# Smt. Kalpana Karwariya v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 801
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 28355 of 2021
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kalpana-karwariya-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-50965
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Mining Law - Forfeiture of Security
Under U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963 - Petitioner challenged the
forfeiture of security money for non-payment of
royalty, arguing it could only be recovered as
arrears of land revenue under Rule 58 - Held,
Rule 58 of the 1963 Rules provides that nonpayment of royalty, rent, or other dues results in
lease determination and recovery as arrears of
land revenue, not forfeiture of security -
Forfeiture of security is permissible only for
contraventions under Rules 59 and 60, not for
non-payment of dues, distinguishing the scope
of these provisions. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15)

B. Statutory Interpretation - Scope of
Rules 58, 59, and 60 - Petitioner argued that
Rule 58 limits recovery of unpaid dues to arrears
of land revenue, while Rules 59 and 60 allow
forfeiture of security for specific contraventions
- Held, Rule 58 exclusively governs nonpayment of royalty, rent, or dues, permitting
recovery as arrears of land revenue, whereas
Rules 59 and 60 address penalties for breaches
of lease conditions or rules, allowing forfeiture
of security only in those cases, as supported by
a composite reading of the rules. (Paras 7, 8,
13, 14)

C. Lease Agreement - Interpretation of
Forfeiture Clause - Respondents relied on
Part-III
of
the
lease
agreement
dated
22.02.2018, claiming it permitted forfeiture for
non-payment - Held, despite the heading
suggesting non-payment, the clause's content
pertains to breaches of rules or lease conditions,
not non-payment of dues - The heading does
not override the clause's substance, as per
Maqbool Vs St. of U.P., and thus, forfeiture was
not permissible for unpaid royalty. (Paras 9, 10,
13)

D. Writ Jurisdiction - Relief for Invalid
Forfeiture - Petitioner challenged orders dated
25.03.2019,
16.07.2021,
and
20.09.2021
forfeiting security for non-payment of the fourth
instalment and other dues - Held, the orders
were unsustainable as they contravened Rule
58, which mandates recovery as arrears of land
revenue - The Court allowed recovery of the
unpaid fourth instalment and statutory dues
from the security deposit, with the remainder to
be refunded, accepting the petitioner's offer.
(Paras 11, 15, 16)

E. Government Order and Statutory Dues
-
Petitioner
cited
Clause
19(3)
of
the
Government Order dated 14.08.2017, reinforcing
recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue with
interest - Held, the Government Order aligns
with Rule 58, and additional dues like TDS and
District
Mineral
Foundation
Trust
Fund
contributions are recoverable as arrears, not
through forfeiture, ensuring compliance with
statutory mechanisms. (Paras 5, 13, 15)

Writ Petition Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Smt. Kalpana Karwariya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
801
only a notice asking certain information has
been issued by the District Inspector of
Schools.
Even
otherwise,
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as
the aforesaid Act, 1974 prescribe a well
structured procedure to be followed by the
Director of Education in case violation of
provisions of the Act is found to be
committed by the concerned Management.
No such proceedings have been initiated as
of now and, therefore, it cannot be presumed
that the Authority who is not empowered
under the Act, 1974 is proceeding to take
substantive action against the Management.

23. As far as the affidavit filed by the
Director of Education before this Court in
Writ-C No.3867 of 2023 is concerned,
neither the affidavit nor notice dated
31.12.2022 impugned in the said case is
before this Court. Even otherwise, the notice
impugned in the present writ petition has not
been issued by the Joint Director of
Education nor can it be said that it is a notice
under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1974. The
power of Director of Education under
Section 4(4) of the Act, 1974 is to pass an
order on representation filed by the
Management against the order under SubSection (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1974 or
upon application for sanction being made to
him under Sub-Section (3) and upon
consideration
of
such
matters
and
"information" as he may consider necessary.
It is not a stage when any action has been
taken under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 nor
has an application for sanction under SubSection (3) of Section 4 been considered.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that no
action under Section 4 has yet commenced
and the information asked by the District
Inspector of Schools is well within his
competence. Further Writ-C No.3867 of
2023 was decided on 10.04.2023 when the
Government Order dated 06.06.2023 had not
even come into existence and, therefore, this
Court had no occasion to deal with the
competence of the District Inspector of
Schools as per the said Government Order.
Further, the competence of an officer issuing
a notice has to be seen as per statutory
provisions as well as under the sub-ordinate
legislation contained in a Govt. Order etc
and it cannot depend solely upon a stand
taken in an affidavit, as an administrative
power cannot be treated as vested or
divested or conferred merely by an
admission made by an Officer in an affidavit
or otherwise.

