Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 108 (MP)

Dinesh Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2021-02-04

VIVEK RUSIA

body2021
ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. Heard on the question of admission through VC. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 18.1.2021 passed by Additional Collector, Ujjain in a pending proceeding initiated under section 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Facts of the case, in short, are as under: 1. A quarry lease for mining operations (extraction of Gitti and Murum) was granted to the petitioner over an area of one hectare (Survey No. 993/1) in village Bapaiya, Tahsil Mahidpur, District Ujjain (MP) for a period of ten years commencing 05.08.2010 to 04.08.2020. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner that he was carrying out the extraction of mineral illegally outside the grant area and causing loss of revenue to the state Government to the State. After receipt of the complaint, a Joint Committee was constituted headed by Sub-Divisional Officer and on 29.05.2014, an inspection was carried out and a detailed panchnama was prepared in presence of the Supervisor of the petitioner. During the inspection, they found that crushing machine was established by the petitioner outside the grant of quarry area; four pits of illegal extraction of the minor mineral were found; and after measurement, the Authorities have found that the petitioner has illegally extracted 57,812 cubic meter Murum and 2,56,676 cubic meter Gitti from the area other than the leased out area. 2. Therefore proceedings were initiated against him under Section 247(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the same Sub Divisional Officer who headed the inspection team. After issuing show cause notice dated 10.06.2016, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer on 20.06.2014. The petitioner filed a reply on 11.07.2014 and additional replies on 18.07.2014 and 21.08.2014. The statement of witnesses Mining Officer, Ujjain, two Patwaries and Revenue Inspector were recorded and these witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner's counsel; and thereafter, statement of the petitioner and his witnesses viz Mangilal s/o Tejaji, Thavarlal s/o Ratanji, Shiv s/o Induji and Manoj s/o Rameshchandra Jain were recorded. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mahidpur, District Ujjain passed a final order on 19.02.2016 imposing fine upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 30,29,25,600/-. 3. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain preferred against the above order was dismissed. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mahidpur, District Ujjain passed a final order on 19.02.2016 imposing fine upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 30,29,25,600/-. 3. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain preferred against the above order was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior was also dismissed on 25.04.2017. The aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 3056/2017 before this court, in which interim orders dated 09.05.2017 and 15.03.2015, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount quantified by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 19.02.2016. The petitioner challenged the above interim order by filing Writ Appeal No. 819/2018; and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2018 modified the order passed by the learned Writ Court and directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount quantified by the Sub Divisional Officer within a period of four weeks from the date of order dated 27.06.2018; and in case, such an amount is deposited by the petitioner, then no coercive action against him shall be taken by the respondents. 4. It is important to mention here that the order passed by the writ court as well as by Division Bench of this Court in an intra court appeal on 27.06.2018 has not been complied with by the petitioner. By that time the writ court has finally allowed the writ petition by remanding the matter back to the additional collector to decide afresh in accordance with the law with an additional direction to deposit 20% of the 20% of the amount quantified by the Sub-Divisional Officer as directed by the Division Bench in writ appeal No 819/2018. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the Writ Court, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 1233/2018 challenging only the condition of deposit of 20% of the amount under-recovery. Vide order dated 20.9.2018 the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India by way of Civil Appeal No. 9287/2019 (arising out of SLP No. 28983/2018). Vide order dated 20.9.2018 the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India by way of Civil Appeal No. 9287/2019 (arising out of SLP No. 28983/2018). Vide order dated 9.12.2019 the Hon'ble Apex court has set aside the order passed by the Division Bench passed in WRIT APPEAL No 1233/2018 and allowed the appeal by directing the petitioner to deposit such amount as may be directed by the Recovery Officer, if a fresh demand for recovery is issued against him. 6. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the Writ Court dated 17.7.2018, in writ petition No. 3056/2017 the Additional Collector has started the proceedings in Case No. 0004/A-67/2020-21. In the said proceedings, Mining Officer, Ujjain has submitted the point-wise reply No. 362/Khanij/2019-20 dated 10.2.2020 but titled as "inquiry report". Thereafter, another so-called inquiry report No. 363/Khanij/2019-20 dated 10.2.2020 has been filed. 7. The petitioner has filed an application before the Additional Collector seeking compliance of the mandate of the judgment dated 17.7.2018 passed by the Writ Court. The prayer in the said application is reproduced below: "PRAYER: In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Court may: A. Keep in abeyance the current proceedings that are pending before this Court; B. Issue directions to conduct de novo/fresh investigation in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition (Civil) bearing No. 3056/2017 dated 17.07.2018; and C. Pass any other order/orders that this Court may deem fit in the interest of justice." Vide impugned order dated 18.1.2021, learned Additional Collector has dismissed the application, hence the present writ petition before this Court. 8. 8. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Writ Court while quashing (i) the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 19.2.2016; (ii) order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner; and (iii) order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue, has observed in Para 17 of the judgment that in view of the foregoing discussion, the entire proceedings cannot be sustained in the eye of law and in Para 20 has observed that in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the authority to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed the application seeking de novo/fresh investigation in the matter and till then the proceedings before the Additional Collector be kept in abeyance. But the learned Additional Collector has wrongly dismissed the application observing that he is only required to pass the final order after hearing the parties. Learned senior counsel further submits that the Additional Collector has observed that on 15.2.2020 the investigation report has again been submitted, but the said investigation report has been submitted without carrying out any spot inspection or any inquiry. Hence, the impugned order be quashed and the proceedings before the Additional Collector be stayed. 9. By order dated 19.2.2016 the Sub Divisional Officer in the exercise of powers conferred u/s. 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code imposed the fine upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 30,29,25,600/-. Against the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal u/s. 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 which stood dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 18.11.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue by way of Second Appeal u/s. 44(2) of the MPLRC which has also been dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2017. Against the aforesaid orders, W.P. No. 3056/2017 was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed vide order dated 17.7.2018, mainly on the ground that the Sub Divisional Officer who conducted the inspection, prepared the 'Panchnama' and registered the case against the petitioner by issuing the show cause notice, ought not to have decided the proceedings u/s. 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 as a quasi-judicial authority. Hence, this Court has held that the entire proceedings u/s. 247(7) of the MPLRC cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Looking to the seriousness and quantum of the revenue involved in this case, this Court has directed Collector, Ujjain to conduct the proceedings u/s. 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 or he may direct the Additional Collector to conduct the proceedings because the Sub Divisional Officer was the head of the inspection team and has signed the 'Panchnama'. This Court did not quash the entire proceedings i.e. search, spot inspection, 'Panchnama', investigation report, etc. This Court has only quashed the quasi-judicial proceedings of the Sub Divisional Officer u/s. 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and remanded the matter back to the Collector to decide afresh. 10. After the decision by the Apex Court on 9.12.2019 in this matter, the Additional Collector has re-started the proceedings and directed the Mining Officer to submit the para-wise reply, but the same has wrongly been titled as "investigation report". Now the Collector/Additional Collector is to pass an order u/s. 247(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 which was earlier passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. No fresh investigation is required in compliance of the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the writ court in W.P. No. 3056/2017, No search, spot inspection, 'Panchnama' on the spot can be prepared after laps of 3 to 4 years. The petitioner somehow wants to keep the matter into the litigation in order to avoid the huge amount of penalty, hence the application filed by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and the Additional Collector has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.