(1.) By way of this writ petition, which is filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 04.07.2015 passed by the respondent State, by which the respondent State has assigned the possession of lease and extended the lease period in terms of Section 8A of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MMDR (Amendment) Act', for short) in favour of respondent No.5. Petitioners have also prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to restrain the respondent No.5 from constructing any road from the Gauchar land bearing Survey No.335/1 of village Dedhrota for mining purpose.
(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. MTM Hakim with learned advocate Mr. R. K. Mansuri for respondent No.5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D. M. Devnani for respondent No.1.
(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioners submitted that Survey No.335/1 of village Dedhrota is Gauchar land situated near the bank of river Sabarmati. Revenue entry No.327 came to be recorded in the revenue record on 14.08.1955 to the effect that the land bearing Survey No.335/1 is declared as Gauchar land by an order passed by the Assistant Collector on 30.05.1955. Thereafter, the State Government allotted the said land to Dedhrota Gram Panchayat as Gauchar land and therefore revenue entry No.388 was mutated in the revenue record on 26.05.1957. It is stated that respondent No.5 applied for the land in question for mining purpose. However, the village people objected at the initial stage. It is stated that without considering the objections raised by the village people and without considering the fact that Gauchar land cannot be allotted for mining purpose, the respondent State granted 20 Hectares of Gauchar land to respondent No.5 by an order dated 10.09.1985 for mining lease for bauxite for a period of 20 years at village Dedhrota. Thereafter lease agreement was executed between respondent No.5 and the State.