# Vinay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1451
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 37749 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinay-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-issue-for-consideration-54666
- **Pages:** 29

## Text

_Characters 0–39,807 of 98,727. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39807 for what follows._

4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
30. There will be no order as to cost.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1451
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 37749 of 2019

Vinay Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh failed to hand over possession of the mining area allotted
to the petitioner for carrying out mining operations;

(ii) Whether there was any determination of the area, if any, falling within the disputed territory of the State
of Madhya Pradesh;
(iii) What was the effect of the clause contained in the e-tender/e-auction notice dated 16.02.2018 requiring
the bidder to inspect and satisfy himself regarding the mining area before participating in the bidding process,
on the reliefs claimed by the petitioner; and
(iv) Whether the amount claimed by the petitioner by way of refund was in excess of the amount actually
deposited by him.
HEADNOTE
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - ss.20, 65 - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - r.58 -
Mining lease - E-tender cum e-auction for excavation of sand/morum over 25 hectares - Mining
lease executed after issuance of letter of intent and environmental clearance - Mining
operations disrupted shortly after commencement on account of boundary dispute between
States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh regarding river Ken - State Government
subsequently stopping mining operations and later permitting mining only in alleged undisputed
area - Joint inspection finding that out of 25 hectares only 12.86 hectares was undisputed while
12.14 hectares remained disputed - No assessment of mineral quantity in undisputed area - No
effective steps taken to resolve boundary dispute, hand over undisputed area, reassess mineral
availability or renegotiate lease conditions - Mining operations remaining suspended after
26.05.2019 - Lease ultimately cancelled on ground of loss of revenue - Petitioner sought refund
and restitution of the amounts deposited under the mining lease - Entitlement to refund and
restitution - Justification:

Held:
Court held that initially the entire area of 25 hectares under the lease dated 13.02.2019 was demarcated and
handed over to the petitioner. Shortly thereafter the dispute of boundary arose between the two States on
22.02.2019 thereby hindering the mining operations. Subsequently a joint exercise was also undertaken on
1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10.04.2019 for demarcation of boundary by the officers of both the States but without success. It was
admitted that no excavation was carried out after 26.05.2019. As the dispute of boundary remained
unresolved the State of U.P. vide the letter dated 15.07.2019 had stopped mining operations in the entire
mining area of 50 hectares, including the mining area of 25 hectares allotted to the petitioner. The State of
U.P. thereafter permitted mining in the undisputed area. However, even the undisputed area was not made
available to the petitioner for mining. Court held that the area of 25 hectares allotted to the petitioner for
mining was not made available to the petitioner after 26.05.2019 till the termination of lease on 29.01.2022.
[Paras 54-55]
Court held that it was only once on 10.04.2019 that a joint exercise was undertaken to demarcate the
boundary between the two States but the attempt so made was without any success. During the pendency of
the writ petition an exercise was undertaken to demarcate the undisputed mining area, but no effort was
made by the respondents to hand over the undisputed mining area to the petitioner or to assess the quantity
of minor mineral (sand/morum) available in the said area. [Paras 56-62]
Court held that the condition in the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 requiring the bidder to inspect and
satisfy himself regarding the mining area would not absolve the respondents of their obligation to make
available the leased area for mining. Petitioner was not supposed to verify the correctness of boundary or title
as there was a presumption that the State would only advertise the mining area, which is free from all
encumbrances. Petitioner was only required to assess the quantity of minerals and the access to the mining
area to be allotted to the petitioner. Respondents failed to demarcate and hand over the undisputed area and
also failed to assess the quantity of minor minerals available therein or renegotiate the terms of the lease
after the boundary dispute arose. Said condition did not defeat the relief claimed by the petitioner. [Paras
63-76]
Court held that both the parties had entered into the mining lease dated 13.02.2019 under a
mistake as to a matter of fact that 25 hectares of land was available for mining. However, after
execution of the mining lease, it was realised that the required area was not available. The
availability of 25 hectares of mining area being a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the
parties suffered from mutual mistake and the mining lease was void by virtue of Section 20 of
the Contract Act, 1872. The Court further held that the words "discovered to be void" in Section
65 comprehend a situation where the parties were suffering from a mistake of fact from the very
beginning but had not realised, at the time of entering into the agreement, that they were
suffering from such mistake and had acted bona fide on the agreement. Consequently, the
petitioner was entitled to restitution under Section 65 of the Contract Act. [Paras 75, 77, 79]
Court held that the monetary reliefs claimed by the petitioner were in the nature of restitution of investments
made. Petitioner was held entitled to refund of the amounts admittedly paid by the petitioner to the
respondents in pursuance to the lease deed dated 13.02.2019 after deducting the amount of sand/morum
already excavated by the petitioner, the return of fixed deposit, and liberty to move the competent authority
for refund of stamp duty. Court held that claims relating to expenditure on service road development and
other disputed heads cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings. [Paras 95-97]
Court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for any loss of revenue to the State
Government. Once the petitioner was not permitted to carry out mining operations after
26.05.2019, there was no question of payment of further lease instalments. Respondents made
no effort to resolve the boundary dispute with the State of Madhya Pradesh, which resulted in
stoppage of mining operations. No notice as required under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963 was issued prior to cancellation of the lease. Consequently, the order
dated 29.01.2022 cancelling the lease was held to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
prescribed procedure. [Paras 46-49]
Writ petition was partly allowed.
CASE LAW CITED
Planet Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3990;
Tarsem Singh v. Sukhinder Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 471;
4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1453
Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 19 SCC 241;
Jai Durga Finvest (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2004) 3 SCC 381;
The Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2015) 16 SCC 31;
Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 93

List of Acts
Indian Contract Act, 1872;
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
List of Keywords
Mining lease; Sand mining; Morum excavation; Inter-State boundary dispute; River Ken; Refund of lease
amount; Mining area not available; Mutual mistake of fact; Void agreement; Restitution; Section 20 Contract
Act; Section 65 Contract Act; E-tender; Environmental clearance; Demarcation dispute; Disputed territory;
Cancellation of lease; Rule 58; Loss of revenue; Refund of security deposit.
CASE ARISING FROM
Petitioner filed the writ petition seeking refund and restitution of the amounts deposited under a mining lease
for excavation of sand/morum over an area of 25 hectares, over which mining operations could not be carried
out owing to a boundary dispute between the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and because the
entire leased area was not made available for mining.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner: Jai Singh Parihar, Abhishek Bhushan, Adarsh Bhushan, Sri S.P. Singh.
Advs. For the Respondents: C.S.C.,
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Jai Singh Parihar,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Shri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel II and Shri Sandeep Kumar
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is that the District Magistrate,
Banda-respondent no.4 had issued an e-tender cum e-auction notice dated 16.02.2018 inviting bids
for excavating 5,00,000 cubic meters of sand/morum over an area of 25 hectares comprised in part
of Khasra No.5 and part of Khasra No.9 in Village- Bilharka, Tehsil- Narayani, District- Banda.

3. The bid made by the petitioner in pursuance to the tender notice was accepted and a
letter of intent was issued on 19.03.2018. The terms of reference (TOR) for the proposed site was
issued by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SLEIAA) on 25.05.2018 and
the environmental clearance was subsequently granted to the petitioners for mining on the aforesaid
site on 08.02.2019.
1454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. Subsequently, a mining lease dated 13.02.2019 was executed between the parties. Under
the lease the petitioner was to excavate annually 5,00,000 cubic meters of sand/morum at the rate
of Rs. 527/- per cubic meter. The lease was for a period of five years and the amount so payable
was to increase at the rate of 10% for every subsequent year. Besides, the petitioner prior to
commencement of mining was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,58,75,000/- towards security
and 25% of the first instalment for the first year amounting to Rs. 6,58,75,000/-. Hence, the
petitioner had deposited a total amount of Rs. 13,17,50,000/- as advance besides a stamp duty of
Rs. 3,21,73, 877/- was paid by the petitioner on the lease.

5. However, shortly after the petitioner commenced mining, the mining operations were
disrupted by officials of State of Madhya Pradesh (MP) on the pretext that a part of the mining area
allotted to the petitioner fell within the State of M.P. The petitioner made complaints regarding the
incident with a request to resolve the boundary dispute. A joint inspection team comprising of
officers of State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P) and State of M.P. was constituted but the dispute relating to
boundaries remained unresolved. In the meanwhile a demand for payment of second instalment
under the lease dated 13.02.2019 was raised. However, the petitioner expressed his inability to
make any payment till the boundary dispute was resolved between the two States.

6. As the petitioner was not permitted to carry out mining operations and demand for
second installment was being made by the respondent no.4, the petitioner was constrained to file
Writ-C No.-18794 of 2019 seeking a direction that the two States be directed to settle the boundary
dispute in respect of river, 'Ken' and State of U.P. be restrained from realising royalty and future
installments till the time the petitioner was not permitted to carry out the mining operations.

7. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition a letter dated 15.07.2019 was issued
by the State Government wherein while taking cognizance of the difficulties faced in mining of
minor minerals (sand /morum) on account of the dispute relating to the boundary a request was
made to the Revenue Department (State of U.P.) to resolve the same and till the time the dispute
was resolved the mining operations in the area were stopped.

8. This Court while taking cognizance of the letter dated 15.07.2019 had disposed of WritC No.- 18794 of 2019 vide the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 directing as under :-
 "10. The dispute in respect of mining area allotted to the petitioner by way of lease deed
dated 13.2.2019. The petitioner was not permitted to excavate the minor minerals from the area
allotted to him by way of aforesaid lease deed on the ground that certain area fell within the
boundary of State of M.P. Cognizance in this regard has already been taken by the State
Government which is clear from the perusal of the letter dated 15.7.2019

 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of
finally directing the State Government/respondent No.1 to resolve the dispute expeditiously
specially in terms of the letter dated 15.7.2019 written by the State Government, a reference of
which has been made in paragraph 7 of this judgement. Till the time, the dispute is resolved by the
State Government, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner specially in respect of
recovery of amount regarding which notice was issued to the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid
observations, writ petition stands disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. ".
4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1455
9. As the State Government failed to resolve the dispute relating to boundary, the petitioner
was constrained to file the present writ petition seeking the return of the deposited amount and
expenses incurred amounting to Rs. 26,65,66,666/- along with 9% interest and damages and also
seeking a direction for the State Government to annul the lease executed in favour of the petitioner.

10. During the pendency of the writ petition the State of U.P permitted mining in the
undisputed mining area allotted to the petitioner. Further on the directions of this Court an exercise
was undertaken by the parties to demarcate the undisputed area and also to determine the quantity
of minor mineral (sand/ morum) available therein. Although such an exercise to demarcate the
undisputed mining area allotted to the petitioner was undertaken but there is nothing on record to
demonstrate that any effort was made by the respondents to hand over the undisputed mining area
to the petitioner or to assess the quantity of minor mineral (sand/ morum) available in the said area.
It is further admitted between the parties that no mining operations were carried out by the
petitioner after 26.05.2019. Under the circumstances the mining lease of the petitioner was
cancelled vide the order dated 29.01.2022.

11. It is in the above background that the present writ petition was allowed by this Court
vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 wherein it was directed as under :-

 "12. The stand taken by the respondents seems to be that the petitioner was allowed to
carry out excavation of minor minerals in the undisputed area out of total area of 25 hectares,
which itself establishes that the interstate boundary dispute was not resolved. Besides this, nothing
has been pointed out from the record that possession of aforesaid undisputed area was handed
over to the petitioner. However, the petitioner may have opted for taking lease of a particular plot
for carrying out excavation of minor minerals keeping in view the total plot and availability of
minor minerals therein, which may or may not be commercially viable for a part of the area.

 13. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the respondents having failed to hand
over the possession of the area allotted to the petitioner for carrying out excavation of minor
minerals, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited for
the purpose along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of the said amount till
the date it is refunded. The needful shall be done by the authorities concerned within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the amount is not
refunded within the prescribed period, any interest payable to the petitioner thereafter, shall be the
responsibility of the officer(s)/ officials (s), who may be responsible for delay in compliance of the
order. 14. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms."

12. The respondents being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 passed in
the present writ petition had filed review petition before this Court registered as Civil Misc. Review
Application No.-525 of 2022, essentially on the ground that the petitioner had deposited Rs.
13,17,50,000/- in pursuance to the lease deed and not an amount of Rs. 26,65,66,666/- as claimed
in the writ petition. Further the petitioner had carried out mining between 15.02.2019 to 26.05.2019
and excavated 22,820 cubic meters of sand/morum. It was also stated that the petitioner under the
conditions of the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 (e-tender notice) was required to inspect the area
in respect of the quantity of mineral and the petitioner had got prepared the mining plan and also
1456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
obtained the environmental clearance certificate wherein sufficient mineral was shown to be
available and as such the petitioner was well aware of the site conditions of the mining area and the
quantity of minor mineral available.

