SMT. TULASA GAUDA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for appropriate direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation to her for the land used by the Indian Rare Earth Limited, opposite party No. 3, for mining purpose. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of Plot No. 805/1200, Khata No. 267/66 measuring an area of Ac.02.00 in Badaputi Mouza under Chhatrapur Tahasil. She claims that she has planted more than 100 number of cashew fruit trees over the said land and value of the said tree is nearly about Rs. 60,000/-. She is a owner in occupation of the land since 1982-83 and has been paying rent to the Revenue Officer regularly. Opposite party No. 3 has taken lease from the Mining Department to raise black sand from the said land. Opposite party No. 3 is excavating the black sand from the petitioner's land by the process of surface operation since 2001. On 24.2.2001 the petitioner approached before opposite party No. 3 by way of representation on the ground that opposite party No. 3 has cut down the trees and excavating-the black sand from her land and accordingly steps as per the prescribed rule be taken for payment of compensation. However, opposite party No. 3 did not take any step to that effect. The petitioner again filed another representation to opposite party No. 3 claiming compensation on 24.3.2003. The petitioner further submits that as per the Government Notification dated 9.4.2003, Annexure-5, the Tahasildar, Chhatrapur, opposite party No. 2, has been appointed as the compensation authority. It is further pleaded that as per Rules, the Tahasildar is to determine the compensation etc. The compensation determined by the compensation authority shall be given to the land owners to sustain loss in the process of surface operation by opposite party No. 3 over the rayati lands. Opposite party No. 3 has been operating the petitioner's rayati land by excavating the black sand, the petitioner makes several representations to opposite party No. 2 for compensation, but the said opposite party without considering the grievance of the petitioner playing hide and seek with her. Thereafter, again on 20.7.2004, the petitioner filed a representation before opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 for granting compensation. The petitioner then learnt that on the representation filed by her, opposite party No. 2 directed the concerned R.I. for enquiry. The R.I. after enquiring over the said land, submitted his report to opp. party No. 2 on 26.7.2004 indicating that opposite party No. 3 is operating the mine over the petitioner's land and constructed a road over the said land by cutting the fruit bearing trees.

(2.) It is further submitted that after receiving such report, opposite party No. 2 should have given compensation to the petitioner as per Rules 72 and 73 of the Mineral Concession Rules and as per the direction of the Government, but opposite party No. 2 is neither paying compensation to the petitioner nor informing opposite party No. 3 to give compensation to her. The petitioner further submits that opposite party No. 3 has operated the petitioner's land by cutting 100 number of cashew nut trees, casurina plantation and after operating the area, opposite party No. 3 has constructed a road over the petitioner's land long since. But till today opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 deliberately and intentionally are not paying the compensation as per Rule and playing hide and seek with the petitioner. On such pleadings, the petitioner has prayed that necessary direction be given to the opposite parties 2 and 3 to pay compensation to her.

(3.) Opposite party No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact that opposite party No. 3 has filed a proposal for acquisition of land to the extent of Ac.321.329 in village Basanaputi and Badaputi for mining of the rare earth. When it was found that the acquisition of the land was not feasible under the provisions of the Rules as the same was not meant for the public purpose, opposite party No. 3 was instructed to obtain consent of the raiyats for mining operation over the private land as envisaged in the Rules. As per Rule 72(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the holder of a mining lease shall be liable to pay to the occupier of the surface of the land over which he holds the mining lease/prospecting license, such annual compensation as may be determined by an Officer appointed by the State Government by notifications provided in Sub-rules (2) to (4) of Rule 72 of the Rules.