TINGRAI CHARALI BRICKS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision to collect royalty from brick kiln by the Revenue Department @ Rs.10,000.00 per year is the subject matter of challenge in the first writ petition being WP (C)/1259/2015. The second writ petition being WP(C)/5824/2014 has been instituted challenging the requirement of a No Objection Certificate by the concerned Deputy Commissioner (presently District Commissioner) every year for continuation and running of brick kiln.

(2.) As per the facts projected in the petition which has been instituted by four numbers of petitioners, they are the owners of brick kiln which according to them are situated in their patta land. As there were no Rules existing in the business of brick kiln, a notification dtd. 31/3/1984 was holding the field on the aspect of leasing out of land by the Government for a period of three years. It is submitted that though the said notification per se would not have an application to the brick kilns of the petitioners which are located in their patta land, it is also the case of the petitioners that royalty @ Rs.10,000.00 per year of brick kiln was collected which was to be done as per the Assam Minor Minerals Rules of 2013 which however was not collected by the Forest Department and was realized by the Revenue Department. The petitioners were under the bona fide consideration that whoever was the accepting authority as the amount of royalty was to be paid, they were nonetheless paying the same to the Revenue Department. However, the royalty was increased to Rs.25,000.00which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/3536/2002. The aforesaid writ petition was however disposed of vide an order dtd. 7/9/2010 by the Hon'ble Division Bench as there was a consensus that the amount would be reduced to the original amount of Rs.10,000.00. Subsequently, the 2013 Rules came into effect. In accordance thereto, the petitioners had obtained Environmental Clearance Certificate from the concerned Department and there was a requirement to pay forest royalty as per cubic meter in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. It is the contention of the petitioners that the demand of royalty by the Revenue Department is not authorized by law, more so, when they are already paying royalty to the Forest Department.

(3.) I have heard Shri P. J. Saika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri A. Bhattachrjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department and Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel.