BRIJENDRA SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by action of of respondent No. 2, Mining Officer, Annexure-P/3 (R4/3) dated 23-12-2004 by which respondent No. 4 has been permitted to extract minor mineral from the area of mine which has been granted to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 (Annexure-P/1).

(2.) Short facts of the case are that Janpad Panchayat - Patan granted a quarry lease of mooram to the petitioner for a period from 16-4-2003 to 31-3-2004. An agreement in this regard was executed by respondent No. 3, in favour of the petitioner Annexure-P/1. The survey number and leased area is specified in Schedule A, of the agreement (Annexure-P/1), which shows that the area 2.280 of Khasra Number 212 of village Shahsan, Block Patan, Tehsil Patan was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is duly operating the quarry as per agreement and has paid all the instalments within time. Respondent No. 2, Mining Officer, Jabalpur issued a temporary permit for extraction of mining of minor mineral to respondent No. 4 vide order dated 23-12-2003 and the area for this operation has been shown S. No. 212 area 2.280 hectare of village Shahsan. Petitioner when came to know about the aforesaid order, raised objection to respondent No. 4 and also to respondent No. 2 and prayed for immediate stoppage of the work of demarcation and mining by respondent No. 4. The petitioner also made a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan. No action was taken by the authorities on the complaint made by the petitioner. Thereafter, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the mining area was transferred by the State Government to Gram Panchayat for grant of mining lease and the petitioner was duly granted mining lease and is operating the quarry, but the respondent No. 2 without considering the fact has granted mining lease to respondent No. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Gram Panchayat has been divested within rights, then the State Govt. or respondent No. 2 ought not to have granted mining lease to respondent No. 4.

(3.) Respondents 1, 2 and 4 have filed replies in this case. Contention of respondents 1 and 2 is that with effect from 24-6-2002, the State Government has amended the Rules and now the permission for extraction of Minor Mineral for Central and State Governments of their undertaking work, the concerning Collector/Additional Collector has been authorised under Rule 68 of Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules'). The aforesaid provision provides grant of temporary quarry permit for public purpose. Respondent No. 4 is constructing public road from Shahpura to Pipariya, which is in the public interest and the scheme is assigned by the State Government which is an important work. As for the work involving public interest, mooram is required for the construction of the road, so respondent No. 2 has granted temporary permission to respondent No. 4 for extracting the minor mineral. The minor mineral shall be extracted adjoining to the road area and the area will be changed as per requirement. It will depend upon the length covered for the construction of the road work at a particular site. Respondent No. 4 has also filed reply and contended that respondent No. 2 is within its jurisdiction in granting such permission under Rule 68 of the Rules. The work is, construction of public road from Shahpura to Pipariya and for this public purpose, the aforesaid permission has been granted by respondent No. 2. Relying on Rule 68 of the Rules, respondent No. 4 has also prayed for dismissal of the petition.