24. For all the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned notice is found to be within
jurisdiction and, therefore, the challenge
made to it does not fall within any of the
exceptions under which Writ Jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can be exercised against a notice.

25. The writ petition fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ-C No. 28355 of 2021

Smt. Kalpana Karwariya ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suraj Singh, Sri Mukesh Prasad (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Singh
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Mining Law - Forfeiture of Security
Under U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963 - Petitioner challenged the
forfeiture of security money for non-payment of
royalty, arguing it could only be recovered as
arrears of land revenue under Rule 58 - Held,
Rule 58 of the 1963 Rules provides that nonpayment of royalty, rent, or other dues results in
lease determination and recovery as arrears of
land revenue, not forfeiture of security -
Forfeiture of security is permissible only for
contraventions under Rules 59 and 60, not for
non-payment of dues, distinguishing the scope
of these provisions. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15)

B. Statutory Interpretation - Scope of
Rules 58, 59, and 60 - Petitioner argued that
Rule 58 limits recovery of unpaid dues to arrears
of land revenue, while Rules 59 and 60 allow
forfeiture of security for specific contraventions
- Held, Rule 58 exclusively governs nonpayment of royalty, rent, or dues, permitting
recovery as arrears of land revenue, whereas
Rules 59 and 60 address penalties for breaches
of lease conditions or rules, allowing forfeiture
of security only in those cases, as supported by
a composite reading of the rules. (Paras 7, 8,
13, 14)

C. Lease Agreement - Interpretation of
Forfeiture Clause - Respondents relied on
Part-III
of
the
lease
agreement
dated
22.02.2018, claiming it permitted forfeiture for
non-payment - Held, despite the heading
suggesting non-payment, the clause's content
pertains to breaches of rules or lease conditions,
not non-payment of dues - The heading does
not override the clause's substance, as per
Maqbool Vs St. of U.P., and thus, forfeiture was
not permissible for unpaid royalty. (Paras 9, 10,
13)

D. Writ Jurisdiction - Relief for Invalid
Forfeiture - Petitioner challenged orders dated
25.03.2019,
16.07.2021,
and
20.09.2021
forfeiting security for non-payment of the fourth
instalment and other dues - Held, the orders
were unsustainable as they contravened Rule
58, which mandates recovery as arrears of land
revenue - The Court allowed recovery of the
unpaid fourth instalment and statutory dues
from the security deposit, with the remainder to
be refunded, accepting the petitioner's offer.
(Paras 11, 15, 16)

E. Government Order and Statutory Dues
-
Petitioner
cited
Clause
19(3)
of
the
Government Order dated 14.08.2017, reinforcing
recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue with
interest - Held, the Government Order aligns
with Rule 58, and additional dues like TDS and
District
Mineral
Foundation
Trust
Fund
contributions are recoverable as arrears, not
through forfeiture, ensuring compliance with
statutory mechanisms. (Paras 5, 13, 15)

Writ Petition Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Maqbool Vs St. of U.P., (2019) 11 SCC 395

