्र०सिं०
पट्टा
िषा
ककचर्
/
देयर्ा नर्चि
देय
िनरासश
(रू०में)
पट्टा
िनरा
सश का
प्रनर्श
र्
1.
प्रिम
िषा
प्रिम
ककचर्,
ददसिंबर,2022
39,54,60
0.00
20
प्रनर्श
र्
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
(अचग्रम रुप
से िमा)
(अचग्रम
िमा)
2.
''
द्विर्ीय
ककचर्,
01
िनिरी,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
3.
''
र्ृर्ीय
ककचर्,
01
िरिरी,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
4.
''
िर्ुिा
ककचर्,
01
मािा,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
5.
''
पिंिम
ककचर्,
01
अप्रैल,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
6.
''
छठा ककचर्,
01
मई,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
7.
''
सप्र्म
ककचर्,
01
िून,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
8.
''
अष्ठम
ककचर्,
01 अक्टूबर
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
9.
''
नौिी ककचर्,
01 निम्बर,
2023
19,77,30
0.00
10
प्रनर्श
र्
प्रिम
िषा
की
पट्टा
िनरासशः-
रु०1,97,
73.000.0
0
10
प्रनर्श
र्

26. In Part III of the lease, which
provides for general conditions of the lease,
there is a provision for forfeiture of security
deposit, which is as follows:-

भार्-3
सामान्द्य उपबन्द्ि

"1. ननयमों, प्रसिंविदाओिं और शर्ो
को भिंर् करने पर पट्टा समाप्र् ककया िा
सकर्ा है : यदद पट्टेदार उत्तर प्रदेश उप
खननि (पररहार) ननयमािली 1963 के ककसी
ननयम या इस पट्टे की ककसी प्रसिंविदा
र्िा ककसी शर्ा को भिंर् करें र्ो राज्य
सरकार पट्टा समाप्र् कर सकर्ी है और
प्रनर्भूनर् िमा को पूणार्ः या अिंशर्ः िब्र्
कर सकर्ी है ककन्द्र्ु प्रनर्बन्द्ि यह है कक
पट्टा समाप्र् ककये िाने के पूिा पट्टेदार
को उन्द्हें भिंर् करने का थपष्टीकरण देने के
सलए यिोचिर् अिसर ददया िायेर्ा।"

27. The additional terms that are
provided in the lease-deed are as follows:-

"अनर्ररक्र् शर्े

1. पट्टा विलेख के ननष्पादन के
उपरान्द्र् खनन सिंकक्रयायें र्त्क्काल प्रारम्भ
करेर्ा और र्त्क्पचिार्् िान बूझकर कोई
थिर्न ककये बबना ऐसी खनन सिंकक्रयाओिं
का सिंिालन उचिर् और दक्षर्ापूणा रीनर् के
कुशल कारीर्र की भािंनर् करेर्ा।

2.
पट्टेदार
ननयमािली-1963,
ननयम-35 के अनुसार पट्टेदार अपने थििंय
के व्यय पर ऐसे सीमाचिन्द्ह को और खम्भे
को पररननसमार् करेर्ा और सदैि अनुरक्षक्षर्
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
करेर्ा और अच्छी स्थिनर् में रखेर्ा र्िा
िाहनों के प्रिेश ि ननकासी पर ननर्रानी के
सलये थििंय के व्यय पर 360 डडग्री कोण पर
दृचयर्ा
ररकाडडार्
के
योग्य
िार
सी०सी०टी०िी० कैमरा लर्ाने सदहर् िेक
पोथट/ र्ेट का ननमााण करेर्ा। पट्टेदार
उक्र्
िेक
पोथट
/
र्ेट
पर
आर०एि०आई०डी०
थकैनर
भी
रखेर्ा,
स्िससे सम्बस्न्द्िर् खननपट्टा क्षेत्र से
उपखननिों के पररिहन हेर्ु प्रयुक्र् प्रत्क्येक
यान के सापेक्ष ननर्ार् ककये र्ये प्रपत्र ई०एम०एम०-11 पर अिंककर् बार कोड का डाटा
पढने और सुरक्षक्षर् रखने की सुवििा होर्ी
और उसका समुचिर् रुप से रख-रखाि
करेर्ा एििं सदैि उसे िालू रुप में अनुरक्षक्षर्
रखेर्ा। पट्टेदार उक्र् सी०सी०टी०िी० कैमरे
और आर०एि०आई०डी० थकैनरों द्िारा की
र्यी समथर् ररकाडडार् को कम से कम 30
ददनों र्क सुरक्षक्षर् रखेर्ा और ननयम-66 के
उपबन्द्िों के अिीन प्राचिकृर् अचिकारी के
द्िारा ररकाडा मािंर्े िाने पर उक्र् ररकाडडार्
को उपलब्ि करायेर्ा। यदद पट्टािारक
ननयम-35 के उपबन्द्िो का उल्लिंघन करर्ा
है र्ो प्रत्क्येक िूक के सलये प्रनर्ददन रू०
25,000.00 की दर से शास्थर् उदर्ृदहर् की
िायेर्ी और ऐसी उदर्ृदहर् शास्थर् को िमा
करने पर िूक की दशा में उक्र् िनरासश
की कटौर्ी खनन पट्टा के सापेक्ष िमा की
र्यी प्रनर्भूनर् की िनरासश से की िायेर्ी।

