JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Singh Parihar, learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. This review application has been filed for reviewing the judgement and order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Writ - C No. 37749 of 2019, Vinay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, wherein the Division Bench had proceeded to allow the petition with following observations/directions : 1. The prayer made in the present petition is for direction to the respondents to refund the amount of 726,65,66,666/- along with interest deposited by the petitioner as the State after awarding the mining lease to the petitioner had not been able to earmark the site and hand over the possession to enable the petitioner to carry out mining operations. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a mining lease for total area of 25 hectares in parts of Khasra/Gata No.05 & 09 situated in village-Bilharka, Tehsil-Naraini, District-Banda was executed in favour of the petitioner by the State on February 13, 2019 for carrying out excavation of 5,00,000 cubic meter of sand at the rate of 7527/- per cubic meter for a period of five years on payment of royalty of 726,35,00,000/- for the first year and for subsequent years, with 10% annual increase. 3. When the petitioner reached at the spot to start mining operations, he was not permitted to do so by the authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh as some part of leased area was found to be within the State of M.P. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed representation dated February 23, 2019 before District Magistrate, Banda, however, no action was taken thereon. He moved another representation dated March 18, 2019 to the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P. Despite the representations made by the petitioner, demand notice dated April 3, 2019 for a sum of T6,58,25,000/- towards next installment of royalty was issued. Thereafter again, the petitioner moved representation dated April 5, 2019 addressed to the District Magistrate, Banda as well as the Director, Geology and Mining. Another representation dated April 15, 2019 addressed to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. was also submitted. Thereafter again, the petitioner moved representation dated April 5, 2019 addressed to the District Magistrate, Banda as well as the Director, Geology and Mining. Another representation dated April 15, 2019 addressed to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. was also submitted. Owing to inaction on part of the State, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ C No. 18794 of 2019 with the following prayers :- "(i) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the State Government U.P., alongwith the State of M.P. settle the boundary dispute in Ken River in Village Bilharka, Tahsil Naraini, District Banda U.P. either through Round Table conference or G.P.S. Survey Methodology and permitting the petitioner to carry mining work in the allotted lease area without illegal interference by State of M.P. (ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents permitting the petitioner to start mining operation in his allotted mining area within map and further directing the State of U.P. till the State of U.P. is not able to settle the dispute with State of M.P., where the boundary dispute is created and the petitioner is not permitted to carry mining operation, the State of U.P. be restrained to realize installment, due Royalty amount and further realization of Royalty and future installment be suspended till petitioner is not permitted to carry mining operation or till the boundary dispute is settled, whichever is earlier. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the respondents State of U.P. and its subordinate officials (respondent No.1 to 5) either get the area released from the State of M.P. and hand over to the petitioner or return the entire deposited money by the petitioner with 9% interest." 4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated July 18, 2019 directing the State to resolve the dispute with reference to the letter dated July 15, 2019 sent by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. addressed to Director, Geology and Mining, U.P. vide which request was made for stopping the mining operations till boundary dispute of the area in question is resolved. 5. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to refund money of security deposited by the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 19 SCC 241 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the order dated July 18, 2019 was passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, a communication dated December 26, 2019 was sent by the District Magistrate, Banda, U.P. to the Collector, Chatarpur, M.P. requesting him to constitute a joint inspection team consisting of Sub Divisional Magistrate of concerned Tehsil, Police and Mining Departments for joint inspection/measurement of the disputed area and fix a date for inspection, so that the Sub Divisional Magistrate of concerned Tehsil as well as the officials of Police and Mining Departments of State of U.P. may remain present at the spot on the said date along with the relevant records for joint demarcation. However, no response was received thereto. Thereafter, vide order dated March 21, 2020, District Magistrate, Banda granted permission for carrying out mining operations in the undisputed area of the land leased out to the petitioner in terms of the government letter dated March 17, 2020. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the amount deposited. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the present writ petition deserved to be allowed. 