2. Ajay Raj Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P., Writ-C No.
13569 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
& Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. The question here for our
determination is as to whether the security
money which a miner deposits at the time
of grant of lease under the Uttar Pradesh
Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as the "1963
Rules") could be forfeited when a lease is
determined for the non-payment of royalty,
rent or other dues. In the instant case, the
petitioner had applied by means of etendering when it was advertised that the
lease would be settled on the highest bidder
for the Yamuna River Khand no. 16/2 and
16/3 measuring 20.23 acres in Village
Mahewa,
Tehsil
Manjhanpur,
District
Kaushambi. The availability of mineral was
given out as 4,00,000 cubic meters per
year. The lease was to be given for a period
of five years. The petitioner who applied by
e-tendering was found to be the highest
bidder and was given a lease of five years
commencing on 22.02.2018 and ending on
1 All. Smt. Kalpana Karwariya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
803
21.02.2023. The petitioner before the grant
of lease had deposited Rs. 1,74,00,000/- as
security and had also deposited Rs.
1,74,00,000/- as the first instalment. As per
the agreement in the first year of the
mining operation, the petitioner had to
deposit
four
instalments
of
Rs.
1,74,00,000/-. In the second year thereafter,
he had to deposit instalments of Rs.
1,91,40,000/- in four equal instalments.
After the petitioner commenced with his
work, he subsequently discovered that the
mineral available was not of proper
standard and that the work of excavation
from the mines, which he had taken on
lease, was not a profitable venture. As a
consequence, therefore, on 15.10.2018 the
petitioner applied online to the District
Magistrate, Kaushambi requesting him to
get the mining area of the petitioner
surveyed for assessing as to whether the
quantity of mineral as was earlier given out
was there or not and as to whether the
minerals were mixed with mud. This
application was followed by another
application dated 16.10.2018 and by this
application, in fact, the petitioner prayed
that the lease be determined on account of
the mineral not being available in the
mining
area.
The
Mines
Inspector,
Kaushambi on 28.11.2018 upon a query
being made by the District Magistrate as to
whether a re-assessment could be made,
wrote to the District Magistrate that there
was no provision for re-assessing as to
whether minerals were available or not in
the mining area which was given out to the
petitioner. It is the averment in the writ
petition by the petitioner that even though
the petitioner had not done any mining after
he had given a notice on 15.10.2018, on
04.01.2019 a notice was given to the
petitioner to deposit his fourth instalment
of the first year. It may be stated that after
the petitioner had got the lease in his favour
on 22.02.2018, he had deposited the second
quarterly instalment on 19.04.2018 and the
third instalment on 13.07.2018 by treasury
challans. When the petitioner received the
notice dated 04.01.2019, he objected to the
demand made by the District Magistrate
and on 30.01.2019 he objected in writing
that there was no mineral available and
mining was not possible and that the
amounts which the petitioner had deposited
earlier be also refunded to him. Even
before, the petitioner's objection could be
dealt with, the time to deposit the first
instalment of the second year had arrived
and, therefore, on 30.03.2019 the petitioner
deposited Rs. 1,91,40,000/-. This the
petitioner had deposited after the lease deed
was determined by the order dated
25.03.2019.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that
despite the fact that the petitioner had
deposited the security, the two instalments
of the first year and the first instalment of
the second year, the District Magistrate
demanded from the petitioner the fourth
instalment of the first year and also the first
instalment of the second year.

3. The petitioner approached the High
Court against the demand but he was
relegated to the filing of an appeal. The
Appellate Court thereafter on 16.07.2021
rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
Resultantly, the petitioner filed a Revision
before the State Government under Rules
78 of 1963 Rules and when the Revisional
Court
dismissed
the
Revision
on
20.09.2021, the petitioner filed the instant
writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has assailed the three orders primarily on
the ground that under Rule 58 of the 1963
Rules if any mining lease was determined
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after serving a notice on the lessee to pay
within 30 days of the receipt of notice any
amount due or dead rent under the lease
including the royalty due to the State
Government and if it was not paid within
the next 15 days then the State Government
could realise the dues from the lessee as
arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel
for the petitioner since had relied upon
Rule 58 of the 1963 Rules the same is
being reproduced here as under :-

"[58. Consequences of nonpayment of royalty, rent or other dues :-

(1) The State Government or any
officer authorised by it in this behalf may
determine the mining or auction 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 the royalty due to the
State Government if it was not paid within
fifteen days next after the date of 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 24 per cent 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 the notice under
sub-rule (1).]"

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further stated that the only instalment
which the petitioner had not paid was the
fourth instalment of the first year and that
was to the tune of Rs. 1,74,00,000/-. This
amount could, as per the Rule 58 of the
1963 Rules, be realised as arrears of land
revenue from the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also referred to
the Government Order dated 14.08.2017
and submitted that as per Clause 19(3) if
the petitioner could not deposit any due
then that amount could be recovered from
him as arrears of land revenue alongwith
interest. Clause 19(3) is being reproduced
herein under :-

