# Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 271
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3175 of 2023
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-gupta-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49955
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act 1976- Section 10(4) -
During the period commencing on the
date of publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) and ending with the
date specified in the declaration made
under sub-section (3)- (i) no person shall
transfer by way of sale any excess vacant
land specified in the notification and any
such transfer made in contravention of
this provision shall be deemed to be null
and void - excess land declared surplus
pursuant to notification under Section
10(1) could not be transferred in view of
Sub-clause (4) of Section 10 (Para 17, 18)

B. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act 1976 - Notification u/s
10(1) was notified on 17.07.1982 followed
by notification u/s 10(3) notified on
28.07.1990 - Predecessor in interest of
the petitioner purchased the property in
1985, i.e., after notification issued under
Section 10(1) - Petitioners are subsequent
purchaser having purchased the surplus
land after issuance of notification under
Section 10(1) - In the representation,
petitioner sought release of the property
from the ceiling proceedings on a bald
statement
that
petitioners
are
in
possession of the declared excess land, in
view of Section 3 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
- Held - in view of Sub-section 4 of Section
10 of the Act, the transfer of the declared
excess land is a nullity and does not
confer any right, title or authority upon
the petitioners - Also instant writ petition
filed after 22 years from the date of the
Repeal Act and after a lapse of over three
decades since notice under Section 10(5)
(Para 17, 21)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

3 All. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
271
lease agreement having been signed in
1992, The Corporation waited till 2008 for
cancellation of the lease agreement. The
petitioner had to make construction and
start manufacturing within a period of two
years from the date of lease agreement, as
admittedly
the
lease
agreement
was
executed on 30.4.1992 and the two years'
period expired on 30.4.1994. Even after
that on the request of the petitioner, twice
the time was extended but the petitioner has
neither made any construction nor started
manufacturing which is in violation of
Clause 4(e) and Clause 5 of the lease
agreement.

14. The Corporation has been created
for encouraging industrialisation coupled
with the aim to generate employment and
for betterment of the economy. Due to the
non-adherence to the conditions in the lease
deed by the petitioner, the industrial
development for which the land was
allotted to the petitioner has been affected..

15. This Court finds no infirmity in
such order impugned.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands dismissed.
----------

(2023) 3 ILRA 271
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ C No. 3175 of 2023

Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Krishna Mohan Misra, Sri H.R. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act 1976- Section 10(4) -
During the period commencing on the
date of publication of the notification
under sub-section (1) and ending with the
date specified in the declaration made
under sub-section (3)- (i) no person shall
transfer by way of sale any excess vacant
land specified in the notification and any
such transfer made in contravention of
this provision shall be deemed to be null
and void - excess land declared surplus
pursuant to notification under Section
10(1) could not be transferred in view of
Sub-clause (4) of Section 10 (Para 17, 18)

B. Civil Law - Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act 1976 - Notification u/s
10(1) was notified on 17.07.1982 followed
by notification u/s 10(3) notified on
28.07.1990 - Predecessor in interest of
the petitioner purchased the property in
1985, i.e., after notification issued under
Section 10(1) - Petitioners are subsequent
purchaser having purchased the surplus
land after issuance of notification under
Section 10(1) - In the representation,
petitioner sought release of the property
from the ceiling proceedings on a bald
statement
that
petitioners
are
in
possession of the declared excess land, in
view of Section 3 of the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
- Held - in view of Sub-section 4 of Section
10 of the Act, the transfer of the declared
excess land is a nullity and does not
confer any right, title or authority upon
the petitioners - Also instant writ petition
filed after 22 years from the date of the
Repeal Act and after a lapse of over three
decades since notice under Section 10(5)
(Para 17, 21)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. St.of U.P. Vs Hari Ram 2013 (120) RD 241

2. Ram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2020 (147)
RD 1

3. Ikrar & ors. Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2020 (2)
AWC 1288

4. St.of U.P. Vs Jagdish Chandra 2014 (1) AWC
864

5. St.of Assam Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma & ors.
(2015) 5 SCC 321

6. Shiv Ram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2015 (7)
ADJ 630

7. Shivgonda Anna Patil Vs St.of Mah. (1999) 3
SCC 5

8. Municipal Council, Ahmednagar Vs Shah
Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48

9. Kapilaben Ambalal Patel & ors. Vs St.of Guj.
2021 (12) SCC 95

10. U.A. Basheer Thr. G.P.A. Holder Vs St.of
Karn. & anr. Civil Appeal No. 3032 of 2010,
decided on 17 February, 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the Shri
H.R. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by
Shri Krishna Mohan Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioners by the instant writ
petition seek a direction to the Staterespondent/competent authority to release
3,480 square feet of land of arazi (khasra)
No.
24,
situated
in
Village-Muhai
Sugharpur, Tappa Haveli, Post Haveli,
(Parwatia Shivpuri Colony), Tehsil Sadar,
District Gorakhpur, declared surplus under
the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act
1976, (for short ''Act'), in view of the
Repeal Act No. 15 of 1999, w.e.f., 31
March 1999.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant
writ petition, as pleaded are that the
petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the
land declared excess, i.e., arazi khasra No.
24. The original land owner was one Ram
Kisun, son of Kodai, duly recorded in the
revenue record.

4. It appears the original land owner
submitted statement under Section 6(1) of
the Act, being case No. 3658, wherein,
khasra No. 62 and 85 at Village-Chilmapur;
khasra No. 42 and 43 at Village-Mohai
Sugharpur, and khasra No. 43 and 44, at
Mirzapur, was filed in the return, including
the residential building. Upon survey and
inspection, a draft statement came to be
prepared under Section 8(1) which was
duly served upon the land owner on 17
June 1979, by registered post which
appears
to
have
return
undelivered,
consequently, another notice along with the
draft statement was issued on 3 June 1981,
duly served on the land owner on 25 June
1981. The land owner did not file any
objections with respect to the draft
statement. The competent authority noted
that the name of the original land owner is
recorded in khasra No. 24 of Village-
Mohai Sugharpur. Similarly, in respect of
other plots, the competent authority passed
an order under Section 8(4). Thereafter,
final statement came to be issued under
Section 9 on 24 August 1981. After the
stage of Section 9 of the Act, notifications
under Section 10(1) was published in the
State Gazette on 17 July 1982, followed by
notification under Section 10(3) on 28 July
1990. Consequently, the excess vacant land
came to vest with the State, including,
khasra No. 24. Thereafter, notice came to
3 All. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
273
be issued under Section 10(5) by the
competent authority on 19 December 1992.
The authorized representative of the
competent authority on 3 August 1996, had
taken possession of the surplus vacant land
from the original land owner.

5. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition,
it is pleaded that arazi khasra No. 24, came
to be transferred to the mother of the
petitioner, i.e., Smt. Ahilya Devi, in 1985,
by registered sale-deed. It is alleged that
the name of the Ahilya Devi, came to be
mutated in the revenue record, it is claimed
that since then petitioners are in possession
and have constructed their residential
house. It is further submitted that the
mother of the petitioner died in 2020,
thereafter, petitioners approached the Nagar
Mahapalika, Gorakhpur, to get their names
mutated in the revenue record. However,
since the land in question which originally
belonged to Ram Kisun, was declared
surplus and vested in the State Government
vide notification dated 28 July 1990, it
appears that the name of the petitioner was
not mutated.

6.

Aggrieved,
petitioners
approached
the
District
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur, claiming to be owner in
possession of the disputed land over
which residential house was constructed
in 1985, after purchasing the plot from a
Housing Society in the name and style
Parvati Housing Co-operative Society
Limited. In the representation, petitioner
sought release of the property from the
ceiling proceedings.