13. The review petition so filed by the respondents was allowed in part vide judgment and
order dated 12.05.2023 and it was directed as under :- ?5. Considering the facts and circumstances,
as it is apparent from the face of record, we accordingly modify the order dated 30.09.2022 to the
effect that the opposite party would be at liberty to deduct the amount from the total outstanding
amount to the effect of total excavated sand/ morum of 22,820 cubic meter, as it is alleged the same
has been excavated by the petitioner with effect from 15.02.2019 to 26.05.2019 and accordingly,
the rest of amount along with requisite interest may be returned. 6. Accordingly, the review
application is allowed in part.?

14. The respondents not being satisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022
passed in the present writ petition and the judgment and order dated 22.05.2023 in the review
petition had filed a special leave petition before the Apex Court and same was converted in Civil
Appeal No. 5171-5172 of 2023 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Vinay Kumar Singh and others). The
Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2023 passed in the civil appeal had allowed the
appeals and restored the present writ petition for fresh adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the judgment and order dated 23.08.2023 had held as under :-

 "20. On a careful reading of the writ-petition filed by the original petitioner, as noticed
above, prima facie, it appears that the State of U.P. was justified in taking a stand in the review
petition that the High Court had wrongly observed that the State of U.P. (i.e., respondents in the
writ petition) had failed to handover possession of the area allotted to the petitioner for carrying
out mining operations. However, while deciding the review petition, this aspect of the matter has
not been dealt with by the High Court. Further, the High Court failed to address the ground no. 8
in the review petition wherein it was stated that in the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 the bidder
was advised to inspect and satisfy itself regarding the mining area before participating in the
bidding process. As to what would be the effect of that clause on the relief claimed by the original
petitioner is a matter which requires consideration. But there appears no discussion in that regard
in the orders impugned. That apart, there is no determination of the area, if any, which falls in the
disputed territory i.e., within the State of M.P. There is also no discussion on the plea of the
appellants that the amount of which refund was sought was far in excess of the amount paid by the
original petitioner.

 21. Having found that the High Court has not properly addressed all the issues raised
before it, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court by restoring the writ
petition to its original number so that it is decided afresh in accordance with law.

 22. Consequently, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.09.2022 and
12.05.2023 are set aside. Writ C No.37749 of 2019 is restored to the file for fresh adjudication. It
is made clear that if parties have not already exchanged their affidavits in the said writ petition,
they may do so within six weeks from today. We request the High Court to decide the matter in the
4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1457
light of our observations above, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the
date a copy of this order is furnished before it.

 23. We, however, clarify that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of any of
the issues that may arise for adjudication by this High Court. ."

15. In the above background it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner
was not permitted to carry out the mining operations on the entire leased area of 25 hectares.
Shortly after the execution of the mining lease, dated 13.02.2019 on 22.02.2019, the officers of the
State of MP had stopped the mining operations on the pretext that 300 meters of mining area
allotted to the petitioner fell in the State of M.P. The petitioner regarding the incident had made
representations before the respondent no. 3 and respondent no.4 with the request to carry out the
exercise of demarcation of the mining area allotted to the petitioner. In pursuance thereto a joint
exercise of demarcation was undertaken by the officers of the two States but without any success.
Subsequent thereto no exercise whatsoever was ever undertaken by the respondents to carry out
demarcation of boundaries and the dispute remained unresolved thereby adversely affecting the
mining/ excavation to be carried out by the petitioner.

16. In the meanwhile, the respondent no. 4 vide the letter dated 06.04.2019 had made a
demand for payment of second instalment under the lease. The petitioner on 15.05.2019 had
expressed his inability to pay the amount in view of the difficulties faced in mining. Ultimately as
the petitioner was not permitted to carry out mining after 26.05.2019 and in view of the demands
raised by the respondent in respect of the payment of second instalment of lease, the petitioner was
compelled to file Writ C No. 18794 of 2019. The writ petition was disposed of vide the judgment
and order dated 18.07.2019 in the light of the letter dated 15.07.2019 of the State Government
stopping mining operations including in the mining area allotted to the petitioner till the boundary
dispute was resolved, with the further directions to take no coercive measures against the petitioner
till the dispute was resolved in pursuance to the letter dated 15.07.2019.