"(3) प्रथि िषण के विए शेष 75
प्रवतशत पट्टा र्नरावश एिं आगािी िषो के विए
पट्टा र्नरावश वनयिाििी िें वनर्ाणररत चतुथण
अनुसूची के अनुसार राज्य सरकार द्वारा सिय
सिय पर वनर्ाणररत प्रवक्रया के अनुसार
पट्टार्ारक द्वारा जिा की जायेगी। उक्त अनुसूची
िें वनयत वतवथ के अनुसार देय र्नरावश जिा न
करने की दशा िें वनयि-59 के अनुसार देय
र्नरावश ब्याज सवहत िसूि की जायेगी।"

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
only to clarify as to when the security could
be used for adjusting the amount due,
referred to Rule 59 of 1963 Rules and
submitted
that
if
there
was
any
contravention of the conditions of the lease
then the petitioner/miner could be made
liable for a certain fine/penalty and that
penalty could be deducted by the District
Magistrate
from
the
security
money
deposited against the lease in case of failure
of deposit of penalty money. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon a judgment of this Court dated
19.02.2020 in Writ-C No. 13569 of 2019
(Ajay Raj Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)
and submitted that under no circumstance,
the amount which was due could be
recovered other than the method as was
provided under the provisions of Rule 59 of
1963 Rules and he submitted that definitely
the security could not be forfeited. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further pointed
out to the Part-II of the agreement which
1 All. Smt. Kalpana Karwariya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
805
the petitioner had entered with the State
Government on 22.02.2018 wherein it was
provided that if any particular payment
was not made then the same could be
recovered as arrears of land revenue. This
provision is being reproduced here as
under :-

"स्वार्मत्ों का समर् पर भुगतान
न र्कर्ा जार्े तो कार्ािाही की प्रर्िर्ाः- (3)
यवद इस उपस्थापन-पि (Presents) की शतों
और प्रवतबि ं के अर्ीन राज्य सरकार क देय
स्वावित्व की वकसी वकश्त का भुगतान
पट्टार्ारक/पट्टार्ारक ं द्वारा उपर क्त वनयत
सिय के भीतर न वकया जाये त उसे ऐसे
अवर्कारी के, वजसे राज्य सरकार सािान्य या
विवशष्ट आज्ञा द्वारा वनवदणष्ट करें, प्रिाण पि पर
उसी रीवत से िसूि की जा सकती है जैसे
िािगुजारी का बकाया।"

7. Also since Rule 59 of the 1963
Rules was sought to be differentiated
from Rule 58, the Rule 59 is being
reproduced here as under :-

"59.
Consequences
of
contravention of certain conditions -(1)
The proponent who has received Letter of
Intent however has not produced mining
plan within the stipulated period, of one
month as per the provisions mentioned in
Rule 34 be liable for penalty of Rs. one
lakh on failure to deposit the amount of
penalty the same shall be deducted by the
District Magistrate from the security
money deposited against the concerned
lease.

2) The lessee who does mining
works
contravening
the
terms
and
conditions mentioned in the approved
mining plan and clean environment
certificate issued as per the provisions
provided under Rule 34, then he will be
liable for penalty at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-
per occasion of default that shall be
recovered by the District Magistrate.

(3) If the lease holder disobeys
the provisions of Rule 35 then penalty at
the rate of rupees twenty five thousand per
day for each and every default shall be
levied
by
the
concerned
District
Magistrate. In case of default on deposit
of such levied penalty the concerned
District Magistrate will deduct the said
amount from the amount of security
deposited against the said mining lease.

(4) According to the provisions
provided under Rule 41-H mining work
through suction machine/lifter into the
water stream will be prohibited. If any
lessee is found contravening the provisions
of the said rule then he will be liable for
penalty at the rate of of Rs. five lakh per
occasion of contravening act, which will be
recovered
on
the
order
of
District
Magistrate or Director, Geology and
Mining. On failure to deposit of the above
mentioned amount of penalty the same
shall
be
deducted
by
the
District
Magistrate from the security money
deposited against the concerned lease.

(5) Any lessee holding a mining
lease who commits a breach of any of the
conditions provided in Rule 44 shall be
liable for levy/penalty of Rs. fifty thousand.
On failure to deposit the said amount of
penalty the same shall be deducted by the
District Magistrate from the security
money deposited against the concerned
lease."