7. In this factual backdrop, it is
submitted that in view of Section 3 of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 (for short ''Repeal Act'),
which came into effect on 18 March 1999,
the land and property of the petitioner be
released.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is in possession of
the plots even after repeal of the principal
Act. It is urged that at this stage, petitioner
cannot be dispossessed from the land
declared surplus. Reliance has been placed
on the decisions rendered by Supreme
Court in State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram1, as
well as, decisions rendered by this Court in
Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
Others2, Ikrar & Others Vs. State of
U.P. and Others3 and State of U.P. Vs.
Jagdish Chandra4.

9. It is not the case of the petitioner
that the original land owner at any stage
had protested with the declaration of
surplus land or had objected before the
authorities with regard to dispossession not
being in accordance with the law.

10. In State of Assam vs. Bhaskar
Jyoti Sharma and others5, the Supreme
Court was of the view that any grievance
based on Section 10(5) ought to have been
made
within
a
reasonable
time
of
dispossession and the land owner in not
doing so must be deemed to have waived
his right under Section 10(5) of the Act.
Paragraph 16, 17, and 19 is extracted:

"16. The issue can be viewed
from another angle also. Assuming that a
person in possession could make a
grievance, no matter without much gain in
the ultimate analysis, the question is
whether such grievance could be made
long after the alleged violation of Section
10(5). If actual physical possession was
taken over from the erstwhile land owner
on 7th December, 1991 as is alleged in the
present case any grievance based on
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 10(5) ought to have been made
within
a
reasonable
time
of
such
dispossession. If the owner did not do so,
forcible taking over of possession would
acquire legitimacy by sheer lapse of time.
In any such situation the owner or the
person in possession must be deemed to
have waived his right under Section 10(5)
of the Act. Any other view would, in our
opinion, give a licence to a litigant to
make a grievance not because he has
suffered any real prejudice that needs to
be redressed but only because the
fortuitous circumstance of a Repeal Act
tempted him to raise the issue regarding
his dispossession being in violation of the
prescribed procedure.

17. Reliance was placed by the
respondents upon the decision of this
Court in Hari Ram's case (supra). That
decision does not, in our view, lend much
assistance to the respondents. We say so,
because this Court was in Hari Ram's
case (supra) considering whether the word
'may' appearing in Section 10(5)gave to
the competent authority the discretion to
issue or not to issue a notice before taking
physical possession of the land in question
under
Section
10(6).
The
question
whether breach of Section 10(5)and
possible
dispossession
without
notice
would vitiate the act of dispossession itself
or render it non est in the eye of law did
not fall for consideration in that case. In
our opinion, what Section 10(5)prescribes
is an ordinary and logical course of action
that ought to be followed before the
authorities
decided
to
use
force
to
dispossess the occupant under Section
10(6). In the case at hand if the appellant's
version regarding dispossession of the
erstwhile owner in December 1991 is
correct, the fact that such dispossession
was without a notice under Section 10(5)
will be of no consequence and would not
vitiate or obliterate the act of taking
possession for the purposes of Section 3 of
the Repeal Act. That is because Bhabadeb
Sarma-erstwhile owner had not made any
grievance based on breach of Section 10(5)
at any stage during his lifetime implying
thereby that he had waived his right to do
so.

