Netaji Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. v. State of M. P.
2015-10-14
A.M.KHANWILKAR, SANJAY YADAV
body2015
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties on admission. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the State Government dated 27.9.2006 (Annexure P-14) and dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Additional Collector, Bhopal. 2. The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society. The petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Akbarpur on 13.11.2000 for removing Murom (Kopra) and Soil. The Gram Panchayat responded vide communication dated 13.11.2000 (Annexure P-1) as under :- “Ph. : 793158 ^^xzke iapk;r vdcjiqj fodkl [kaM QUnk] ftyk Hkksiky eaxy flag ;kno dk;kZ-% vdcjiqj] dksykj jksM] ljiap Hkksiky ¼e-iz-½ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- fnukad % 13-11-2000 vukifÙk izek.k i= izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd usrkth gkÅflax lkslk;Vh i-g-ua-39 [kljk ua-18@1@2@2@1 jdok 10-86 ,dM+ esa leryhdj.k ds nkSjku tks dksijk ,oa feÍh fudyh gS dksijk@feÍh dh ‘kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr jk;YVh Hkqxrku djus ds mijkUr dksijk@feÍh dgha ys tkus esa xzk-ia- dks dksbZ vkifÙk ugha gSA c’krsZ dksijk@feÍh ys tkus dh vuqefr ftyk iz’kk- }kjk nh tk,A lgh@& ljiap xzke iapk;r vdcjiqj fodkl [k.M QUnk] Hkksiky** 3. The Mining Officer vide order dated 23.11.2000 permitted petitioner-Society to level the land by removing Murom (Kopra) and Soil in land Patwari Halka No.39, Khasra No.18/1/2/2/1, area 10.86 acres and to use it for filling the pits in the same land and in case of surplus, to transport it for specified use with prior permission.
The Mining Officer vide order dated 23.11.2000 permitted petitioner-Society to level the land by removing Murom (Kopra) and Soil in land Patwari Halka No.39, Khasra No.18/1/2/2/1, area 10.86 acres and to use it for filling the pits in the same land and in case of surplus, to transport it for specified use with prior permission. The said communication Annexure P-2 reads thus :- ^^dk;kZy; dysDVj ¼[kfut ‘kk[kk½ Hkksiky Øekad@ @[kfut @2000 Hkksiky] fn- izfr] eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r & QUnk HkksikyA fo”k;%& dksijk@feV~Vh ifjogu dh vuqefr ckor~A ---- ---- ---- mijksDr fo”k;karxZr ys[k gS fd vkosnd ih- jktw] fuoklh& lq[k ‘kkafr vikVZesaV] loZ/keZ dkyksuh] ch lsDVj] dksykj jksM] Hkksiky }kjk vkosnu i= dj fuosnu fd;k gS fd usrkth x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr e;kZ- Hkksiky Hkwfe tks fd xzke&nke[ksM+k ohjku] i-g-ua- 39] [kljk Øekad 18@1@2@2@1] jdok& 10-86 ,dM+ Hkwfe dk leryhdj.k dk dk;Z fn;k x;k gSA mDr leryhdj.k ds dk;Z esa dqN feV~Vh@dksijk ogha x<<ksa dks Hkjus esa mi;ksx gks tk,xh ij vfrfjDr feV~Vh@dksijk Vªdksa ls ckgj ys tkdj Mkyuh gksxhA ftlds fy, ifjogu ds vuqefr dh vko’;drk gSA leryhdj.k ds dk;Z esa vfrfjDr dksijk@feV~Vh Vªdksa ls ckgj ys tkus esa izfr Vªd tks Hkh jk;YVh jkf’k gksxh og tek djus dks rS;kj gwaA e-iz- xkS.k [kfut fu;e& 1996] tks fnukad &1] vizSy 1996 ls ykxw gq, ftlds vuqlkj eqje ¼dksijk½ feV~Vh] iRFkj cksYMj ,oa jsr [kfutksa ds mR[kuu vuqKki= ,oa vLFkkbZ vuqKki= ¼ijfeV½ tkjh djus ds vf/kdkj f=&Lrjh iapk;rksa dks lkSais x;s gSaA vr% vkosnd dk vkosnu i= fnukad&20@11@2000 ,oa ljiap xzke iapk;r vdcjiqjk dk vukifÙk izek.ki= ewyr% layXu dj ys[k gS fd iapk;r dh vk; dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vkosnd ih- jktw dks mDr dk;Z gsrq fu;ekuqlkj vuqefr nsus dk d”V djsa ,oa fudy jgs [kfut ,oa mlds ifjogu gsrq tks jcUuk cqd tkjh dh tk,xh] mldh vfxze jk;YVh jkf’k tek djk,A ,oa vkosnd dks ;g Hkh fnusZ’k nsosa dh [kfut ifjogu fd, tkus okys izR;sd Vªhi esa jcUuk djsaA lgh@& izHkkjh [kfu- vf/kdkjh okLrs dysDVj] Hkksiky i`- Ø 1942@[kfut@2000 Hkksiky fnukad 23-11-2000 izfrfyfi%& ¼1½ ljiap] xzke iapk;r&vdcjiqjk] fodkl [k.M QUnk] Hkksiky dh vksj lwpukFkZA lgh@& izHkkjh [kfu- vf/kdkjh okLrs dysDVj] Hkksiky (Emphasis supplied) 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Fanda, Bhopal vide order dated 23.12.2000 permitted the petitioner to remove the additional Murom (Kopra) and to transport the same.
The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Fanda, Bhopal vide order dated 23.12.2000 permitted the petitioner to remove the additional Murom (Kopra) and to transport the same. The said order, Annexure P-3, reads thus:- dk;kZy; tuin iapk;r QUnk ftyk Hkksiky e-iz- Øekad 2289@iapk@[kfut@2000 Hkksiky fnukad 23&12&2000 vkns'k dk;kZy; dyDVj [kfut ftyk Hkksiky ds i= Ø-1941@[kfut@2000 fnukad 23-11-2000 rFkk bl dk;kZy; ds vkns’k Ø0 2012@[kfut 2000 Hkksiky fn- 23-11-2000 }kjk leryhdj.k [kljk Ø-18&1&2&1 jdck 10-86 laLFkkxr Hkwfe usrkth x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr e;kZ- Hkksiky ds vuqcaf/kr Bsdsnkj Jh ih- jktw Hkksiky dks vfrfjDr dksijk mBkus vLFkkbZ vuqKk vof/k 30 fnu ds fy;s uohuhd`r dh tkrh gSA [kfut ifjogu fd;s tkus okLrs izR;sd fVªi ij jcUuk tkjh djsaA lgh@& i`- Ø----------@iapk @[kfut@ 2000 eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r QUnk Hkksiky izfrfyih % & Hkksiky fnukad 23-12-2000 1 [kfut vf/kdkjh HkksikyA 2- ljiap xzke iapk;r vdcjiqjA 3- lgk;d ys[kkvf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r QUnkA 4- v/;{k usrkth x`-fu-lg-lfefr HkksikyA 5- lacf/kr Jh ih- jktw Hkksiky vkosnd dks lwpukFkZA eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r QUnk HkksikyÞ 5. The petitioner asserts that the permission was valid till September, 2004. At the end of the term of permission, Panchnama was drawn by the local officials on 27.9.2004 which reads thus:- iapukek vkt fnukad 27-9-2004 dks xzke nke[ksM+k ds [k- Øa- 18@1@2@2@1 jdok 10-86 ,dM+ laLFkk usrkth x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr e;kZ- Hkksiky dh futh Hkwfe dk LFky fujh{k.k [kfu- fujh{kd Jh eqerkt [kku rFkk [kfu- losZ;j Jh ,l-,u- JhokLro ,oa [kfu- losZ;j Jh ,e-ds- feJk }kjk fd;k x;k tk¡p ds le; laLFkk ds v/;{k vFkok muds izfrfuf/k ekSds ij mifLFkr ugha ik;s x;sA tk¡p es ik;k fd mDr Hkwfe igkM+huqek gS rFkk ;g LFkku nkful fgYl ls yxk gqvk gSA ekSds ij bl {ks= esa dksijk@eqje dk xM~<k ik;k x;k xM~<s dk uki fd;k x;k tks fuEukuqlkj gS %& yEckbZ 120 ehVj pkSM+kbZ 15 ehVj rFkk vkSlru xgjkbZ 4 ehVj gSA bl xM~<s ls eqje ¼dksijk½ [kfut dh 7200 ?k-eh- ek=k dk mR[kuu gksdj ifjogu gksuk ik;k x;k gSA ekSds ij mR[kuu dk;Z rFkk ifjogu dk dk;Z cUn ik;k x;k tk¡p ds le; dksbZ e’khujh vFkok etnwj ekSds ij ugha ik, x, laLFkk ds v/;{k Jh ,u-Ogh- vkpk;Z gSaA laLFkk dk egkoyh uxj dksykj jksM Hkksiky gS] rFkk v/;{k dk fuokl bZ 7@7 vjsjk dkyksuh Hkksiky gSA mijksDr iapukek fy[kk;k i<+dj lquk le>k lgh ik;k lks gLrk{kj fd,A gLrk@&Þ (Emphasis supplied) 6.
With reference to this Panchnama, report was submitted to the Collector by the Mining Officer on 27.9.2004, Annexure P-6, which reads thus:- izfr] dysDVj] ftyk HkksikyA fo”k; % voS/k [kfut mR[kuu xzke nke[ksM+k] rglhy gqtwj ftyk Hkksiky fnukad 27-9-2004 nksigj 3-00 ctsA esjs }kjk Hkze.k ds nkSjku mDr fnukWad o le; esa xzke ls voS/k [kfut eqje ¼dksijk½ mR[kuu ifjogu djrs ik;k x;k mDr mR[kfudrkZ ls lacaf/kr e0iz0 xkS.k [kfut fu;e 1996 dh /kkjk 53 ds varxZr~ izdj.k dh tkudkjh %& 1¼v½ ml O;fDr dk uke irk tks ekSds ij voS/k [kfut ifjogu dj jgk gSA Jh ,u- usrkth x`g fuekZ.k lg- lfefr e;kZ- Hkksiky }kjk ¼c½ ml O;fDr dk uke irk ftlds }kjk voS/k [kfut dk mR[kuu fd;k tk jgk gS Jh ,u-Ogh-vkpk;Z] v/;{k] bZ 7@7 vjsjk dkyksuh] Hkksiky 2 [kfut ifjogu LFkku dk fooj.k xzke dk uke rglhy [kfut mR[kuu ds LFkku dk losZ ua- {ks= nke[ksM+k] [k-Ø- 18@1@2@2@1 jdok 10-86 ,dM+ 3 vkSlru fdrus le; esa voS/k mR[kuu@ yXkHkx ifjogu fd;k tk jgk gSA ,d lIrkg 4 voS/k [kfut ifjogu dh ek=k ?kuehVj 7]200 ?kuehVj eqje ¼dksijk½ 5 e-iz- xkS.k [kfut fu;e 1996 ds ‘ksM~;wy vuqlkj mR[kuu ifjogu [kfut dh jk;YVh jkf’k 1]08]000 ¾ 00 6 voS/k ifjogu mR[kuu dk cktkj ewY; 5]40]000 ¾ 00 ¼ikap yk[k pkyhl gtkj dsoy½ 7 cktkj ewY; dh nqxquh mR[kuu [kfut dh jkf’kA 10]80]000¾00 ¼nl yk[k vLlh gtkj dsoy½ 8 ifjogu [kfut dk fdl mi;ksx o mís’; ds fy, fd;k x;kA 9 ekSds ij ifjogu [kfut dh ek=k 7]200 ?k-eh- eqje ¼dksijk½ xokg % 1- lgh@ 2- lgh@ lgh@& [kfu- fujh{kd dk;kZy; dysDVj] Hkksiky layXu % 1- LFky iapukek 2- utjh uD’kk izdj.k ewyr% vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq vij dysDVj egksn; dks izsf”kr fd;k tk jgk gSA lgh@& 7.
On receipt of the said report, the Additional Collector issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.10.2004, which reads thus:- U;k;ky; vij dysDVj ftyk Hkksiky ¼e-iz-½ Øekad 08@,&67@04&05@29 Hkksiky] fnukad 15-10-2004 dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= izfr] Jh ,u-Okh- vkpk;Z] v/;{k] usrkth x`g fuekZ.k lg&lfefr] bZ&7@7 vjsjk dkyksuh] HkksikyA fo”k;% xzke nke[ksM+k ds Hkwfe [k-Ø-18@1@2@2@1 ij voS/k mR[kuuA [kfut fujh{kd] Hkksiky }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vkids }kjk xzke nke[ksM+k] rglhy gqtwj ds [k-ua-18@1@2@2@1 jdok 10-86 ,dM+ esa ls yxHkx {ks=Qy 120 ehVj {ks= laLFkk dh Hkwfe ls 7200 ?kuehVj eqje ¼dksijk½ [kfut dk voS/k mR[kuu fd;k x;k gSA vkidk ;g d`R; e-iz-Hkw-jk- lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 247¼7½ ds varxZr~ naMuh; gSA 2- voS/k mR[kfur [kfut 7200 ?kuehVj eqje ¼dksijk½ dh jk;YVh #Ik;s 1]08]000¾00 gksrh gS rFkk bldk cktkj ewY; :-5]40]000¾00 gksrk gSA vr% vkids mDr ÑR; ds fy;s ,rn~ }kjk vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd D;ksa u vkidks cktkj ewY; dh nqxuh jkf’k 10]80]000¾00 ¼#i;s nl yk[k vLlh gtkj½ #i;s vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkosA bl laca/k esa vki viuk mÙkj fnukad 26-10-2004 dks bl U;k;ky; ds le{k Lo;a vFkok vius vfHkHkk”kd ds ek/;e ls izLrqr djsaA vuqifLFkfr dh n’kk esa izdj.k esa ,di{kh; fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA vkt fnukad 15-10-2004 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; dh eqnzk ls tkjh fd;k x;kA lgh@& vij dysDVj Hkksiky lknj fjiksVZ izLrqr Jheku~ [kfut vf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk esjs dks uksfVl rkehyh ds fy;s fn;k Fkk eSa mDr irs ij x;k Fkk ml edku esa jgus okyksa us crk;k gS fd os ;gka ls edku [kkyh djds dksykj jksM ij jgrs gSaA ;gkWa ij fdjk;s ls jgrs FksA blfy, uksfVl rkfey ugha gks ik;k gSA dksykj jksM dk irk ekywe ugha gSA Jheku~ th dks fjiksVZ is’kA lSfud csuh izlkn ua-33 20-10-2004 (Emphasis supplied) 8. The petitioner submitted his response, which, however, did not find favour with the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector concluded on the basis of the Panchnama and other record that the petitioner had extracted 7200 cubic metres of Murom (Kopra) and pit created due to such extraction was to the extent of 120 metres wide and 15 metres deep.
The petitioner submitted his response, which, however, did not find favour with the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector concluded on the basis of the Panchnama and other record that the petitioner had extracted 7200 cubic metres of Murom (Kopra) and pit created due to such extraction was to the extent of 120 metres wide and 15 metres deep. The Additional Collector, therefore, concluded that such extraction was unauthorized and contrary to the restricted permission granted for levelling of the said land; and also transportation of such illegally extracted Murom (Kopra) was unauthorized, for which he invoked provisions of section 247(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and rule 53 of the Mines and Minerals Rules, 1996 – to impose fine twice the amount of the value of the illegally extracted Murom (Kopra). This decision, Annexure P-11, was carried in appeal before the State Government, which has reiterated the view taken by the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision application vide order dated 27.9.2006, Annexure P-14. 9. The first contention canvassed before us is that the Collector misdirected himself in invoking the powers under section 247(7) of the Code as well as rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The two actions pertaining to the same act of commission and omission was not permissible. The argument though attractive, at the first blush, deserves to be stated to be rejected. Indeed, the order passed by the Additional Collector refers to the two provisions as mentioned above. However, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Additional Collector is not the Competent Authority to pass order under the respective provisions. In other words, the Additional Collector was fully competent to pass order under section 247(7) of the Code as also under rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. No provision has been brought to our notice which provides to the contrary. 10. On the other hand, section 247(7) of the Code empowers the Collector so as the rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, to pass order in cases where situation so warrants. For the purposes of the Code as well as the Rules of 1996, Additional Collector is deemed to be discharging the duties of the Collector and is authorized to do so by the State Government. Thus, it would make no difference if the Additional Collector has referred to the relevant provisions in the impugned order.
For the purposes of the Code as well as the Rules of 1996, Additional Collector is deemed to be discharging the duties of the Collector and is authorized to do so by the State Government. Thus, it would make no difference if the Additional Collector has referred to the relevant provisions in the impugned order. 11. It is not in dispute that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner expressly refers to the action to be initiated against the petitioner under section 247(7) of the Code. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order as passed by the Additional Collector could not have been passed under the aforesaid provision. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the order makes no reference to section 247(7) of the Code. Thus, it makes no difference if the show cause notice refers to section 247(7) of the Code, which power in any case has been exercised by the Additional Collector while passing the impugned order dated 28.1.2005 (Annexure P-11). 12. The core question is : whether the Additional Collector in the facts of the present case could have passed the impugned order, for the reasons stated in the impugned order. The argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner had a valid permission for extraction. This argument, however, does not commend to us. The permission as was sought and granted by the Gram Panchayat was only for the restricted purpose. Primarily, the permission was for levelling the land in question. In that, the Mining Officer granted permission for the limited purpose of leveling of land and filling of pits in the said land, out of the Murom (Kopra) and Soil to become available from the same land. It was not a permission for extraction of minor minerals and for commercial use as such, at all. It was for the limited purpose of captive use and for leveling of the land. The Panchnama, however, prepared at the end of the license period, clearly indicates that the extraction was done to the extent of 120 metres wide and 15 metres deep, which means that the petitioner had extracted minor mineral to the extent of 7200 cubic metres for some other purpose than for levelling the land in question. The Panchnama, in no way, supports the case of the petitioner.
The Panchnama, in no way, supports the case of the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that the Panchnama does not mention that the extraction was in progress on the relevant date, also cannot be countenanced because the permission to the petitioner was only for leveling of land by cutting the corners and taking soil for leveling of the pits for captive use. 13. Counsel for the petitioner faintly suggested that the 120 metres wide and 15 metres deep pit was created for providing a septic tank. No such plea was taken earlier, nor can be countenanced. We fail to understand as to why petitioner society would require such a large pit for a septic tank. 14. Suffice it to observe that the Panchnama clearly establishes that extraction of minor mineral has been done not limited for the purpose of leveling of land and filling of the pits in the land for captive use but for other purposes not permitted. That finding of the appropriate authority does not merit interference. The appropriate authority has also determined the quantum of extraction done by the petitioner and has imposed fine on that basis. 15. In our opinion, the show cause notice gives clear indication of the proposed action to be taken against the petitioner. Neither any observation in the Panchnama will be of any avail to the petitioner nor the report submitted by the Mining Inspector, Annexure P-6, which mentions that the extraction work was not in progress for the past week. None of that would make any difference to the finding recorded by the Appropriate Authority. The factual position has been ascertained by the Appropriate Authority and the conclusion reached on that basis, being his subjective satisfaction and upon appreciation of the record - no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction qua that finding is possible. 16. The last question is : whether the fine amount of double the value of the mineral, imposed by the appropriate authority is just and proper. Even on this count, we have no difficulty in rejecting the argument of the petitioner. Inasmuch as, the provisions of the concerned enactment and in particular section 247(7) of the Code providing for fine as applicable at the relevant time, was for double the amount, till amended. Hence, no fault can be found even with that order passed by the authority. 17.
Inasmuch as, the provisions of the concerned enactment and in particular section 247(7) of the Code providing for fine as applicable at the relevant time, was for double the amount, till amended. Hence, no fault can be found even with that order passed by the authority. 17. Taking any view of the matter, this petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. ...............