17. However, as no effective measures were undertaken by the respondents to resolve the
boundary dispute, hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. During the
pendency of the present writ petition the State Government vide the letter dated 17.03.2020
permitted mining in undisputed areas but no effort whatsoever was made to demarcate the
boundary of the undisputed area, to assess the quantity of minor minerals available and to
renegotiate the terms of the mining lease. It was only with the intervention of this Court that in
pursuance to the order dated 08.02.2021 a joint inspection team was constituted to carry out the
demarcation of the undisputed area.

18. The petitioner had objected to the exercise so undertaken essentially on the ground that
there was no sand available in the so-called undisputed area and as such mining was not feasible.
The petitioner did not agree with the manner in which the exercise of demarcation was carried out
on 15.02.2021 but even as per own showing of the respondents in the joint inspection report dated
15.02.2021 out of total mining area of 25 hectares an area of 12.14 hectares was found to be
disputed while an area of 12.86 hectare was found to be undisputed. Thus, it is contended that only
about 51% of the total mining area was available for mining and there was no sand available for
1458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
excavation in the undisputed area. Moreso, no effort was made by the respondents to handover the
undisputed mining area to the petitioner and to re-negotiate the terms of the lease. Subsequently the
respondents while acting in a most illegal and arbitrary manner had cancelled the mining lease on
29.01.2022.

19. Thus, the crux of contention of the petitioner is that from the very commencement of
the mining lease the petitioner was not permitted to carry out mining for no fault of his and
ultimately no mining was carried out after 26.05.2019. Further no effort was made by the
respondents to demarcate the mining area of the petitioner or to resolve the boundary dispute. Even
the so-called undisputed mining area was never handed over to the petitioner and no effort was
made to re-negotiate the terms of the mining lease. Under the mining lease it was the obligation of
the respondents to provide hindrance free mining area to the petitioner, which the respondents
utterly failed to provide, as such the petitioner is liable to be compensated for the breaches and
defaults on part of the respondents.

20. Per contra it has been vehemently contended on behalf of the respondents that
petitioner was well aware about the site conditions of the mining area under the lease and the
petitioner had executed the lease with eyes wide open and it was no longer open for the petitioner
to question the same. It is submitted that the e-tender cum e-auction notice was issued only on the
basis of District Survey Report and the report of Technical Committee after determining the
quantity of minor mineral available at site. Reliance has also been placed on condition no. 22 (1) of
the e-tender cum e-auction notice dated 06.02.2018 wherein bidders were required to satisfy
themselves regarding the quantity of minor mineral available. Besides reliance has also been placed
on condition 22 (2) of the e-tender notice.

21. It is also contended that the petitioner himself had got the mining plan prepared and
also got the Environmental Clearance Survey where too, the quantity of minor minerals available
from the mining area under the lease was shown to be 5,00,000 (Five lakh) cubic meters. Thus, it is
contended that once the entire mining lease area of 25 hectares was demarcated and duly handed
over to the petitioner, the respondents cannot be held to be liable for the petitioner being unable to
carry out mining.

22. As far as the boundary dispute is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the
respondents that repeated efforts were made to resolve the boundary dispute and letters were also
issued to Collector, Chhatarour, however due to non-cooperation of the officers of the State of M.P.
the boundary dispute remained unresolved. Subsequently the respondents had demarcated the
undisputed mining area under the mining lease in compliance of the directions of this Court but the
petitioner intentionally failed to commence mining. Thus, the respondents being left with no
alternative were compelled to cancel the mining lease vide the order dated 29.01.2022.

23. Hence, the crux of the contention of the respondents is that there was sufficient minor
mineral available for mining and once the possession of the mining area was handed over to the
petitioner after demarcation of the same, the respondents cannot be held liable under the terms of
the agreement.
4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1459
24. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

25. The respondents do no dispute the fact that the petitioner had carried out mining
operations upto 26.5.2019 and had excavated 22820 cubic meter of sand/morum from 15.2.2019 to
26.5.2019. It is also admitted that the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs. 6,58,00,075/-
towards first instalment and a security of Rs. 6,58,00,075/- was deposited, hence, it is stated that
total amount of Rs. 13,17,50,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the respondents. However,
the petitioner had not deposited the second instalment, which fell due on 01.4.2019 as per the terms
of the lease.

