NALINI KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORRISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the order dated 19/3/2002 passed in O.M.M.C. No. 19 of 2001-02 by the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal and the order dated 8/5/2002 passed in O.M.M.C. Appeal Case No. 1 of 2002 passed by the Sub-Collector Dhenkanal.

(2.) The petitioner being the owner of a piece of land under the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal was digging out boulders from his own land for the purpose of utilizing the said land to raise construction thereon. He received a notice from the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal in Misc. Case No. 74 of 2000-2001 in which a demand raised on him to pay Rs. 4,32,000.00 towards the royalty for extraction of road metals and boulders without prior permission from the competent authority. It appears that the said demand notice was issued pursuant to the reports submitted by a Special Squared through the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal dated 16-12-2000. The petitioner filed an objection to the said demand notice and the Tahasildar on considering the said objection passed an order on 19-3-2002 holding that the petitioner liable to pay royalty amount demanded along with Rs. 1,000.00 towards penalty for illegal extraction of the road metals and boulders from plot No. 43 of village Jatannagar. The petitioner filed the above O.M.M.C. Appeal Case No. 1 of 2002 against the order of the Tahasildar and the appellate authority by order dated 8-5-2002 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 (for short 'the Rules').

(3.) Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land in question from which the petitioner is alleged to have extracted boulders etc. belongs to him and no mining lease had been granted in favour of the petitioner nor was it necessary to be granted in his favour for extracting the said boulders. He submitted that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner in order to raise construction over the land had to extract portion of the said land for laying the foundation and as the said land consists of metals/boulders on the surface, digging out a portion of such boulders for laying the foundation cannot amount to extraction of minerals as envisaged under the Rules. He further submitted that the opposite parties being the creatures of the said Rules are not vested with any power to impose penalty and direct payment of royalty to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He drew the attention of the Court to rules 3 and 24 of the Rules in support of his submission. The said rules 3 and 24 of the Rules are quoted hereunder.