JUDGMENT SANJU PANDA, J. : In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.01.2004 passed by the Tahasildar, Kishannagar in Sairat Case No.3 of 2003 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for refund of the amount received by the Tahasildar towards royalty of sand from Eastern India Construction Private Limited, opposite party No.5 for lifting of sand from Thanagada sand quarry which was leased out to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are as follows; Petitioner, the auction holder, being the highest bidder was allowed to lift sand for the year 2003-2004 from Thanagada Mahan¬adi sand source situated in plot No.1, an area of Ac.10.00 out of Ac.195.56 appertaining to khata No.400 of village Kishannagar. The petitioner was permitted to transact business by lifting sand under the provisions of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990. Out of the total quoted tender price of Rs.2,30,000.00, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.20,700/- as security money and on 15.3.2003 he deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. Thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs.41,400/- on 30.3.2003 and a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 27.12.2003. In total he has deposited Rs.1,94,100/- vide Annexure-2 series. 3. While the matter stood thus, opposite party No.3, the Tahasildar, Kishannagar allowed opposite party No.5, Eastern India Construction Private Limited to lift sand from the con¬struction site of river Mahanadi for construction work of H.L. Bridge across river Mahanadi near Kishannagar. Petitioner raised an objection before the Tahasildar on 2.12.2003 regarding lifting of sand by opposite party No.5 on the ground that the area is coming within the sand sairat allotted to him. As the Tahasildar did not take any action, he filed a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.10874 of 2003 which was disposed of on 4.11.2003 with a direction to the Tahasildar, Kishannagar to consider the representation of the petitioner in respect of lift¬ing of sand from sand sairat allotted to him. 4. Thereafter petitioner filed the aforesaid Sairat Case No.3 of 2003 before the Tahasildar, Kishannagar ventilating his grievance that he is entitled to the amount of Rs.50,000/- re¬ceived by the Tahasildar from the construction company as royalty towards sand lifted from the sairat allotted in his favour for the year 2003-04. 4. Thereafter petitioner filed the aforesaid Sairat Case No.3 of 2003 before the Tahasildar, Kishannagar ventilating his grievance that he is entitled to the amount of Rs.50,000/- re¬ceived by the Tahasildar from the construction company as royalty towards sand lifted from the sairat allotted in his favour for the year 2003-04. The Tahasildar heard the petitioner on 2.1.2004 through his counsel and also considered the letter of one Niran¬jan Sahoo the authorized person of Eastern India Construction Private Limited that the said company used sand for the construc¬tion work from the proposed construction site as well as the coarse sand excavated from the wells. On the basis of the R.I. report dated 17.12.2003 & 22.12.2003, the Tahasildar held that the petitioner is not entitled to get back Rs.50,000/- as the construction company was not lifting sand from the area allotted to the petitioner. He further held that auctioned source is about 1/2 k.m. away from the construction site. Therefore, petitioner’s claim for refund of Rs.50,000/- received from the construction company or the same be adjusted towards outstanding amount pay¬able by him (the petitioner) towards quoted tender price has no merit. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Kishannagar rejected Sairat Case No.3 of 2003 filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prior permission of the Government, the Tahasildar cannot allow anybody to lift sand unless the area is declared as a permanent source. The Tahasildar has also not received any per¬mission from the authority to receive the amount of Rs.50,000/- from a private company who has lifted sand from the Thanagada sand quarry area. The Government has not declared any permanent source within 1 k.m. from Thanagada sand quarry. Hence lifting sand from the Thanagada source by the construction company is illegal as the petitioner is the auction holder of the said quarry for the year 2003-2004. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to royalty received from the said private construction company and the same amount may be adjusted towards the payment of outstanding amount payable by him. 6. Opposite party No.3 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 6. Opposite party No.5 has not filed any counter affidavit. The opposite party No.3, the Taha¬sildar has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 6. Opposite party No.3 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 6. Opposite party No.5 has not filed any counter affidavit. The opposite party No.3, the Taha¬sildar has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. He has averred that the Government of Orissa has authorized the Eastern India Construction Private Limited Company to construct the high level bridge across the river Mahanadi at Kishannagar village connecting the village Ratio to facilitate better communication of Mahanadi Chitrotpala delta area. As plenty of sand is available at the construction site and the company has used the same, the construction company has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with opposite party No.3 vide M.R. No.3 of Book No.45 dated 29.3.2003 towards lifting of sand from the construction site and the same has been informed to the Executive Engineer, R&W Division, Nayabazar, Cuttack vide letter No.599 dated 29.3.2003 for necessary adjustment by the Engineer¬ing Department while preparing contractor’s bill keeping in view that the proper account of sand is maintained. The proposed bridge construction site is about 1/2 k.m. distant from the Thanagada sand source auctioned to the petitioner and allegations made by the petitioner are not tenable as the construction compa¬ny has lifted sand from the proposed construction site and not from Thanagada sairat site. He has also filed a sketch map pre¬pared by Amin Sri P. Sahoo showing the area where Construction Company carried out work and the allotted area of the petitioner which is totally different and the distance between the two areas is about 1/2 k.m. Thanagada sand sairat is far away from the construction site. The construction work was going on within the jurisdiction of Kishannagar Tahasil. The Tahasildar has collected the Government revenue on behalf of the State Government from the construction company who has used the sand lifted from the site of the construction area. The Tahasildar has received the royalty on behalf of the Government and there is no bar to collect Gov¬ernment revenue within the area of Kishannagar tahasil. 7. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the assertions made in the counter affidavit. It reveals from the sketch map filed by opposite party No.3 that the construction area and the area allotted to the petitioner in respect of the sand sairat are totally different. 7. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the assertions made in the counter affidavit. It reveals from the sketch map filed by opposite party No.3 that the construction area and the area allotted to the petitioner in respect of the sand sairat are totally different. The construc¬tion company has not lifted sand from the Thanagada permanent source in respect of which the petitioner is the auction holder. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the royalty deposited by the construction company. Hence, he has no right to claim the amount in question received by the Tahasildar nor the same will be adjusted towards the outstanding sum payable by the petitioner for the said sand sairat. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. I. M. QUDDUSI, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.