# Smt. Meera Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1021
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 20699 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meera-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50716
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Mines
and
Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Section
21
-
U.P.
Minor
Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963 - Section 77 -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 -
Principles of Natural Justice - Petitioners,
bhumidhars of plots used for agriculture,
challenged the District Magistrate's order dated
08.12.2018, imposing royalty of Rs. 3,96,840/-,
mineral price of Rs. 19,84,200/-, and penalty of
Rs. 25,000/- for alleged illegal mining of 13,228
cubic meters of mud, and the Appellate Court's
order dated 08.05.2023 dismissing their appeal.
The orders relied on an ex parte Lekhpal report
dated 20.01.2018, lacking details of inspection
date or independent witnesses. Petitioners
contended that notices dated 05.02.2018,
24.04.2018, and 11.10.2018 were not received,
and the orders violated natural justice by not
verifying the Lekhpal's findings or the end use of
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
excavated
mud,
as
required
under
Promoters
and
Builders
Association.
Respondents argued that multiple notices were
served, and non-response justified the orders.
Court held that the authorities erred in imposing
liability without confirming the Lekhpal's report,
inspection details, or mineral disposal, and failed
to adhere to natural justice principles, as
supported by Ranveer Singh and Modul India.
Orders dated 08.12.2018 and 08.05.2023
quashed, matter remanded to the District
Magistrate for fresh adjudication after hearing
petitioners. Revision not considered appropriate
due to clear violation of natural justice. (Paras 7,
12-13)

Writ petition partly allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

9 All. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1021
provisions of 72 of the U.P. Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 2021 provided for
affording any opportunity, it was in the
fitness of things that the District Magistrate
had passed the impugned order dated
25.2.2023.

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the
petitioner
and
learned
Standing
Counsel, we are of the view that after the
police had submitted its report on 2.2.2023,
it was incumbent upon the District
Magistrate to have issued a show-cause
notice even if the petitioner was submitting
the application which the respondents are
stating was an admission on his behalf that
he was carrying minerals illegally. The
police is all powerful and we are of the
view that the applicant could have written
the application on the dictation of the
police. The judgment of the Supreme Court
in S.L. Kapoor (supra) clearly mandates
the observance of the principles of natural
justice even if the guilt is admitted.

11. Under such circumstances, we are
of the view that even though the petitioner
had stated in his application that he was
carrying minerals, the order impugned
should have been preceded by a showcause notice and thereafter a complete
procedure ought to have been adopted by
the official/authority which was passing the
order. We also find that the vehicle was
seized under section 207 of the Motor
Vehicles Act which was not in the
possession of the petitioner. The reports
were being submitted by the police after the
vehicle
was
seized.
The
petitioner,
therefore, had very little opportunity to
defend himself. It may be mentioned that
the application though had mentioned that
the petitioner was carrying minerals it did
not state that the minerals were being
carried illegally.

12. Under such circumstances, the
writ petition stands allowed. The order
dated 25.2.2023 is quashed. Consequently
the vehicle of the petitioner be released
forthwith. However, passing of this order
would not prohibit the respondents from
taking action against the petitioner in
accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1021
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2023

BEFORE

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

Writ-C No. 20699 of 2023

Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil
Law
-
Mines
and
Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 -
Section
21
-
U.P.
Minor
Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963 - Section 77 -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 -
Principles of Natural Justice - Petitioners,
bhumidhars of plots used for agriculture,
challenged the District Magistrate's order dated
08.12.2018, imposing royalty of Rs. 3,96,840/-,
mineral price of Rs. 19,84,200/-, and penalty of
Rs. 25,000/- for alleged illegal mining of 13,228
cubic meters of mud, and the Appellate Court's
order dated 08.05.2023 dismissing their appeal.
The orders relied on an ex parte Lekhpal report
dated 20.01.2018, lacking details of inspection
date or independent witnesses. Petitioners
contended that notices dated 05.02.2018,
24.04.2018, and 11.10.2018 were not received,
and the orders violated natural justice by not
verifying the Lekhpal's findings or the end use of
1022 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
excavated
mud,
as
required
under
Promoters
and
Builders
Association.
Respondents argued that multiple notices were
served, and non-response justified the orders.
Court held that the authorities erred in imposing
liability without confirming the Lekhpal's report,
inspection details, or mineral disposal, and failed
to adhere to natural justice principles, as
supported by Ranveer Singh and Modul India.
Orders dated 08.12.2018 and 08.05.2023
quashed, matter remanded to the District
Magistrate for fresh adjudication after hearing
petitioners. Revision not considered appropriate
due to clear violation of natural justice. (Paras 7,
12-13)

