# Smt. Kusum Yadav & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 124
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-11-04
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 60941 of 2015
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kusum-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43419
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Rules 1963-Rule-3(2), 67-Permission to
mining operations-petitioner claims himself
to be owner of plots in question-without no
objection on his part-permission illegalheld-even owner can not conduct any
mining operation on his own land-without
prior permission of authority- petition
devoid of any merit-dismissed.
Held: Para-7
In view of provisions of Rule 67 and the
mandate of Rule 3, no mining operation
can be undertaken, by any person, of any
minor mineral within the State to which
the Rules are applicable, except in
accordance
with
the
terms
and
conditions of a mining lease or mining
permit granted under the Rules, and land
holder
has
a
right
only
to
claim

## Text

124
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29.
In consequence, we direct that the
claim of the petitioners for compassionate
appointment shall be reconsidered. We clarify
that the competent authority would be at liberty
to consider the claim for compassionate
appointment on the basis of all the relevant
facts and circumstances and the petitioners
shall not be excluded from consideration only
on the ground of their marital status.
30. The writ petitions shall,
accordingly, stand allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
Writ-C No. 60941 of 2015
Smt. Kusum Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shiv Babu Dubey
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kaushalendra Kumar
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection to
married life-petitioner illegally detained by
Petitioner No. 2-against her will-forced to
sign on writ petition-marriage if found
nullity-petitioner is free to go on place of
her choice-petition dismissed with cost of
Rs. 25000/-.
Held: Para-9, 10 & 11
9. The demeanor of petitioner no. 1 in
making the above statement strengthens
the belief of the Court at her statement is
true and correct and that she has been
pressurised to sign and file this petition. The
filing of this petition on her behalf is not her
free and independent act.
10.
In view of the statement of the
petitioner no. 1 given before this Court, it is
apparent thatpetitioner no. 2 had kept
petitioner no. 1 in illegal detention and there
is no marriage between the petitioners with
the free will of both of them.
11. Accordingly, the marriage as alleged
in the petition of the petitioners if any is
declared to be a nullity. The petitioner
no. 1 is permitted to go with her parents
to her home.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1.
This is a petition under Article
226 of the constitution of India by two
petitioners claiming protection to their
married life on the ground that they are
both majors and have married of their
own free will, but their life is being
disturbed by the respondents.
2. On the first date when the petition was
taken up, learned Standing Counsel on the
basis of the instructions received by him had
informed the Court that a First Information
Report/N.C.R. has been lodged against
petitioner no. 2 under Section 498 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
was accordingly directed to file an affidavit
of the petitioner no. 2 clarifying his marital
status at the time of the alleged marriage with
the petitioner no. 1.
4.

Accordingly,
affidavit
of
petitioner no. 2 was filed stating he had
married petitioner no. 1 and he was not
married to any one earlier.
5. Sri Kaushlendra Kumar, learned
counsel who had put in appearance on
behalf of respondent no. 5, had stated that
the petitioner no. 1 is in illegal detention
of petitioner no. 2. She had not married
1 All. Smt. Kusum Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
125
him. The petitioner no. 1 had forced her to
sign the affidavit filed in support of the
petition.
6. In view of the above allegations
made by the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 5, petitioner no. 1 was
directed to be produced before the Court.
7.
The petitioner no. 1 is present in
Court. She has been identified by counsel for
respondent no. 5, who is representing the
father of the petitioner no. 1. Her identity is
not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners.
8. She states that she knows
petitioner no. 2. He is the person who had
forcibly taken her away and had detained
her for many days. He had forced her to
put signatures on the affidavit as well as
vakalatnama. She had not married him at
all. She also stated that she wants to go
with her parents and live with them.
9. The demeanor of petitioner no. 1
in
making
the
above
statement
strengthens the belief of the Court at her
statement is true and correct and that she
has been pressurised to sign and file this
petition. The filing of this petition on her
behalf is not her free and independent act.
10.
In view of the statement of the
petitioner no. 1 given before this Court, it is
apparent thatpetitioner no. 2 had kept
petitioner no. 1 in illegal detention and there
is no marriage between the petitioners with
the free will of both of them.
11.
Accordingly, the marriage as
alleged in the petition of the petitioners if
any is declared to be a nullity. The
petitioner no. 1 is permitted to go with her
parents to her home.
12. The writ petition is dismissed
with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which has been
reduced by the Court to half on the
persuasion of the counsel appearing for
petitioners. It shall be realized by the
Collector Jaunpur from petitioner no. 2 as
arrears of land revenue within three
months and a report of realizing the same
shall be submitted to the Court.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J
THE HON'BLE RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J.
C.M. W. P No. 62660 of 2015
Srikant Tripathi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Madan Lal Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (concession)
Rules 1963-Rule-3(2), 67-Permission to
mining operations-petitioner claims himself
to be owner of plots in question-without no
objection on his part-permission illegalheld-even owner can not conduct any
mining operation on his own land-without
prior permission of authority- petition
devoid of any merit-dismissed.
Held: Para-7
In view of provisions of Rule 67 and the
mandate of Rule 3, no mining operation
can be undertaken, by any person, of any
minor mineral within the State to which
the Rules are applicable, except in
accordance
with
the
terms
and
conditions of a mining lease or mining
permit granted under the Rules, and land
holder
has
a
right
only
to
claim