26. Before we advert to the merits of the controversy, we are conscious of the fact that the
Apex Court vide the judgment and order dated 23.08.2023, while remanding the matter back to us
to decide the same afresh in accordance with law, had also framed certain questions in paragraph
20 of the judgment, morefully reproduced in paragraphs above and the same read as under:-

 (i) Whether the State of U.P. had failed to hand over the possession of the area allotted to
the petitioner for carrying out mining operations?

 (ii) Whether there is no determination of the area, if any, which falls in the disputed
territory i.e. within the State of M.P?

 (iii) Effect of clause in the advertisement dated 16.02.2018, where the bidder was advised
to inspect and satisfy itself regarding the mining area before participating in the bidding process on
the reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

 (iv) Whether the amount of which refund was sought was far in excess of the amount
paid by the petitioner?

 Hence, an effort would be made by us that while deciding the matter afresh, the questions
raised by the Apex Court, as mentioned above, are also dealt with, at the appropriate place in this
judgment.

27. The records reveal that after preparation and approval of District Survey Report (DSR)
and after inspection of the Technical Committee the advertisement for e-tender cum e-auction was
published on 16.02.2018, amongst others for two locations for mining of sand/ morum situated in
Village Bilharka, Tehsil Narayani, District Banda. Both the locations were comprised in part of
Khasra No. 5 and part of Khasra No. 9, each having a mining area of 25 hectares and a quantity of
5,00,000 cubic meters of sand/ morum for excavation per year. The letter of intent in respect of one
of the mining area so advertised was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.03.2018. The letter of
intent in respect of the other mining area of 25 hectares comprised in part of Khasra Nos. 5 and part
of Khasra No. 9 was issued in favour of one, Ram Kumar Shastri, proprietor M/s Madhav
Construction. Thereafter the demarcation of the mining area was carried out in presence of the
petitioner on 11.02.2019 followed by the lease deed dated 13.02.2019.
1460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. The perusal of the lease deed amongst others reveals that it was in respect of the land
comprised in part of Khasra No. 5 and part of Khasra No. 9 situated in Village Bilharka, Tehsil
Narayani, District Banda having an area of 25 hectares and bounded as below:

North: Mining area;

South: River Ken;

East: Khasra Nos. 91 to 96 and 195 belonging to tenureholder Mulle and others.

West: River Ken.

Hence, it is beyond doubt that the mining area allotted to the petitioner was bounded on
two sides by river, Ken.

29. It is also evident that after the petitioner had commenced mining, on 22.02.2019
officers belonging to State of M.P had entered the mining area allotted to the petitioner and
disrupted the mining operations. The petitioner had apprised the District Magistrate, Banda-
respondent no.4 about the incident vide the letter dated 23.02.2019 as well as the Director,
Directorate of Geology and Mining- respondent no.2 vide the letter dated 18.03.2019 regarding the
incident with a request to carry out the exercise of demarcation of the boundaries.

30. The records also reveal that the District Magistrate, Banda vide the letter dated
25.03.2019 in pursuance to the request of the petitioner had requested the Collector, Chhatarpur to
constitute a team to carry out joint inspection. It is also evident that although the exercise for
demarcation of boundaries was undertaken by the officials of State of U.P. and that of State of MP
but without any success.

31. Hence, it can be concluded from the fact that an exercise of demarcation of boundaries
was undertaken by the officers of both the States, though without success but as such, was a dispute
in respect of boundaries of two States, which remained unresolved. Further the perusal of letter
dated 16.04.2019 of the Mining Inspector, Chhatarpur reveals that the boundary dispute between
the two states essentially arose in view of differences regarding the width of river Ken. Hence, the
mining area allotted to the petitioner which was bounded on two sides by river Ken ought to have
been adversely affected. The records further reveal that other than the exercise undertaken on
10.04.2019 to demarcate the boundaries, no other effort was made thereafter for demarcation of
boundaries except for a couple of correspondences made by the respondent no.4 to his counterpart
in Chhatarpur, M.P.

32. In the meanwhile the demand for payment of second instalment against the lease was
made from the petitioner vide the letter dated 06.04.2019. The petitioner in view of the difficulties
faced in mining vide the letter dated 15.05.2019 had informed the respondent no.1 that the
petitioner was unable to make the payment of royalty till the exercise of demarcation was carried
out and the petitioner was permitted to carry out the mining activities without any hindrance. It is
also admitted that no mining was carried after 26.05.2019.
4 All. Vinay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1461
33. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner had filed Writ C No. 18794 of 2019.
It is shortly after the filing of Writ C No. 18794 of 2019 that by means of the letter dated
15.07.2019 issued by the State of U.P. the mining operations in the mining area comprised in
Khasra No. 5 and Khasra No. 9 having a total area of 50 hectares (including 25 hectares of mining
area of the petitioner) was stopped in view of the difficulties faced in mining on account of the
boundary dispute. Subsequently the writ petition filed by the petitioner was also disposed of vide
the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 in view of the letter dated 15.07.2019.

