ANAND PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, by this petition has called in question the action of the respondents in restraining the petitioner from operating the sand quarry in Survey No. 440 having an area of 5. 248 hectares in Village Dhaniya Khedi, Tehsil Gyaraspur, District Vidisha.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'rules'), applications were invited by the Panchayat for considering the claim of eligible persons for grant of lease for mining of sand in the area in question. According to the petitioner, applications were processed and the same were considered in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 25-5-2001. Petitioner's application was allowed and Patta was granted to the petitioner on the same date for a period of two years. It is the case of the petitioner that vide resolution dated 25-5-2001 Annexure P-9 it was resolved that Patta for two years be granted to the petitioner and necessary formalities for the same be completed. The resolution was being acted upon and in pursuance thereof, necessary amount was deposited by the petitioner on 2-6-2001 vide Annexure P-10. Necessary formality for executing the agreement was completed on 2-6-2001 and the agreement itself was executed on the said date as is evident from Annexure P-11. Annexure P-11 is the agreement dated 2-6-2001 granting Patta to the petitioner for a period of two years. However, in the meanwhile, vide Notification Annexure P-12, dated 30-5-2001 Rules were amended and it was notified that quarry lease shall henceforth be granted and allotted only by auction. That being so, respondent Panchayat prohibited the petitioner from carrying on mining activities as according to the Panchayat with effect from 31-5-2001, grant of quarry lease without auction was prohibited. It is the case of the petitioner that once the resolution was passed and the Patta itself was granted by the resolution, a vested right was created in favour of the petitioner well before the amendments to the Rules and the right accrued to the petitioner could not be taken away by amendment in the Rules and in that view of the matter, it is the case of the petitioner that right of the petitioner which accrued to him on 25-5-2001 vide resolution vide Annexure P-9 could not be taken away by the amendment in the Rules.

(3.) SHRI A. M. Naik, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment repealed is protected. Interpreting the provisions of Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act it is argued by Shri Naik that right of the petitioner is protected and therefore, the respondents cannot prohibit him from carrying on mining activity. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the following cases :-