3. प्रत्क्येक िषा मानसून सत्र में
(माह िुलाई, अर्थर् ि ससर्िंबर) सा०बालू
का खनन/ पररिहन काया प्रनर्बस्न्द्िर्
रहेर्ा।

4. पट्टेदार/ प्रनर्ननचि प्रत्क्येक
िाहन को ई-एम०एम०-11 सही वििरण
सदहर् दो प्रनर्यों में िारी करेर्ा र्िा नर्चि
सदहर् हथर्ाक्षर करेंर्ा। प्रत्क्येक िाहनों को
ननर्ार् ई-एम०एम०-11 पर िननर् बार कोड
को िेक र्ेट पर पढने र्िा दिा डाटा सेि
करने के सलये आर०एि०आई०डी० थकैनर
लर्ायेर्ा र्िा सदैि उसका अनुरक्षण करेर्ा
और उन्द्हे सही एििं िालू दशा में रखेर्ा।
उक्र् का अनुपालन न करने की दशा में
ननयमािली-1963 के ननयम-59 के अन्द्र्र्ार्
शास्थर् का भार्ीदार होर्ा।

5. पट्टेदार 03 मीटर की र्हराई
अििा िल थर्र में से िो कम हो, से
अचिक र्हराई में खनन सिंकक्रयायें नहीिं
करेर्ा।

6. स्िलाचिकारी द्िारा चिस्न्द्हर्
सुरक्षा क्षेत्र में खनन नही ककया िायेर्ा।

7. थिीकृर् क्षेत्र के अन्द्दर िहााँ
पररिहन प्रपत्र ननर्ार् ककया िायेर्ा, िहााँ पर
खननिों का विक्रय मूल्य प्रदसशार् करेर्ा।

8. पट्टािारक को पट्टा समास्प्र्
के उपरान्द्र् पयाािरणीय थिीकृनर् राज्य
सरकार ि अनुिर्ी प्रथर्ािक के पक्ष में
अन्द्र्ररर् ककये िाने में कोई आपवत्त नही
होर्ी।

9.
पट्टेदार
ननयमािली-1963,
ननयम-34 के अिीन उपबस्न्द्िर् उपबन्द्िो के
अनुसार िारी अनुमोददर् खनन योिना और
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
पयाािरण अनापवत्त प्रमाण-पत्र में उस्ल्लखखर्
ननबन्द्िन एििं शर्ो का उल्लिंघन करर्े हुये
पाये िाने पर िह प्रत्क्येक िूक के प्रनर्
अिसर के अनुसार रू० 50,000.00 की दर
से ऐसी शास्थर् के सलये दायी होर्ी।

10. खनन / पररिहन में िनिन
की हानन की समथर् स्िम्मेदारी पट्टेदार
की होर्ी।

11. पट्टेदार द्िारा मा० उच्ि
न्द्यायालय, मा० राष्रीय हररर् प्राचिकरण
अििा मा० सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय द्िारा पाररर्
आदेशों का पालन ककया िायेर्ा।

12. ननयमों एििं शर्ो के उल्लिंघन
के पररणामथिरुप यदद कोई िाद अििा
अपराचिक प्रकक्रया योस्िर् होर्ी है, र्ो
इसकी सम्पूणा स्िम्मेदारी पट्टेदार की होर्ी
एििं यदद इस सम्बन्द्ि में कोई व्यय होर्ा है
र्ो उसका िहन पट्टेदार द्िारा ककया
िायेर्ा।

13. राज्य सरकार अििा केन्द्र
सरकार द्िारा यदद ननयमों / अचिननयमों में
कोई सिंशोिन होर्ा है अििा कोई शर्ा
अििा विचि प्रख्यावपर् की िार्ी है र्ो िह
पट्टेदार को मान्द्य होर्ा।

14. पट्टेदार द्िारा राज्य अििा
केन्द्र सरकार द्िारा समय-समय पर
ननिााररर् कर एििं शुल्क यिा आयकर
विभार् का टी०सी०एस०, स्िला खननि
िाउण्डेशन
(डी०एम०एि०)
ननयमानुसार
िमा ककया िायेर्ा।

15. पट्टेदार को खनन क्षेत्र में
पहुिंि मार्ा का ननमााण थििंय करना होर्ा
र्िा यदद र्ृर्ीय पक्ष द्िारा कोई वििाद
उत्क्पन्द्न ककया िार्ा है, र्ो उसके सलये िह
थििंय स्िम्मेिार होंर्े।

16. पट्टेदार को उत्तर प्रदेश
उपखननि (पररहार) ननयमािली 1963 यिा
सिंशोचिर् एििं सुसिंर्र् शासनादेशों एििं
माननीय न्द्यायालयों के आदेशों को अक्षरशः
पालन करना होर्ा।

17.
पट्टेदार
थिीकृर्
एििं
चिन्द्हािंककर् खनन क्षेत्र से बाहर ककसी भी
दशा में खनन काया नहीिं करेर्ा।

18. पट्टेदार ननयमािली 1963 के
ननयम-73के प्राििानों के अन्द्र्र्ार् पूिािर्ी
त्रैमास के सिंबिंि में प्रत्क्येक िषा िुलाई,
अक्टूबर, िनिरी और अप्रैल के द्विर्ीय
सप्र्ाह
में
प्रपत्र
एम०एम०-12
में
स्िलाचिकारी और भूर्त्क्ि एििं खननकमा
ननदेशालय के क्षेत्रीय कायाालय को त्रैमाससक
वििरणी प्रथर्ुर् करेर्ा र्िा विननददाष्ट
समय के भीर्र वििरण प्रथर्ुर् करने मे
वििल होने पर रू० 2000.00 की शास्थर् का
भार्ी होर्ा र्िा पट्टेदार की ऐसी िूक,
खनन पट्टा विलेख की शर्ो का उल्लिंघन
माना िायेर्ा।

19. खनन काया करने के दौरान
यदद कोई अन्द्य खननि / उपखननि प्राप्र्
होर्ा है र्ो उसकी सूिना पट्टेदार र्त्क्काल
स्िला कायाालय र्िा भूर्त्क्ि एििं खननकमा
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
विभार् (उ०प्र०) के क्षेत्रीय कायाालय एििं
ननदेशालय को देर्ा।

20. मा० सिोच्ि न्द्यायालय में
प्रथर्ुर् ररट याचिका(सी) सिं०-114/2014
(कॉमन काि बनाम यूननयन आि इस्ण्डया)
में
पाररर्
ननम्निर्
आदेश
ददनािंक
08.01.2020 का अनुपालन पट्टािार को
करना अननिाया होर्ाः-

The mining lease holders shall,
after ceasing mining operation, undertake
regrassing the mining area and any other
area which may have been disturbed due to
their mining activities and restore the land
to a condition which is fit for growth of
fooder, flora funna etc.

20. पट्टेदार को पट्टाकृर् क्षेत्र में
खननि के समुचिर् विकास हेर्ु िैज्ञाननक
ढिंर् से खनन काया करर्े हुए पयाािरण की
सुरक्षा हेर्ु खननि / उपखननि का खनन ि
ननकासी
करने
के
उपरािंर्
क्षेत्र
का
समर्लीकरण कर िहााँ िृक्षारोपण करना
होर्ा।

21. थिीकृर् क्षेत्र में थिायी सीमा
थर्म्भ लर्ाने के बाद ही खनन काया करने
की अनुमनर् दी िायेर्ी।

22. खनन पट्टा थिीकृनर् के
पचिार् भविष्य में िन विभार् या ककसी
अन्द्य विभार् द्िारा शर्ो के विपरीर् काया
करने के कारण आपवत्त ककये िाने पर उक्र्
ननयमािली 1963 के ननयम 60 के अिीन
युस्क्र्युक्र् अिसर ददये िाने के पचिार्
खनन पट्टा ननरथर् ककया िायेर्ा।

23. पट्टेदार द्िारा खनन क्षेत्र
र्क पहुाँि मार्ा थििंय के व्यय पर बनाया
िायेर्ा। यदद खननिों के पररिहन हेर्ु
ककसी काचर्कार की भूसम से होकर राथर्े
का ननमााण ककया िार्ा है र्ो सम्बस्न्द्िर्
काचर्कार की सलखखर् सहमनर् सम्बन्द्िी
असभलेख स्िला क्िैरी कायाालय, देिररया में
प्रथर्ुर् करना अननिाया होर्ा। राथर्े के
ननमााण में होने िाले व्यय के सलए राज्य
सरकार का कोई उत्तरदानयत्क्ि नहीिं होर्ा।

24. खनन थिल से ननकाले र्ये
खननि पदािा का असभिहन िन विभार् की
सलखखर् सहमनर् के बबना िन मार्ा से नही
ककया िायेर्ा।

25. थिीकृर् खनन पट्टा क्षेत्र की
पररचि के बाहर कोई अिैि खनन पाये
िाने पर उक्र् ननयमािली 1963 के ननयम
60 के अिीन युस्क्र्युक्र् अिसर ददये िाने
के पचिार् खनन पट्टा ननरथर् ककया
िायेर्ा।

26. ननयमािली-1963 के ननयम41(ि) के अिीन उपबस्न्द्िर् उपबन्द्िों के
अनुसार िलिारा में सक्शन मशीन /
सलफ्टर के माध्यम से खनन काया ननवषद्ि
होर्ा। पट्टेदार उक्र् ननयम के उपबन्द्िों का
उल्लिंघन करर्ा हुआ पाया िार्ा है र्ो
प्रत्क्येक अिसर में पािंि लाख रूपये की दर
से शास्थर् के सलये दायी होर्ा। शास्थर् की
उपरोक्र् उस्ल्लखखर् िनरासश को िमा करने
में वििल होने पर उक्र् िनरासश को पट्टे
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
के सापेक्ष िमा की र्यी प्रनर्भूसम की
िनरासश से कटौर्ी की िायेर्ी।

27. ननयमािली-1963 के ननयम-44
में उपबस्न्द्िर् की र्यी ककसी शर्ा को भिंर्
करने पर पिास हिार रूपये की शास्थर् /
उद्ग्रहण के सलये दायी होर्ा। शास्थर् की
उक्र् िनरासश िमा करने में वििल होने
पर सम्बस्न्द्िर् पट्टे के सापेक्ष िमा की
र्यी प्रनर्भूनर् की िनरासश से कटौर्ी कर
ली िायेर्ी।

28. थिीकृर् खनन पट्टा क्षेत्र के
भीर्र ककसी प्रनर्बस्न्द्िर् क्षेत्र (यदद कोई
हो) में खनन काया नहीिं ककया िायेर्ा। ऐसे
प्रनर्बस्न्द्िर् क्षेत्र में खनन पाये िाने पर
ननयमानुसार खनन पट्टा समाप्र् ककया िा
सकर्ा है।

29. रीिर बेड माइननिंर् की स्थिनर्
में खनन की र्हराई 03 (र्ीन) मीटर अििा
िाटर लेिल में से िो न्द्यूनर्म् हो, र्क ही
ककया िायेर्ा।

30. पयाािरण थिच्छर्ा प्रमाण-पत्र
में उस्ल्लखखर् शर्ो र्िा उ०प्र० उपखननि
(पररहार) ननयमािली, 1963 के ननयम-34(4)
के अनुसार ननदेशालय द्िारा अनुमोददर्
खनन योिना में उस्ल्लखखर् शर्ों का पालन
पट्टेदार को ककया िाना आिचयक होर्ा।

31. पट्टािारक विदहर् लोडडिंर्
सस्न्द्नयमो की पुस्ष्ट करने वििल हो िाने
पर ऐसे प्रत्क्येक िूक की दशा में रूपया
पच्िीस हिार रूपये की शास्थर् अचिरोवपर्
की िायेर्ी। शास्थर् की उक्र् िनरासश िमा
करने में वििल होने पर सम्बस्न्द्िर् पट्टे
के सापेक्ष िमा की र्यी प्रनर्भूनर् की
िनरासश से कटौर्ी कर ली िायेर्ी।

32.
ई-ननविदा
सह
ई-नीलामी
विज्ञस्प्र् ददनािंक 02.08.2021 के बबन्द्दु सिं०22
के
शर्ा-(1)
से
आचिथर्
होकर
पट्टािारक द्िारा खनन पट्टा प्राप्र् ककया
र्या है। यह ई-ननविदा सह ई-नीलामी 05
िषा की अिचि ि ननिााररर् मात्रा के सलये
है। खनन पट्टा विलेख ननष्पादन के
उपरान्द्र् उपखननि की मात्रा ननिाारण करने
सम्बन्द्िी प्रािाना-पत्र / दािा मान्द्य नही
होर्ा।"