19. In support of the contention
that the respondents are even today in
actual physical possession of the land in
question reliance is placed upon certain
electricity bills and bills paid for the
telephone connection that stood in the
name of one Mr. Sanatan Baishya. It was
contended that said Mr. Sanatan Baishya
was none other than the caretaker of the
property of the respondents. There is,
however, nothing on record to substantiate
that assertion. The telephone bills and
electricity bills also relate to the period
from 2001 onwards only. There is nothing
on record before us nor was anything
placed before the High Court to suggest
that between 7th December, 1991 till the
date the land in question was allotted to
GMDA in December, 2003 the owner or his
legal heirs after his demise had continued
to be in possession. All that we have is rival
claims of the parties based on affidavits in
support thereof. We repeatedly asked
learned counsel for the parties whether
they can, upon remand on the analogy of
the decision in the case of Gyanaba
Dilavarsinh Jadega (supra), adduce any
documentary evidence that would enable
the High Court to record a finding in
regard to actual possession. They were
unable to point out or refer to any such
evidence. That being so the question
whether actual physical possession was
taken over remains a seriously disputed
question of fact which is not amenable to
a satisfactory determination by the High
Court in proceedings under Article 226 of
3 All. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
275
the Constitution no matter the High Court
may in its discretion in certain situations
upon such determination. Remand to the
High Court to have a finding on the
question of dispossession, therefore, does
not appear to us to be a viable solution."

 (Emphasis supplied by us)

11. In Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra)
followed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in Shiv Ram Singh vs. State of U.P.
and others6, the writ petition was
dismissed on the ground of laches,
observing as under:

"We must also advert to another
aspect of the matter particularly having
regard to the recent decision of the
Supreme Court in Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma
(supra). The petitioner moved the first writ
petition in 2002 nearly three years after the
Repeal Act had come into force. After the
earlier writ petition was disposed of by
directing the District Magistrate to pass an
order
on
the
representation
of
the
petitioner, an order was passed by the
District Magistrate on 10 May 2007. The
petitioner thereafter waited for a period of
over two years until the present writ
petition was filed in July 2009. If the
petitioner had been dispossessed of the
land without due notice under Section
10(5), such a grievance could have been
raised at the relevant time. As a matter of
fact, it has been the case of the State all
along that a notice under Section 10(5)
was, in fact, issued in the present case
which would be borne out from the original
file which has been produced before the
Court. The issue is whether such a
grievance could be made long after, before
the Court. The petitioner had waited for
nearly three years after the Repeal Act
came into force to file the first writ
petition and thereafter for a period of over
two years after the disposal of the
representation despite the finding of the
District Magistrate that possession was
taken over on 25 June 1993. In our view,
such a belated challenge should not, in
any event, be entertained."

 (Emphasis supplied by us)

12. In Shivgonda Anna Patil Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 7wherein, the
Supreme Court while dealing with Section
10 of the Act held that the writ petition
under Article 226 for reopening the
proceeding
on
the
ground
that
the
competent authority had not taken into
consideration certain fact, filed after ten
years, after the excess land was vested in
the
State
Government
was
rightly
summarily dismissed by the High Court.

13. While deciding the question of
delay and laches in preferring the petition
under Article 226, the Supreme Court in
Municipal Council, Ahmednagar Vs.
Shah Hyder Beig8, held that the equitable
doctrine, namely, "delay defeats equity" has
its fullest application in the matter of grant
of relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The discretionary relief can
be had provided one has not by his act or
conduct given a go-by to his rights. Equity
favours a vigilant rather than an indolent
litigant and this being the basic tenet of
law.

14. Recently, in Kapilaben Ambalal
Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat9,
Supreme Court declined to accept the pleas
setup by the legal heirs/representatives of
the original land holder on the ground of
inordinate delay. The Court noted the
submission of the land owner:

"Feeling
aggrieved,
the
landowners have approached this Court. It
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is urged that there is no tittle of evidence to
substantiate the fact asserted by the
respondent State that physical possession
of the land in question has been taken over
on 20-3-1986. It was merely a paperpossession in the form of possession
panchnama. According to the appellants,
de facto possession of the subject land as
on the date of the Repeal Act is crucial and
entails in abatement of all the actions of the
State authorities under the 1976 Act. Mere
issuance of notification under Section 10(3)
of the 1976 Act regarding deemed vesting
of the land in the State is not enough for the
purposes of the Repeal Act. Reliance has
been placed on Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar
Vs. Collector & Competent Authority,
(2012) 4 SCC 718, State of U.P. Vs. Hari
Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280, Gajanan Kamlya
Patil vs. Additional Collector & Competent
Authority (ULC) (2014) 12 SCC 523 and
Mangalsen Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 15
SCC 332. The consistent view of this Court
is that physical possession must be taken by
the State authorities, failing which the
proceedings shall abate on account of the
Repeal Act. The appellants have relied on
revenue records to show that the continued
possession
remained
with
the
appellants/landowners
even
after
the
possession panchnama was made on 20-31986. The revenue entries have presumptive
value and the respondent State had failed to
rebut the same."

15. In Paragraph 25 of Kapilaben
Ambalal Patel (supra), the Court noted the
delay and declined to interfere with the
order of the High Court. Relevant portion
reads thus:

"Furthermore, in the grounds all
that is asserted is that the High Court
erred in holding that there was delay of
14 years in filing of writ petition and in
not appreciating that the notice under
Section 10(5) of the 1976 Act dated 23-11986, was not served upon Ambalal
Parsottambhai Patel as he had already
expired on 31-12-1985 and notice sent to
him was returned bacy on 2-2-1986
unserved with remark "said owner has
expired". Further, the legal heirs of
Ambalal Parsottambhai Patel ought to
have
been
served
with
the
said
notice.........Be that as it may, we are not
inclined
to
reverse
the
conclusion
recorded by the Division Bench of the
High court that the writ petition filed by
the appellants was hopelessly delayed
and suffered from laches. That is a
possible view in the facts of the present
case."

16. The decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner rendered
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court is
based on the decision of the Supreme Court
in Hari Ram (supra). The Supreme Court
in Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma (supra), on
considering Hari Ram (supra), was of the
view that the word ''may' appearing in
Section 10(5) gave the competent authority
the discretion to issue or not to issue a
notice before taking physical possession of
the land in question under Section 10(6).
The question whether breach of Section
10(5) and possible dispossession without
notice
would
vitiate
the
act
of
dispossession itself or render it non est in
the eye of law did not fall for consideration
in Hari Ram (supra). Thereafter, the Court
proceeded that even taking a case of the
appellant regarding dispossession was
without a notice under Section 10(5) will
be of no consequence and would not vitiate
or obliterate the act of taking possession for
the purposes of Section 3 of the Repeal Act.
That is because the erstwhile land owner
had not made any grievance based on
3 All. Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
breach of Section 10(5) at any stage during
his lifetime implying thereby that he had
waived his right to do so.

17. The predecessor in interest of the
petitioners is a subsequent purchaser,
probably, from a Housing Society. In any
case, the excess land declared surplus
pursuant to notification under Section 10(1)
could not have been transferred in view of
Sub-clause (4) of Section 10. The transfer
is a nullity in the eye of law.

18. The relevant portion of Section
10(4) is extracted:

"10(4)
During
the
period
commencing on the date of publication of
the notification under sub-section (1) and
ending with the date specified in the
declaration made under sub-section (3)-

(i) no person shall transfer by
way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise
any
excess
vacant
land
(including any part thereof) specified in the
notification aforesaid and any such transfer
made in contravention of this provision
shall be deemed to be null and void; and

(ii) no person shall alter or cause
to be altered the use of such excess vacant
land."

19. It is evident from the facts
pleaded by the petitioners themselves that
the notification under Section 10(1) was
notified on 17 July 1982, followed by
notification under Section 10(3) notified
on 28 July 1990. The predecessor in
interest of the petitioner purchased the
property in 1985, i.e., after notification
issued under Section 10(1). Accordingly,
the transfer would be null and void, no
right would accrue to the petitioners in
respect of the said property. As per the
Scheme of the Act, the excess land
beyond the ceiling limit is to be
determined on the date when the Act
came into force, requiring every person
holding vacant land in excess of ceiling
limit to file statement of his holding
(Section 6). The other persons/third
party/subsequent purchasers have no
locus or authority to file objection until
then. The provisions of Section 8 and
Section 9 of the Act, make it incumbent
on the competent authority to issue notice
to or provide opportunity to be heard only
to the ''person concerned', i.e., person
who has filed the statement under Section
6 of the Act, (Refer paragraph 14 of U.A.
Basheer Thr. G.P.A. Holder Vs. State of
Karnataka and Another10). It is only
after notification under Section 10(1) of
the
Act,
the
claim
of
other
persons/subsequent purchasers are to be
considered.

