KRISHNAKANT JHAWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dt. 30.5.2005 passed by the Additional Collector as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner vide order dt. 9.12.2012 and by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 2.1.2006 in revision.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that, the petitioner was granted mining lease for limestone mines for the period 4.2.1981 to 3.2.1991. On 13.10.1993 the Mining Inspector had submitted the report in respect of the illegal mining of Rs.17, 280/- metric tone of limestone on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated by the Additional Collector and the order dt. 20.6.2000 was passed holding that the petitioner had done the illegal mining of limestone to the extent of 17,280 metric tone. THE Additional Collector had found it to be a punishable offence under Section 247(7) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and had levied the fine of Rs. 1,72,800/-. THE order passed by the Additional Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner vide order dt. 20.3.2001. Against which, the petitioner has filed revision before the Board of Revenue. THE Board of Revenue vide order dt. 12.9.2001 had partly allowed the revision finding that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the lease on 1.2.1990 and the lease was renewed on 19.5.1994 with retrospective effect. THErefore, the Board of Revenue held that the excavation of mineral was not illegal but it directed the Collector to ensure that the petitioner had paid the royalty in respect of mineral extracted between 1.4.1991 to 19.5.1994 and to take action if the royalty was not paid. THEreafter the matter was taken up by the Collector in respect of the payment of royalty on the mineral extracted between 1.4.1991 to 31.12.1994. THE Incharge Officer had submitted the report dt. 30.5.2002 in favour of the petitioner. THE Additional Collector after the enquiry, had passed the order dt. 30.5.2002 holding that the petitioner was liable to pay the royalty of Rs.3,45,800/-during the period in question whereas, he had paid the royalty of Rs.91,430/- only therefore, the Mining Officer was directed to take action for recovery of the balance royalty amount. THE appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Collector has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dt. 9.12.2002 and the revision has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 2.1.2006.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.