28. Evidently, the instalments were
fixed in the lease deed as per Schedule V of
the Rules. The application for surrender of
mining lease is required to be considered
under Rule 30 of the Rules, 2021.
Therefore, lease holder has to ensure that
on the day of the intended surrender, an
amount equivalent to 25 percent of the
annual instalment of that year is submitted
by him which may be adjusted against the
security deposit. Two documents are
required to be furnished along with the
surrender application. One is a document
declaring no objection for transfer of
Environment
Clearance
Certificate6
obtained for the concerned lease area in
favour of the State Government or
subsequent
proponent.
Secondly,
the
application
for
surrender
is
to
be
accompanied by a certificate of money
deposited for difference between quantity
mentioned in the ECC and mined out
quantity or in case of no difference, a
certificate in this regard for the concerned
lease deed issued by the competent
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
officer/Inspector. In the last paragraph of
Rule 30, the consequences of such an
application being filed are mentioned. It
reads that in accordance with the above, the
lease holder will be prohibited from
carrying out mining activities from the date
of application for surrender of lease and the
area will be deemed to be vacant.

29. A reading of Rule 30 reflects that
it presumes that compliance of the terms of
the lease have been made by the lease
holder till the intended day of surrender.
That is to say, inter alia, a condition
precedent to the moving of a valid
application for surrender would be that the
due instalments and other dues payable
under the terms of the lease have been
deposited. Any violation of the terms of the
lease would attract action of termination of
the lease. The requirement in Rule 30 of
deposit of 25 percent of the annual
instalment of that year (in which the
intended day of surrender falls), which may
be adjusted against the security deposit, has
to be read as being in the nature of
compulsory exaction due to surrender of
the mining lease prior to the expiry of the
lease. Therefore, in a case of surrender, the
security deposit cannot be adjusted against
any outstanding installments or other dues
except against the adjustment of the 25%
deposit of the annual installment specified
in Rule 30. The loss of revenue to the State
Government due to such surrender would
be a plausible reason for inserting this
requirement which is in public interest.
However, in the event of termination of the
mining lease under the provisions of Rule
59, the security deposit can be adjusted
against the total amount due.

As far as the requirement of no
objection for transfer of Environment
Clearance Certificate obtained for the
concerned lease area in favour of the State
Government or subsequent proponent is
concerned, it is an important consideration
in the interest of State Government's
revenue inasmuch as under the proviso to
sub-Rule (5) of Rule 35 of the Rules, 2021,
the environment clearance granted in
favour of such lessee may be transferred to
a legal person in favour of whom such
lease is settled within the lease validity
period.

30. Evidently, the application for
surrender was filed by the petitioner on
18.5.2023, but without depositing the entire
amount of instalment for the month of
April 2023 and without depositing the
instalment for the month of May 2023 (that
is, the 5th and 6th instalments payable on
01.04.2023 and 01.05.2023 respectively),
and further, without the two requisite
documents that were required to be filed
alongwith the application. Compliance of
the provisions of Section 30 is stated to
have been made by the petitioner in the
letter dated 26.5.2023. The deposit of the
balance amount for the month of April
2023 was noted in the report put up before
the District Magistrate by the concerned
officers
on
29/31.5.2023,
on
which
application the District Magistrate made the
afore-quoted noting dated 2.6.2023.

31. The notice of the District
Magistrate dated 30.6.2023 to the petitioner
demanding 'royalty' for the month of May,
2023 for purpose of issue of 'no dues
certificate' is required to be read also in
context of Clause (b) of Section 30. That is
to say, it is referable also to the provision
of the Rule itself which is the requirement
of certificate of money deposit for
difference, if any, between the quantity
mentioned in the ECC and the mined out
quantity. It necessitates submission of
7 All. Raj Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
certificate of deposit of that money payable
to the extent of the quantity of the mineral
mined out. The certificate of deposit
envisaged in Rule 30 has nothing to do
with the requirement of deposit of the due
instalments under the terms of the lease.
Therefore, the notice dated 30.06.2023 of
the District Magistrate is to be read as an
indication to the petitioner to comply with
the terms of the lease by depositing the due
instalments (referred to in the notice as
'royalty') which would be a condition
precedent to the moving of the application
for surrender of the mining lease.