KHAIRATI Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 15-7-1997, 4-9-1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut and the order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut acting as the appellate authority under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, for short "the Rules". Prayers for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to realize the amount in question in pursuance of the order dated 15-7-1997 passed by the District Magistrate, to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner in excess what was actually due with interest or alternatively to demarcate and survey the land in dispute and permit the petitioner to excavate sand from the land in dispute for a further period of three years at 15% to 20% enhanced royalty (vide application dated 1-12-2001), have also been made.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in reply to a notice issued from the office of the District Magistrate/District Officer, Meerut, published on 28-9-1994 in the newspapers, the petitioner after completing the formalities for the same applied for grant of mining lease in respect of the minor minerals (sand) in the eight villages, namely, Sakrod Khadar, Mawi Kalan, Jagos Khadar, Chhaprauli Khadar, Gauripur, Sishana Khadar, Khandwari and Baghpat Khadar for an area measuring 249.862 hectares, for short "the land in dispute". By his order dated 23-11-1994, the then acting District Magistrate accepted the application of the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition for a period of three years commencing from 1-12-1994 and ending on 3-11-1997. It was on the same date that the work order was also issued by the District Magistrate to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000.00 on 3-1-1995 as survey and demarcation charges through treasury challan duly passed by the competent authority. Since neither the land in dispute was surveyed nor demarcated as required under the aforesaid rules, the petitioner requested the competent authorities vide letters dated 5-1-1995, 1-2-1995 and 13-3-1995 for survey and demarcation of the land in dispute and for delivery of actual possession over the land allotted to him; but neither the land was demarcated nor actual possession was ever delivered to him. In the meanwhile, it is stated that on account of fluvial action of the river Yamuna, major portion of the land, which was leased out to the petitioner, except 10 hectares, gone to the side of Haryana and Delhi. The petitioner with difficulty could start working in villages Khadar Sakrod and Gauripur in an area measuring about 10 hectares without survey and demarcation as time of lease was passing and the authorities were not paying any heed to his requests and were not performing their statutory duty. It may also be stateated here that in the meanwhile, the authority concerned obtained the thumb impression of the petitioner on a draft lease deed in which only plot numbers and their areas were mentioned. Boundary, description of which conspicuously scored out, as it is evident from Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit. The said lease deed was not read out to the petitioner, who is an illiterate man, before his thumb impression was obtained on it at the office of the District Magistrate, Meerut. It was only a paper transaction. In the said lease deed, it is stated that the terms and conditions of the lease were also mentioned, which were also not read out to the petitioner.