20. In the given facts, petitioners are
subsequent purchasers of the declared
excess land after notification under
Section 10(1). They have no locus, nor,
the transfer of excess land after the stage
of Section 10(1) is permissible in law
[Section
10(4)].
The
possession/reoccupation of the excess
surplus land at the hands of the
petitioners is of on consequence.

21. The instant writ petition has been
filed after 22 years from the date of the
Repeal Act and after a lapse of over three
decades since notice under Section 10(5).
The only stand taken is based on a bald
statement that petitioners are in possession
of the declared excess land. Petitioners
admittedly are subsequent purchaser having
purchased the surplus land after issuance of
notification under Section 10(1), in view of
Sub-section 4 of Section 10 of the Act, the
transfer of the declared excess land is a
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nullity and does not confer any right, title
or authority upon the petitioners.

22. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, petition being
devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 278
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 4537 of 2022

M/S Jhv Steel Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushpila Bisht

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Tushar Verma

A. Civil Law - Mining - Illegal Mining -
Uttar
Pradesh
Minor
Minerals
(Concessions) Rules, 1963 - Rules 58, 60
& 67 - Consequences of non-payment of
royalty
rent
or
other
dues-
State
Government 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 to the State
Government if it was not paid within
fifteen days next after the date fixed for
such payment - in the instant case thirty
days from the date of notice expired on
11.05.2021 and fifteen days beyond the
said date expired on 26.05.2021, however
the order of cancellation was passed on
26.4.2021
before
the
expiry
of
the
statutory period - Rule 58 flagrantly
violated
by
the
respondents
in
cancellation of the lease - Cancellation
order set aside(Para 30)
B. Civil Law - Mining - Illegal Mining -
Uttar
Pradesh
Minor
Minerals
(Concessions) Rules, 1963, Rule 58, 60, 67
- Consequences of contravention of rules
and conditions of lease - If the allegations
are of illegal mining beyond the leased
area, the inspection report must provide
the GPS coordinates of both the inspected
area and the area beyond the lease
alleged to have been illegally mined - It
must be established that illegal mining
had, in fact, been done on area beyond the
leased area (Para 19, 23)
C. Civil Law - Illegal Mining - cancellation
of the Mining lease licenses - Violation of
Principles of Natural Justice - show cause
notice issued to the petitioner contained
only allegations of illegal mining recorded
by the inspection team - culpability of the
petitioner was decided solely on the
inspection report, however, the inspection
report
was
never
supplied
to
the
petitioner - inquiry proceedings were
conducted
in
clear
violation
of
the
principles of natural justice, severely
prejudicing the petitioner's defense - No
other
evidence
or
statements
were
recorded during the inquiry, and no
documents were taken on record - the
inspection report did not mention when
and where the inspection was carried out,
who was present, or whether it was
conducted at the location allotted to the
petitioner - there was no mention of GPS
coordinates used for identifying the plot -
There was no sufficient and cogent
material linking the petitioner to the
charge of illegal mining - cancellation
order passed by the District Magistrate,
without application of any mind at the
dictates of the higher authority i.e. of
Director,
Mining
and
Geology
-
the
grounds / defence taken by the petitioner
in
the
reply
have
not
even
been
considered either by the appellate or
revisional
authority
rendering
the
impugned order illegal and arbitrary (Para
20, 23, 24)
D. Civil Law - Illegal Mining - cancellation
of the Mining lease licenses - Bias - Dr.
Roshan Jacob, who was the Director,