RAM ADHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar, issued a notice dated 19.1.2005 under Rule 72 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963) inviting applications for grant of a mining lease. The petitioner applied for a mining lease of sand for plot No. 2, as indicated at serial No. 2 of the notice, which showed an area of 15 acres from Pipra to Chhitauni. The petitioner alleged that his application was complete in all aspects, as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963. It was also alleged that an enquiry was conducted by the District Officer and a report of the Mines Officer was also obtained. It is alleged that the report of the Mines Officer dated 16.3.2005 was incorrect and since, other complaints were made before the Commissioner, a fresh order was issued by the Commissioner, pursuant to which the Mines Officer, Gorakhpur, submitted a fresh report indicating that the application of the petitioner was found to be complete in all aspects. It is also alleged that apart from the application being complete, the petitioner had a preferential right and, based on this, the District Magistrate granted a mining lease to the petitioner on 11.5.2005. Based on the aforesaid order, the petitioner deposited the requisite stamp and royalty and a lease-deed was executed on 20.5.2005 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1963.

(2.) THE respondent No. 5, being aggrieved by the grant of a mining lease in favour of the petitioner, filed a revision before the State Government under Rule 78 of the said Rules, by passing the provision of an appeal before the Commissioner, as contemplated under Rule 77 of the said Rules. THE revisional authority, by the impugned order dated 19.10.2005, allowed the revision and cancelled the mining lease in favour of the petitioner and further directed the District Magistrate to grant a fresh mining lease in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1963 and Government order dated 16.10.2004. THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the State Government was manifestly erroneous in law, inasmuch as, the petitioner's application was complete in all aspects, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1963 and the finding that the petitioner's map did not tally either with the cadastral map or with the topographical map was wholly erroneous and against the material on record. THE State Government has produced the original record and this Court had the benefit of perusing the map filed by the petitioner with the map kept with the State authorities. A bare perusal of the map filed by the petitioner indicates that it does not tally with the map kept by the authorities.