LAWS(P&H)-1991-1-10

GRAM PANCHAYAT PEER MUSHIALA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 22, 1991
GRAM PANCHAYAT PEER MUSHIALA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Shamlat land of village Peer Mushiala per revenue record of the village, Gram Panchayat has been shown owner in possession of the Shamlat land. The minor mineral, i.e., sand, Bajri and boulders are contained in the said Shamlat land. Respondent No. 3 Savinder Singh has been getting the lease of the said land for the last about 10 years on payment of lease money to the State Government. Under the rules, the owner of the land is paid compensation which is about 1/3rd of the lease money. Respondent No.4 Mr. Suman Singh paid actual compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 to the petitioner i.e., Gram Panchayat Peer Mushiala. The lease of respondent No. 4 expired somewhere in March 1987. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat and its residents took a decision that from April/ May, 1987, onwards, they would get the lease for the extraction of minor mineral from the area of village Peer Mushiala. For that purpose, they approached respondent No. 2 that lease for the extraction of minor, mineral of village Peer Mushiala should be given to the Gram Panchayat on payment of annual lease money. The respondents took a decision to give the mineral right by contract by open auction and issued a notice on 4-9-1987 to that effect, indicating that auction of the mineral rights in various villages in Ropar Sangrur and Patiala including Peer Mushiala in Patiala, district would be held on 12-10-1987 at 11 a.m. at P.W.D. Rest House, Mubarakpur near Dera Bassi in Patiala District, copy of which is Annexure P/1. On the date fixed for auction, respondent No. 3 conveyed the decision to the petitioner that auction of the minor mineral rights of Peer Mushiala will not be held and the minor mineral rights will, be given to respondent No.3 or 4 for 10 Years. The petitioner Gram Panchayat and petitioner No.2. who is right-holder of the village, protested against this action of the Government. They approached the Government of Punjab bringing to his notice that contract of the mining rights of village Peer Mushiala should be given to the Gram Panchayat on Payment of Rs.1,50,000.00- per year and further a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 would be paid to the Gram Panchayat as compensation or mining rights should be given on contract by public auction. Their representation was declined. The petitioners left with no alternative came to this Court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 that the quarry of village Peer Mushiala be given on lease to the petitioner Gram Panchayat on annual lease money of Rs. 2 lacs or in the alternative to grant the contract of the said quarry in open auction as prescribed by the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

(2.) The star argument of Mr. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioners is that once a decision to auction the minor mineral rights was taken by the Government, it had no right to lease out the same through a secret deal to respondent No. 4 who is closely related to some highly influential politicians of the State of Punjab. It was further urged by Mr. Mehtani that though the Panchayat had offered Rs.2 lacs for the said minor mineral rights, yet the said minor mineral rights have been given for a petty amount which has resulted loss to the Panchayat as well as to the Government. In order to fortify his argument, the Counsel relied on Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1147.

(3.) Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that under R.10 of Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') first priority for granting mining lease is to be given to the discoverer of the new minerals, second priority to a person who intends to set up a mineral-based industry in the State and third priority is to be given to a Co-operative Society. It was further urged that as per the said R.10 where two or more persons of the same category have applied for a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application is received earlier shall have a preferential right of the grant of lease over an applicant whose application is received later. Lastly, the learned Counsel argued that there is no violation of any of the provisions contained in the Rules and minor mineral rights have been given according to law.