SHANKAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY GOVT OF JHARKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order, dated 22nd February, 2010 (Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition), passed in Revision Case No. 101 of 2008 by the Mines Commissioner, whereby it has been directed that the lease granted in favour of Rajendra Yadav, s/o Shukar Yadav, is without any merit and there was no consent on the date given by the occupier of the land. Mines Commissioner has stated that respondent No. 5 is the occupier of land in question.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact Mines Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority to pass the impugned order, dated 22nd February, 2010, at Annexure-4, mainly for the reason that already a sale-deed has been executed by respondent No. 5, dated 23rd July, 2002, which is a registered document, in favour of the present petitioner. Therefore, if lease is to be given to anyone, then consent of the owner is required under the existing laws and therefore, when one Shri Rajendra Yadav (son of Shukar Yadav) applied for mining lease, the present petitioner, who is the owner of the property in question, has given consent. Thereafter, respondent No. 5, inspite of the fact that he sold the property in question, claimed ownership and applied to District Mines Officer on 30th August, 2005 objecting grant of lease. Despite this objection and considering all relevant aspect of the matter, ultimately, mining lease was granted on 12th January, 2006 by the Government to one Shri Rajendra Yadav. It further appears that thereafter revision application, being Revision Application No. 31 of 2006, was preferred by respondent No. 5 before the Mines Commissioner and the Mines Commissioner passed order, dated 2nd May, 2008, in which a direction was given to the concerned Dy. Commissioner of the district to hold prima facie enquiry about the alleged ownership of the petitioner as well as of the respondent No. 5. Upon a detailed enquiry conducted by the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district, an order was given, which is dated 6th August, 2008 and a copy of this order is annexed as Annexure-6 to the memo of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5696 of 2010 (filed by respondent No. 5 of the present case). This writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5696 of 2010 is withdrawn today by Counsel for the petitioner of the said writ petition.

(3.) Against order dated 6th August, 2008, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, a second round of litigation was started by respondent No. 5. before Revenue authorities. Again an application was preferred by respondent No. 5 before the Mines Commissioner. This time, ground taken by respondent No. 5 is altogether a different ground than what was already taken before the District Mines Officer on 30th August, 2005. Previously, respondent No. 5 was claiming ownership despite sale of the property in question to the petitioner by registered sale-deed dated 23rd July, 2002 and now fresh claim is made before Mines Commissioner that he is the possessor of the property in question because revenue receipts are in the name of respondent No. 5 and some so-called revenue entries are in favour of respondent No. 5. It is further submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that neither old ground nor the two new grounds are helpful to respondent 5. Nonetheless, impugned order, dated 22nd February, 2011 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was passed by the Mines Commissioner, whereby it has been held that consent given by petitioner to the lessee (Rajendra Yadav, s/o of Shukar Yadav) was illegal. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, it is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that on more than one occasion, different title suits have been filed by respondent No. 5.