AYODHYA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the notice of demand dated 8 April, 1992, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,14,000/ - -towards the balance amount in respect of mining tights given to him.

(2.) THE Petitioner was offered right to excavate sand from area measuring 114 acres in the district Allahabad for the period of two years subject to payment fee calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per acre. The Petitioner accepted terms of the agreement and deposited 50% of the rent for the first year and commenced the mining operation in the area' without any kind of protest. Subsequently, the Petitioner wrote to the Respondents that he does not desire to continue with the mining operation and as such the agreement may be cancelled. The Respondents did not accept the request of the Petitioner. After completion of two years, the Respondents issued the Impugned notice of demand.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the Petitioner was given a contract for excavation of sand on payment of royalty for a period of two years. The contract having not been terminated by the Respondents, Petitioner was liable to pay the royally even If the Petitioner could not excavate the sand fully as alleged. in view of this, it cannot be said what is being realised from the Petitioner is not royalty but the damages. Since it is royalty for excavating sand and is being realised and as such the said royalty can be realised as arrears of land revenue. in this connection. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since there was no registered agreement and as such, the alleged royalty cannot be realised as arrears of land revenue. Sub -rule (4) of R.14 of the Rules framed under the Act runs as follows: