DINESH KUMAR KOMRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the work order dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure P/6) passed in favour of respondent no.3 by the Collector (Mining Branch), Balaghat.

(2.) NO exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition since the factual matrix is not at all in dispute. Admittedly, beneath the disputed land Manganese ore which is a major mineral is there and, therefore, the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (in short 'the Rules of 1960') were triggered and set in motion.

(3.) BY inviting my attention to sub -sections (4) and (5) of Section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short 'the Code'), learned counsel submits that the mining lease cannot be granted in favour of respondent No.3 and he cannot be permitted to enter in the land of petitioner who is Bhoomiswami unless and until the compensation is paid to him. Hence it has been put forth by him that this petition be allowed and the respondent No.3 be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner.