RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioners took a lease in an auction held in respect of sand and moram i.e. miner minerals in respect of an area consisting of over 2000 bighas situate in village Adhawal and Urauli, Tehsil and District Fatehpur. The petitioners being the highest bidders were granted the lease under U. P. Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for a period beginning from 1-4-1976 and ending with 31-3-1977. It may be noticed that the bid of the petitioners which was accepted was Rs. 2 lacs which represented the amount payable to the State Government towards the royalty for working out of the aforesaid miner minerals i.e. sand and moram. On 31-3-1977 Kirpa Nath, Bishambhar Nath, Piasu and Smt. Bimla Devi moved an application under Rule 67 of the Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 claiming themselves to be sirdars of several plots which were subject matter of the lease having total area of 363 bighas 10 biswas and prayed that compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- be granted in their favour. The aforesaid application was registered as case no. 2 of 1977 by the Collector, Fatehpur. After obtaining a report from the Tehsildar in connection with finding the extent of damage, the Collector-respondent no. 1 made an order on 19-10-1978 and determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per bigha in respect of 295 bighas 1 biswa belonging to the respondents. The aforesaid order of the Collector, Fatehpur is contained in Annexure- 5 to this writ petition and has been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the State Government under section 15 of the Act had no power to make a rule like Rule 67 under the Rules, 1963. It has been urged that the rule could only be made for purposes of granting a mining licence under section 15 of Miner Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as "the Act'') and could not be made for purposes of awarding compensation to the owner of the surface of the land on which the licence for working miner minerals has been granted by the State Government.

(3.) IT has then been contended that under the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules, 1963 compensation could not be fixed by District Officer inasmuch as it had not been proved that there was no agreement between the parties as contemplated by Rule 67. We are of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 67 of Rules, 1963 are absolutely clear. IT provides that a person having a right in any capacity on the surface of the land covered by a mining lease or a mining permit, shall be entitled to get the compensation from the said holder of the licence for the use of the surface which may be agreed upon between them. In case there is no agreement, the amount of compensation shall be determined by the District Officer and his order shall be final. The rule leaves it to the parties to fix the amount of compensation by agreement at the first instance. In case no agreement is arrived at between the parties, a forum has been provided under the Rules. The District Officer has been made the final authority to determine the amount of compensation. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to invoke this forum" by moving before the District Officer an application for awarding compensation in their favour.