34. The fact that State of U.P. had stopped the mining in the mining area allotted to the
petitioner itself demonstrates that there was a dispute of boundaries between the two States leading
to difficulties in mining, which said dispute remained unresolved. Further the petitioner cannot be
faulted for the stoppage of mining.

35. However, the records reveal that no exercise to resolve the dispute relating to
boundaries was undertaken by the respondents thereafter, despite the directions of this Court as
contained in the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 to resolve the dispute (in respect of the
boundary) expeditiously in terms of the letter dated 15.07.2019. Under the circumstances the
petitioner had filed the present writ petition amongst others for the refund of the amounts deposited
and investments made by the petitioner in pursuance to the mining lease dated 13.02.2019.

36. Even after filing of the present writ petition, there was no effort by the respondents to
resolve the boundary dispute. The only correspondence available on records in this regard is a letter
dated 26.12.2019 issued by the respondent no.4 to the District Collector, Chhatarpur to carry out a
joint inquiry, even the said letter has been issued at the instance of Ram Kumar Shastri, the allottee
of the remaining mining area of 25 hectares. Hence, it can very well be concluded from the records
that no effective effort was made by the respondents to resolve the boundary dispute.

37. It is during the pendency of the present writ petition that the State Government vide the
letter dated 17.03.2020 had permitted mining in the undisputed area allegedly on the ground of
financial losses even though no effort was made to resolve the boundary dispute. But even
thereafter neither any effort was made to demarcate the undisputed area available to the petitioner
for mining nor any effort was made to determine the quantity of minor minerals (sand/ morum)
available for mining in the said undisptued area nor any effort was made to renegotiate the terms of
the lease. Hence, the stalemate continued between the parties without any mining activity being
undertaken by the petitioner. Further the letter dated 17.03.2020 clearly establishes the fact that the
complete mining area allotted to the petitioner under the lease dated 13.02.2019 was not available
to the petitioner for mining and even the undisputed area remained undefined.

38. It is only after a passage of about one year thereafter, that this Court vide the order
dated 08.02.2021 directed the respondent no.4 to come out with a demarcation of the area on which
the petitioner could carry out the mining operations without interference of the State of M.P. that
compelled the respondents to undertake the exercise of demarcation of the undisputed area. This
Court vide order dated 08.02.2021 had directed as under:
1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "Learned Standing Counsel prays and is granted a week's time to sort out the issue in
regard to the boundaries of mining lease area. The dispute lies between the State of Uttar Pradesh
and State of Madhya Pradesh regarding their boundaries and thus mining operation is not being
permitted for the area of lease.

 Let the District Magistrate concerned come out with the demarcation of area before next
date of hearing on which the petitioner can carry on the mining operation without interference of
the State of Madhya Pradesh. Let this petition be listed on 9th of March, 2021. The recovery has
already been stayed by the State Government, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents
herein. "

39. In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the respondent no.4 vide the letter dated
09.02.2021 had sought to undertake the exercise of demarcation of the undisputed area and also to
assess the quantity of minor minerals (sand/ morum) in the said area. The petitioner in response to
the aforesaid letter vide letter dated 12.02.2021 expressed his apprehensions to the effect that there
was no sand/ morum available in the so called undisputed area.

40. However, although the joint inspection to demarcate the undisputed area was
undertaken on 15.02.2021, the petitioner did not agree with the exercise of demarcation so
undertaken. In the inspection report dated 15.02.2021 it was held that out of total area of 25
hectares of area leased to the petitioner, while an area of 12.14 hecatres was disputed and only the
balance area of 12.86 hectares was undisputed. Further despite the specific direction to assess the
quantity of minor minerals (sand/ morum), in the undisputed area, no such assessment was made by
the joint inspection team. Thus, the undisputed area was only about 51% of the total mining area
allotted to the petitioner i.e. 12.86 hectares out of the total area of 25 hectares.

41.