SHYAM KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition claims to be a raiyat of plot No. 200 (part) under Khata No. 29 of Mouza Kishanpur having an area of about eight acres. He has challenged the legality and validity of Rule 11A of the Bihar Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, which was amended and came into effect from 14-1-1985. Rule 11A of the Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, the settlement of sand as minor mineral will be done by public auction by the Collector to the highest bidder on annual basis. The petitioner is aggrieved only by this part of Rule 11-A, as according to him to the Rule defeats his raiyati interest without compensating him in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the occupant of his aforesaid raiyati land which he has been cultivating for several years. However, at times the land is rendered incapable of cultivation due to floods and consequent deposit of sand. In the year 1977 such a situation arose but he was allowed to remove the sand by the State Government which granted him a lease for three years from 31-8-1977 to 31-8-1980 and thereby enabled him to make his raiyati land cultivable. The land was cultivated by the petitioner from the year 1980 till the year 1987 when the land was again covered with sand on account of flood. There was huge deposit of sand five to seven feet in depth over his land which made it virtually impossible for him to cultivate the land and utilised his raiyati land for agricultural purposes. In view of the amendment to Rule 11A which came into effect from 14th January, 1985 the State Government did not settle the land with the petitioner, but proposed to settle the sand deposited by public auction in accordance with Rule 11A. According to the petitioner, this was in violation of Arts. 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, since it amounted to deprivation of the vested right of the petitioner to cultivate his raiyati land of which he was in occupation and possession. According to the petitioner, if Rule 11A is read de hors the other provisions of the Rules, particularly Rules 27 to 30, it would amount to appropriation of the vested right of the petitioner without compensation. It is emphasised that under sub-rule (4) of a quarrying permit shall, if the lands from which the minor mineral is to be extracted are raiyati lands, be accompanied by a written consent letter from the occupant of such lands to the effect that he has no objection to the extraction of the mineral by the applicant. It is submitted that Rule 2 8 applies to application for quarrying in respect of minor minerals, and there is no reason why the same should not apply to sand. It is submitted that the requirement of the concerned applicant procuring the consent of the occupant sufficiently protects the interest of the occupant of the land over which sand is deposited by the river.

(3.) It is further stated that the auction which was to be held was postponed on different dates, but it is not disputed before us today that the auction was ultimately held and respondent No. 5, who was highest bidder obtained settlement of the sand on the plot in question. It also appears from the order of this Court dated 3-8-1990 that this fact was brought to the notice of this Court, and this Court after hearing the parties directed that neither the settlee (respondent No. 5) nor the petitioner shall remove sand from the raiyati land of the petitioner which is approximately eight acres bearing plot No. 200 (part) appertaining to Khata No. 29 of village Kishanpur. It was further directed that in the event the writ petition failed, the settlee can be compensated by an appropriate order by the Bench hearing this writ petition.It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite the order of this Court dated 3-8-1990 the settlee did carry on quarrying operation and removed the sand from the land in question. Unfortunatley, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5 at the hearing of this writ petitionand, therefore, it is difficult for us to express any opinion in the matter.