Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 272 (JHR)

Kamal Saw S/o Sri Sukar Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2017-02-09

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred for the following prayers: “That in the instant Writ Petition by way of Public Interest Litigation the Petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate Writ or Writs, direction or directions, order or orders commanding the Concern Respondents to fix rate of Royalty for the Coal extracted by the Land Owners from their own Private land by himself or through any Gram Sabha, within the State of Jharkhand because Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has already held that Land owner are proprietor of minerals obtaining in their land. AND Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/ orders commanding the Concern Respondents to give permission/No objection Certificate to the Gram Sabha of Napokhurd to excavate coal from the land of Khata no. 221 Plot no. 2512 Thana No. 107, area 40 decimal, village Napokhurd, P.O. Golaibalia, P.S. Barkagao, District-Hazaribagh, which is a private land and land owner has already given his consent in this regard and Petitioner has already applied for permission to Concern Authority vide letter dated 15.04.2015 because it will be beneficial for the development of people of the Barkagao Circle.” 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that there are few landlords, who are owners of the land which are mineral rich land and they want to extract the mineral and therefore, they are seeking direction upon the respondent- Government to fix the rate of royalty of coal etc. so that they can extract coal for their personal use. 3. Counsel for the petitioner after canvassing the aforesaid arguments has heavily relied upon a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thressiamma Jacob and Others vs. Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 725 , which is also annexed as Annexure1 to this writ petition and more particularly reliances are placed upon paragraph nos. 57 and 58 thereof. 4. We have perused the memo of this petition and heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. It appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. 57 and 58 thereof. 4. We have perused the memo of this petition and heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. It appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. By no stretch of imagination this can be labelled as a Public Interest Litigation mainly for the reason that the petitioner wants to enjoy his ownership upon the land in the manner in which he like. It is the belief of this petitioner that the land belongs to him and other similarly situated lands are mineral rich land and anybody can extract anything from his land for his personal use. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has argued out that even upon a land containing Uranium, the Government has no right. We are not agreement with this argument. It ought to be kept in mind that the owners of the land are only owners of surface area and not of the mines and minerals situated within the said land. There are several rules and regulations and the Acts controlling such types of mines and minerals. For enjoying the ownership upon the property in question if anybody is objecting, there always the remedy is available to the petitioner either by way of a civil suit in lowest available court as per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to by way of any other recourse available under the revenue or mining laws. Such type of Public Interest Litigation cannot be preferred by this petitioner. Specific instances are must. The rights are bound to be established by this petitioner upon the materials situated in the land of which they are claiming ownership. In the facts of the present case, nobody knows who is the owner of which land and what type of mineral is available. In the facts of the present case, nobody knows whether any application has been preferred by any owner with the Government for permission of extraction of the mines. Nothing has been pointed out whether such type of claim has been rejected by the respondents or not. If such type of claim has been rejected by the Government individual person or citizen has all right to prefer a writ petition or to file a civil suit. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, there is no substance in this Public Interest Litigation and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.