SATISHKUMAR RAMANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions raise identical questions of law and facts and they have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, facts arising in Special Civil Application No. 4149 of 2002 may be noticed.

(3.) THE petitioner was granted mining lease for black trap in a quarry in Mahi river. The lease was for a period of 10 years. The authorities found that there was discrepancy between the monthly declaration of the black trap excavated by the petitioner from the site and the actual excavation. The petitioner was intimated by communication dated 28. 11. 97 that survey of the site would be conducted. By the communication dated 28. 11. 97, at Annexure D, the petitioner conveyed that he would need his surveyor to be present and he may, therefore, be granted time. On 28. 11. 97 itself vide Annexure E, the Mamlatdar conveyed to the petitioner that survey shall be conducted on 29. 11. 97 at 11 O' clock at which time, he or his representative may remain present with the surveyor. The survey was actually conducted on 29. 11. 97 in presence of the petitioner and his representative which was also countersigned by his representative. On 29. 11. 97, the petitioner objected to the contents of the survey which is produced at Annexure F to the petition. He raised several contentions, but did not contend that the time granted for arranging his surveyor was too short.