Writ petition partly allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Modul India Vs Kamakshya Singh Deo, AIR
1989 SC 162

2. Ranveer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2017 (1)
ADJ 240

3. Promoters and Builders Association of Pune
Vs The St. of Mah., (2015) 12 SCC 736

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

1. The petitioners are bhumidhars of plots
no. 2744 and 2745 having an area of .271
hectares and .3040 hectares respectively. They
were using their plots for agricultural purposes.
However when the Authorities under the various
provisions
of
the
Mines
and
Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1957) served
an order dated 8.12.2018 on the petitioners that
they had illegally mined from the plots and
levied penalty also then the petitioners
approached the Appellate Court and when the
Appellate Court also on 8.5.2023 rejected the
Appeal, the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the order dated
8.12.2018 was based on a report of the
Lekhpal dated 20.1.2018. Learned counsel
for the petitioners states that this report was
necessitated as the Lekhpal had received
certain complaints from their own relatives
that the petitioners were doing illegal
mining on their bhumidhari plots. Learned
counsel for the petitioners states that the
lekhpal's report dated 20.1.2018 if is
perused it becomes clear that the Lekhpal
had not noted as to on what date the earth
was removed. The Lekhpal had also not
stated as to in whose presence the
inspection was done on 20.1.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the averments made in the
counter affidavit and has submitted that
thereafter without further looking in the
reports of the Lekhpal, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate forwarded the report of the
Lekhpal
to
the
Additional
District
Magistrate (F & R) Mathura on 30.1.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner again
relied upon the averments made in the
counter affidavit and has stated that
probably a notice was also sent to the
petitioner on 5.2.2018. When this notice
went unreplied, on 24.4.2018 another
notice was sent and when this notice was
also not attended to by the petitioners then
the ultimate notice dated 11.10.2018 was
sent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has stated that a perusal of the notice dated
11.10.2018 would reveal that the petitioners
were charged with having contravened the
provisions of Section 21(4) of the Act of
1957.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
states that this notice had presumed without
any actual record that the petitioners had
excavated 13228 cubic meters of ordinary
9 All. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1023
mud and without any basis the royalty on
mineral(mud)
was
evaluated
at
Rs.
3,96,840/- and the price of it was evaluated
at Rs. 19,84,200/-. The total payable
amount by the petitioner came to Rs.
23,81,040/-. Over and above this amount a
penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
states that the notice was followed by an
order dated 8.12.2018 and he states that
even this order did not come to the notice
of the petitioners. Only when recovery was
being initiated for Rs. 24,06,040/- that the
petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ C
No. 23885 of 2019. In the writ petition, the
petitioner, however, was relegated to the
filing of an Appeal under Section 77 of the
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963. The petitioners did file an
Appeal and when it was dismissed without
any basis, the instant writ petition was
filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has
raised
essentially
the
following
arguments:

I. The Lekhpal report dated 20.1.2018
was an ex parte one.

II. The Lekhpal did not indicate any
date on which the Lekhpal had visited the
spot.

III. All the findings which were
arrived at by the Lekhpal were ex parte,
and the report was prepared without the
presence of any independent witness.

IV. The learned counsel for the
petitioners states that no notice as had been
indicated in the counter affidavit was ever
received by the petitioners. The petitioners
were,
therefore,
saddled
with
the
responsibility of paying royalty, price of the
minerals and the penalty amount without
any basis.

V. Learned counsel for the petitioners
states that even if there was no reply to the
notice, it did not give any authority to the
District Magistrate to pass a wrong order.
The District Magistrate before passing the
order ought to have seen as to whether the
Lekhpal's report was a correct one and also
he ought to have confirmed that whether as
per the provisions of Section 21(5) of the
1957 Act the minerals which were raised
from the land were disposed of and were
used elsewhere. In the absence of such a
finding the petitioners could not be saddled
with the responsibility to compensate the
State.

VI. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that though in the Code of Civil
Procedure under Order VIII Rule 10 a Suit
could be decreed on the non-filing of a
written statement after notice is issued to
file the written statement, the Supreme
Court in the Case reported in AIR 1989 SC
162 : Modul India vs. Kamakshya Singh
Deo has held that if a suit is to be decreed
without a written statement then the court
has to base its judgement on cogent
reasons. In the instant case, learned counsel
for the petitioners states that there was
absolutely no reason provided for holding
that the petitioner had to pay the price and
the royalty. Also no reason was given to
penalize the petitioner. Simply because the
petitioners had not replied to the notice
they were being penalized. The authorities,
therefore, erred in holding the petitioners
guilty.

VII.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners also submits that the Appellate
Court without looking into the fact that the
District Magistrate on 5.12.2018 had
passed the order without any application of
mind had also erred in dismissing the
Appeal on 8.5.2023.

VIII.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners relied upon a judgement of this
1024 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court reported in 2017 (1) ADJ 240
(Ranveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others) and has submitted that when there
are no procedures provided in any statute or
Act then the decision should be fair and
should be based on fair procedure and that
too after following the principles of natural
justice. Since the learned counsel for the
petitioners heavily relied upon paragraphs
no. 30 and 33 of the judgement reported in
2017 (1) ADJ 240 (Ranveer Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others) the same are
being reproduced here as under:-

"30. Thus law on the subject is clear
that in case no procedure has been provided
for as to in what way and manner the
authority is to be exercised, then at the said
point of time, the exercise of power by
public authority has to be properly
discharged i.e. it has to be decided with
fairness and after following the principle of
natural justice and the sense of justice and
equity should continue to guide the
Authorities concerned while conducting
such proceedings in deciding the dispute on
merit as the said decision in question would
have large scale financial repercussions on
the incumbent against whom proceedings
in question have been initiated.

33. Once the liability was to be
fastened on the shoulder of petitioner, then
it was the obligation of the State to prove
by way of credible evidence available that
it was the petitioner, who has indulged in
illegal mining and in the said direction,
apart from issuing show-cause notice, all
the evidence that was sought to be relied
upon i.e. the incumbents who have carried
out the search and survey and the
incumbents who have come forward to
depose against petitioner, their names ought
to have been disclosed and they ought to
have been produced to support the case of
State that petitioner in fact has indulged in
illegal mining. Not only this as a part of
process, petitioner was was entitled to have
reasonable
opportunity
of
defending
himself by questioning the veracity of
evidence produced against him and by
adducing his own defence evidence, if any.
Decision maker is bound to act fairly, as
under the scheme of things provided for,
the determination made by him will entail
civil consequences, as qua the person
charged with illegal mining on charges
being proved financial liability would be
shouldered and in contra situation, the State
would be at loss."

IX. The Appellate Court referred to all
the arguments of the petitioners but did not
advert to them and therefore learned
counsel for the petitioners states that the
Appellate Court's order was a non-speaking
one.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
to bolster his argument that the volume and
price of the excavated minerals should have
been determined and thereafter a price and
royalty of the same ought to have been
fixed relied upon the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Promoters
and Builders Association of Pune Vs. The
State of Maharashtra reported in 2015
(12) SCC 736. Since learned counsel for
the petitioners heavily relied upon the
paragraph no. 16 of the judgement, the
same are being reproduced here as under:-

" 16. As use can only follow extraction
or excavation it is the purpose of the
excavation that has to be seen. The liability
under Section 48(7) for excavation of
ordinary earth would, therefore, truly
depend
on
a
determination
of
the
use/purpose for which the excavated earth
had been put to. An excavation undertaken
to lay the foundation of a building would
9 All. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1025
not, ordinarily, carry the intention to use the
excavated earth for the purpose of filling up
or levelling. A blanket determination of
liability merely because ordinary earth
was dug up, therefore, would not be
justified; what would be required is a
more precise determination of the end
use of the excavated earth; a finding on
the correctness of the stand of the
builders that the extracted earth was not
used commercially but was redeployed in
the
building
operations.
If
the
determination was to return a finding in
favour of the claim made by the builders,
obviously, the Notification dated 3.2.2000
would have no application; the excavated
earth would not be a specie of minor
mineral under Section 3(e) of the Act of
1957 read with the Notification dated
3.2.2000."

Relying upon the judgement learned
counsel also submitted that there ought to
be a finding as to what was the end result
of the mud excavated.

9. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel Ms. Priyanka Midha, however,
submitted
that
the
writ
petition
be
dismissed
as
the
petitioners
have
throughout been very lax towards the
notices which were served upon them. She,
relying upon the averments made in the
counter affidavit, has submitted that notices
dated 5.2.2018, 24.4.2018, 1.5.2018 and
11.10.2018 were received by the petitioners
but none of the notices was replied to.

10.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel states that notices were
served and that too in the presence of two
witnesses.
Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel thus submits that when
there was no reply submitted to the notices
then there was no other option left with the
Authorities but to ascertain as to what was
the mineral removed. She submits that after
the ascertainment of the quantity, the price
and royalty had been fixed.

11.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel also submitted that
against the Appellate Court's order, the
petitioners had a remedy of filing a
Revision.

12. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioners Sri Anshul Kumar
Singhal and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel Ms. Priyanka Midha, the
Court is of the view that the District
Magistrate while passing the order dated
8.12.2018 and the Appellate Court while
passing the order dated 8.5.2023 erred in
coming to a conclusion, ex parte, as to what
was the material which was excavated and
also erred in fixing the royalty and the
price. Definitely when the petitioners did
not file any reply to the notices then it was
incumbent upon the Authorities to have
seen whether the Lekhpal had made a
proper inspection; whether the inspection
was made on a particular date; whether it
was
done
in
the
presence
of
any
independent witness and also they had to
ascertain as to what was the mineral
actually removed before concluding that
there was removal of minerals from the
land of the petitioners and also that it was
sold away. This having not been done, we
are definitely of the view that the
Authorities
i.e.
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, Mathura and the
Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, erred
in passing the orders dated 8.12.2018 and
8.5.2023
respectively.
Under
such
circumstances, the order dated 8.12.2018
passed by the District Magistrate/Collector,
Mathura, and the order dated 8.5.2023
passed
by
the
Commissioner,
Agra
Division, Agra are quashed and set aside.
1026 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Since we find that the petitioners
had not replied to the notices, we remand
the
matter
back
to
the
District
Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, for a fresh
adjudication after hearing the petitioners.
So far as the filing of a Revision is
concerned, we do not consider it to be an
appropriate
remedy
since
there
was
definitely a violation of the principles of
natural justice and also we find that the
impugned order did not take into account
the procedure as ought to have been
followed.

14. For all the reasons stated above,
the writ petition is partly allowed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1026
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 22242 of 2023

Ramvir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dwijendra Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 229B,
331(3) & 333 - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order 9 Rule 13 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Article 226 - Ex-Parte
Judgment
and
Procedural
Compliance
-
Petitioner
challenged
the
order
dated
18.01.2013, allowing the St.'s application under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte
judgment dated 07.01.2013 decreeing his suit
under Section 229B for bhumidhari rights over
four plots, and the order dated 29.04.2023
dismissing his revision. Petitioner argued that
the St. should have filed an appeal under
Section 331(3) instead of an application under
Order 9 Rule 13, and that the orders were
arbitrary. Respondents contended that the exparte judgment was cryptic, lacking proper
adjudication of evidence or issues, as required
under Kallu Khan and Smt. Kaniz Fatima. Court
held that the trial court's ex-parte decree failed
to comply with CPC requirements for proper
adjudication, rendering it illegal. Quashing the
impugned orders would restore an illegal
judgment, which is impermissible under Paras
Nath Singh. The orders setting aside the exparte decree and dismissing the revision were
upheld, as they ensured a fresh decision on
merits. Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 8-12, 14)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Sunil Poddar & ors.Vs Union Bank of India,
2008 AIR (SC) 1006

2. Kallu Khan & ors. Vs Commissioner Chitrakoot
Dham Division Banda & ors., (2016) 133 RD 375

3. Paras Nath Singh Vs The Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., 1985 RD 71

4. Smt. Kaniz Fatima & anr. Vs Shah Naim
Ashraf, AIR 1983 Allahabad 450

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Dwijendra Prasad,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed
for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 29.4.2023 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Agra Division,