(Emphasis supplied)

8. Also the Rule 60 of the 1963 Rules,
to illustrate how its provision is different
from Rule 58, is being reproduced here as
under :-

"60
Consequences
of
contravention of rules and conditions of
lease generally - (1) In case of any breach
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or contravention by a lessee of any of these
rules
or
conditions
and
covenants
contained or deemed to be contained in the
lease except those relating to payment of
royalty, rent or other sums due to the State
Government, the State Government may,
after giving the lessee a reasonable
opportunity to state his case, determine the
lease. The right shall be in addition to and
without prejudice to the provisions of Rule
59.

(2) If a lease is determined under
sub-rule (1), the lessee may be black listed
by the District Officer for such period, not
exceeding two years, as he may consider
proper which shall be uploaded on the
website of the department and during the
said period no mineral concession under
these rules shall be granted to him. An entry
in this regard shall be made in the remarks
column of the registers of mining lease or
the auction lease, as the case may be.

(3) If any person other than the
mining lease holder or entity held is
convicted
for
the
charge
of
illegal
mining/transportation, then besides the
penalty/ punishment, name of such person or
entity will be listed into the black- list by the
State Government and will be uploaded and
displayed on the website of the department
and no mining lease under this rules shall be
granted within such period in favour of the
said person or entity."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also drew the attention of the Court to the
provision which was with regard to the
forfeiture of the security money in the
lease/agreement dated 22.02.2018. That
provision in the lease deed was in Part-III of
the lease deed wherein it was provided that
if any rule or any condition in the lease was
violated then the complete or a part of the
security could be forfeited and the lease
could be terminated. Learned counsel for
the petitioner stated that in the Clause given
in Part-III of the agreement, even though
the heading was "स्वार्मत्ों का समर् पर
भुगतान न र्कर्ा जार्े तो कार्ािाही की
प्रर्िर्ा", the clause actually was with
regard to violation of any condition of the
lease or any rule and he, therefore,
submitted that even if the heading of the
Clause was with regard to the procedure if
payment was not made, in fact, the Clause
was with regard to what had to be done if
any rule or any condition of the lease was
violated. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in this regard submitted that the heading of
the Clause was not to prevail over the
content of the Clause. Since learned
counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the
relevant
Clause
in
Part-III
of
the
agreement, the same is being reproduced
here as under :-

"स्वार्मत्ों का समर् पर भुगतान
न र्कर्ा जार्े तो कार्ािाही की प्रर्िर्ाः- (1)
यवद पट्टार्ारक उ०प्र० उपखवनज (पररहार)
वनयिाििी-1983 के वकसी वनयि या इस पट्टे
की वकसी प्रसंविदा और वकसी शतण क भंग करे
त राज्य सरकार पट्टा सिाप्त कर सकती है और
प्रवतभूवत जिा क पूणणतः या अंशतः जब्त कर
सकती है, वकन्तु प्रवतबि यह है वक पट्टा सिाप्त
वकये जाने के पूिण पट्टार्ारक क उक्त शतण भंग
करने का स्पष्टीकरण देने के विये यथ वचत
अिसर वदया जाएगा।"

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
to bolster his argument that marginal
note/heading had not to prevail over the
actual contents of a section, relied upon the
judgment of Supreme Court in Maqbool
vs. State of U.P. and another reported in
(2019) 11 SCC 395 and he specifically
relied upon paragraph 9 of the judgment.
Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is
being reproduced here as under :-
1 All. Smt. Kalpana Karwariya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
807

"9. The title to the provision need
not invariably indicate the contents of the
provision. If the provision is otherwise
clear and unambiguous, the title pales
into irrelevance. On the contrary, if the
contents of the provision are otherwise
ambiguous, an aid cant be sought from
the title so as to define the provision. In
the event of a conflict between the plain
expressions in the provision and the
indicated title, the title cannot control the
contents of the provision. Title is only a
broad and general indication of the
nature of the subject dealt under the
provision."

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, therefore, submitted that if any
amount which was payable as royalty,
rent or other dues was not paid by the
petitioner
then
in
addition
to
the
determination of the mining lease, the
amount could be recovered only as
arrears of land revenue. He submitted that
under no circumstance, the security
money could be forfeited. At this point of
his argument, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner was in
fact ready to get the amount of royalty,
which he had not paid, deducted from the
security which he had deposited.

12. Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel, however, in reply has submitted
that if the petitioner had not paid the
royalty which was due from him then the
authorities had no other option but to
punish the petitioner and if they had to
punish they could rely upon Rule 58 or
also on the condition of the lease dated
22.02.2018 and relying upon the Clause
under Part-III of the lease deed as had
been reproduced earlier, he submitted that
the Clause definitely permitted the State to
forfeit the security. Also, the TDS etc. when
was not paid then that had to be taken from
the petitioner in addition to the forfeiture of
the security.

13. Having heard Sri Mukesh Prasad,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, we are of the view that
when the petitioner had not paid the fourth
instalment of the first year then that amount
alongwith the TDS amount payable and the
amount payable towards the District
Mineral Foundation Trust Fund could be
recovered only as arrears of land revenue.
A composite reading of Rules 58, 59 and 60
of the 1963 Rules, definitely makes it clear
that if a particular royalty or any other due
under the lease was not paid then in
addition to the determination of lease, the
amount
which
was
payable
by
the
petitioner to the Government could be
recovered only as arrears of land revenue.
However, if there was any penalty for noncompliance of any of the many rules or if
there was violation of any lease condition
except those relating to payment of royalty,
rent or other dues, the State Government
could determine the lease and could also
impose a penalty under Rules 59 and 60 of
forfeiting the security. Definitely, the
provisions of Rule 58 stand apart from the
provisions of Rules 59 and 60 of the 1963
Rules.

14. Rule 58 is only with regard to the
consequences of non-payment of royalty,
rent or other dues. Rule 59 is with regard to
the contravention of certain conditions
wherein penalty could be imposed and that
penalty, if not paid, could be deducted by
the District Magistrate from the security
money deposited by the lessee. Rule 60
was with regard to the breach or
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contravention by a lessee of any of the
Rules of 1963 Rules or conditions and
covenant contained therein except those
relating to payment of royalty, rent or other
sums due.

15. Under such circumstances, this
Court is definitely of the view that the
confiscation/forfeiture of royalty by the
three impugned orders namely the order
dated 25.03.2019 of the Additional District
Magistrate
(F&R);
the
order
dated
16.07.2021 of the Appellate Court and the
order dated 20.09.2021 of the Revisional
Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law. The amount which was due from the
petitioner could have been recovered only
as arrears of land revenue. However, since
the petitioner had given an offer that the
money which was due from the petitioner
i.e. the fourth instalment of the first year
and other statutory dues be recovered from
the security amount, it is being provided
that these amounts can be recovered from
the security money of Rs. 1,74,00,000/-
which was deposited by the petitioner
before the execution of the lease. The rest
of the amount of the security be released to
the petitioner forthwith.

16. With these observation, the orders
dated 25.03.2019 of the Additional District
Magistrate
(F&R);
the
order
dated
16.07.2021 of the Appellate Court and the
order dated 20.09.2021 of the Revisional
Court are set aside and the writ petition is
accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 808
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Writ-C No. 30866 of 2011

Smt. Shakuntala Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Singh, Sri C.L. Chaudhary, Sri Indra Dev,
Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary, SrI V.C. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Tortious Liability of the State of U.P. and its
agency, the Rural Engineering Services, were
held liable for the tortious act of negligence
resulting in the death of Dr. Ravindra Mohan
Prasa The incident occurred due to a blast in a
storage
facility
containing
molten
Maxphalt/Bitumen, which seeped into the
deceased's official residence, causing 70% burn
injuries leading to his death on 27.07.2010. The
principle of res ipsa loquitur was applied,
establishing negligence as the storage of
hazardous material near residential premises
was inherently dangerous and not a normal or
predictable event. (Paras 7, 11, 18-19)
Applicability of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 Under
Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the
petitioner, as the wife of the deceased, was
entitled to claim compensation for the wrongful
act, neglect, or default of St. functionaries. The
court clarified that such liability does not depend
on whether the deceased was on active
government duty at the time of the incident,
rendering the St.'s policy limiting ex-gratia
payments to on-duty deaths unenforceable in
this context. (Paras 8, 13, 23-24)
Rejection of St.'s Defense The St.'s claim that
the incident was an act of force majeure or
purely accidental was rejected as evasive and
unsupported, given the admitted facts of the
blast and seepage of bitumen. The St.'s failure
to hold its agents accountable through criminal
or disciplinary proceedings did not absolve it of
civil liability for the tortious act. The Committee
constituted by the Chief Secretary wrongly
denied compensation by misapplying the St.'s
ex-gratia policy dated 08.12.2008, which was