JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the short reply filed by respondent No.6, he seeks no relief against respondent No.6 and therefore, he prays for deletion of the name of respondent No.6 from array of parties and seeks time to implead the effected person. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the Memo of Parties.

(2.) Short reply dated 9.10.2020 by way of affidavit of Om Dutt, Mining Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Panchkula, Haryana, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the same is taken on record. This petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the land in dispute is owned by them and the same is being claimed by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat of Village Shamtoo. It is further averred that the proceedings under Section 13 A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act are pending wherein the petitioners and others land owners have agitated this claim and those cases are still not decided. It has further averred that during the pendency of the said cases the Government-respondents No.1 to 4 have proceeded to open the land in dispute for mining and the prayer made is that the mining should be restrained till such time the title suits are decided. Further, the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land and it had been so their forefather.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondents No. 1 to 4 is that regardless of who the owner of the land is, the Government have the sovereign and pre-emptory right to extract minerals and the only benefit which any land owner can seek is to get the compensation which may be determined under Rules 65 of Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Mineral and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012.