# Srikant Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 125
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-08
- **Case number:** C.M. W. P No. 62660 of 2015
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/srikant-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43420
- **Pages:** 4

## 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
126
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation from the holder of the
lease
or
of
the
mining
permit
in
accordance with the provisions and the
procedure prescribed by Rule 67. The
scheme of the Rules is such that even a
land holder cannot carry on mining
operations without obtaining a valid
mining lease or permit. Consent by a
land owner is not a condition precedent
to carry on mining operations. If a
person is granted mining lease or permit
under the Rules, he becomes entitled to
carry on mining operation and he cannot
restrained to do so by the land owner
simply because his consent was not
obtained. There is no requirement for
grant of a consent or No Objection by the
land owner.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1976 SC 1393.

## Text

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
126
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation from the holder of the
lease
or
of
the
mining
permit
in
accordance with the provisions and the
procedure prescribed by Rule 67. The
scheme of the Rules is such that even a
land holder cannot carry on mining
operations without obtaining a valid
mining lease or permit. Consent by a
land owner is not a condition precedent
to carry on mining operations. If a
person is granted mining lease or permit
under the Rules, he becomes entitled to
carry on mining operation and he cannot
restrained to do so by the land owner
simply because his consent was not
obtained. There is no requirement for
grant of a consent or No Objection by the
land owner.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1976 SC 1393.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1. Petitioner has approached this
Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
the advertisement dated 16.09.2015 issued
by
District
Magistrate,
Sonbhadra,
respondent no. 2 inviting application for
grant of mining lease in respect of plot
nos. 4783, 4785, 4786, 4787, 4811, 4812
and 4813, area 3.40 acre situate at village
Billi
Markundi,
Tehsil
Robertsganj,
District Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to
as the 'plots in dispute').
2. According to the pleadings set out
in the writ petition, the plots in dispute
were jointly owned by one Ramdev and
one Ghoorahu, father of respondent nos. 5
and 6, each having half share in the plots
in dispute. Ramdev is alleged to have
transferred his half share in favour of the
petitioner through registered sale deed
dated 30th June, 2009 and thereafter his
name also came to be mutated in the
revenue record in pursuance of an order
dated
29.08.2009
passed
by
Naib
Tehsildar,
Robertsganj,
District
Sonbhadra under Section 34 of the Land
Revenue Act in Case No. 616 of 2009.
The plots in dispute along with certain
other plots were subject matter of
advertisement inviting applications for
grant of mining lease. Respondent nos. 5
and 6 in pursuance whereof made an
application in respect of plots in dispute.
A
No
Objection
Certificate
dated
08.09.2015 is alleged to have been issued
by the Divisional Forest Officer, Obra,
Van Prabhag, Obra, District Sonbhadra.
The petitioner on attaining knowledge of
the fact, made a representation/objection
before the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra
dated 18.10.2015 seeking cancellation of
the proceedings for granting mining lease
in respect of plots in dispute on the
allegation that he was share holder to the
extent of the half share in the said plots
and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have not
taken any No Objection Certificate from
him. However, when no action has been
taken, he has approached this Court by
filing instant writ petition seeking the
abovequoted relief.
3. We have heard Shri Madan Lal
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
representing the State respondents.
4. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that he is co-tenure holder of
the plots in dispute to the extent of half
share and the application made by
respondent nos. 5 and 6 for grant of
mining lease in respect of said plots is
liable to be rejected for want of no
objection from him.
5. The Uttar Pradesh Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for
short the 'Rules) framed by the State of
1 All. Srikant Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
127
U.P. provides for grant of a mining lease
or mining permit. Rule 3 of the Rules
clearly prohibits any mining operation by
any person within the State of any minor
mineral to which the Rules are applicable,
except under and in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a mining lease or
mining permit granted under the Rules.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules
provides that no mining lease or mining
permit shall be granted otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of the
Rules.
6. The statutory Rules governing the
procedure and the conditions for grant of
a mining lease or permit, do not prescribe
any requirement for the consent of a land
owner for grant of a mining lease or
permit. On the contrary, Rule 67 of the
Rules disentitles a person having any right
in any capacity over the land covered by a
mining lease or mining permit, to impose
any prohibition or restriction on a right of
a person holding any lease or permit to
carry out such operation and such a
person is only entitled for annual
compensation for use of the surface either
under an agreement with such person and
in case of dispute between them for such
sum as may be determined by the District
Officer in the manner prescribed under
Rule 67. It may be relevant to quote Rule
67, which reads as under.
"67. No restriction etc., to be
imposed by owner of land on mining
operation
except
demand
of
compensation.-(1) No person, who has
right in any capacity on the land covered
by a mining lease or mining permit, shall
be entitled to impose any prohibition or
restriction on the mining operations by the
holder or such lease or permit of such
land or to demand any sum by way of
premium of royalty for the removal of
minor mineral.
Provided that such person shall be
entitled to get annual compensation from
the said holder of mining lease or permit
for the use of surface of the land for
mining operations, as may be agree upon
between them.
(2) Where the holder of a mining
lease or permit and the owner of the
surface of the land could not agree upon
the amount of annual compensation and a
dispute arises in respect thereof, it shall be
determined by the District Officer in such
manner that-
(a) in the case or agricultural land,
the amount of annual compensation shall
be worked out on the basis of the average
annual net income from the cultivation of
similar land for the past three years, and
(b) in the case of non-agricultural
land, the amount of annual compensation
shall be worked out on the basis of
average annual letting value of similar
land for the previous three years."
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
compensation from the holder of the lease
or of the mining permit in accordance
with the provisions and the procedure
prescribed by Rule 67. The scheme of the
Rules is such that even a land holder
cannot
carry
on
mining
operations
without obtaining a valid mining lease or
permit. Consent by a land owner is not a
condition precedent to carry on mining
operations. If a person is granted mining
128
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lease or permit under the Rules, he
becomes entitled to carry on mining
operation and he cannot restrained to do
so by the land owner simply because his
consent was not obtained. There is no
requirement for grant of a consent or No
Objection by the land owner.
8. The aforesaid view taken by us
finds support from the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
AIR 1976 SC 1393, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex
Court
while
considering
the
provisions of Rule 67, in paragraph 14 of
the report, has observed as under.
"We would like before closing to
invite especial attention to Rule 67 of the
Rules of 1963 under which a "person
having a right in any capacity in the land
covered by a mining lease or mining
permit ..... shall be entitled to get
compensation" from the holder of a
mining lease or mining permit of such
land for the use of the surface, which may
be agreed upon between the parties. In
case of any dispute, the amount of
compensation has to be determined by the
District Officer whose order assumes
finality. The counter-affidavit filed by the
State Government in the High Court
concedes expressly, as it ought, that
considering the fact that the person
entitled to the use of a land may be
prevented from using it by reason of a
mining lease or permit, Rule 67 provides
for the payment of compensation to him
for such deprivation. When the right to
conduct a mining operation is auctioned
by the Government the person who is
otherwise entitled to the user of the land,
say for agricultural purposes, is deprived
of its user and the object of Rule 67 is to
ensure that he should be compensated
adequately for the deprivation of such
user."
9. In view of the above facts and
discussions, the petitioner cannot be held
entitled to raise any objection either in
respect of grant of mining permit/lease for
mining operations for inclusion of his
plots in the advertisement in accordance
with law and the procedure prescribed by
the Rules, for want of a No Objection
from him.
10. This writ petition is, thus, devoid
of any merit and, accordingly, stands
dismissed in limine.
-------