8. It is a case where undisputedly on February 13, 2019, the petitioner was granted lease for excavation of minor minerals in the area which was at interstate boundary of the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The dispute could not be resolved which was even realized by the authorities of the State and vide communication dated July 15, 2019, a request was made for stopping the mining operations on the disputed area till resolution of the dispute. The dispute could not be resolved which was even realized by the authorities of the State and vide communication dated July 15, 2019, a request was made for stopping the mining operations on the disputed area till resolution of the dispute. Prior to issuance of aforesaid letter, the petitioner has filed Writ C No. 18794 of 2019 praying for a direction on the State Governments of U.P. and M.P. to settle the boundary dispute in Ken River in Village Bilharka, Tahsil Naraini, District Banda U.P. either through Round Table conference or G.P.S. Survey Methodology and permit the petitioner to carry mining work in the allotted leased area without illegal interference by State of M.P. He prayed for further direction to the respondents to suspend realization of the due installments in connection with the mining lease granted in his favour, till the boundary dispute with State of M.P. is settled and the petitioner is permitted to carry out mining operations. Prayer was also made for directing the respondents to either get the area released from the State of M.P. and hand over the same to the petitioner or return the entire deposited money by the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum. 9. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court vide order dated July 18, 2019 directed the State to resolve the dispute with reference to the letter dated July 15, 2019. It is thereafter that the communication dated December 26, 2019 was sent by the District Magistrate, Banda, U.P. to the Collector, Chatarpur, M.P. with a request to constitute a team of concerned official for conducting joint inspection/measurement of the disputed area. However, when no response was received thereto, vide order dated March 21, 2020, District Magistrate, Banda granted permission for carrying out mining operations in the undisputed area of the land leased out to the petitioner in terms of the government letter dated March 17, 2020. 10. This Court passed following order on February 8, 2021 : "Learned Standing Counsel prays and is granted a week's time to sort out the issue in regard to the boundaries of mining lease area. The dispute lies between the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Madhya Pradesh regarding their boundaries and thus mining operation is not being permitted for the area of lease. The dispute lies between the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Madhya Pradesh regarding their boundaries and thus mining operation is not being permitted for the area of lease. Let the District Magistrate concerned come out with the demarcation of area before next date of hearing on which the petitioner can carry on the mining operation without interference of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Let this petition be listed on 9th of March, 2021, The recovery has already been stayed by the State Government, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents herein." 11. After the aforesaid order was passed, a supplementary affidavit dated February 18, 2021 has been filed by the petitioner wherein it is stated that on February 9, 2021 District Magistrate, Banda issued a letter to the concerned authorities to ensure submission of a clear cut map along with joint demarcation report, after conducting demarcation of the area, which is not in dispute with the State of M.P., on February 15, 2021 at 10.00 AM. The stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit is that the undisputed area is full of pebbles, small particles of boulders and rocks and there is no sign of sand, hence, mining operation cannot be carried out there. 12. The stand taken by the respondents seems to be that the petitioner was allowed to carry out excavation of minor minerals in the undisputed area out of total area of 25 hectares, which itself establishes that the interstate boundary dispute was not resolved. Besides this, nothing has been pointed out from the record that possession of aforesaid undisputed area was handed over to the petitioner. However, the petitioner may have opted for taking lease of a particular plot for carrying out excavation of minor minerals keeping in view the total plot and the availability of minor minerals therein, which may or may not be commercially viable for a part of the area. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the respondents having failed to hand over the possession of the area allotted to the petitioner for carrying out excavation of minor minerals, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited for the purpose along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit of the said amount till the date it is refunded. The needful shall be done by the authorities concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order In case, the amount is not refunded within the prescribed period, any interest payable to the petitioner thereafter, shall be the responsibility of the officer(s)/official(s), who may be responsible for delay in compliance of the order. 14. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 3. The present recall application is preferred on the ground that there is admittedly error apparent on the face of the record, as it is claimed the petitioner continued mining operation after execution of the mining lease on 13.02.2019 and generated transit pass EMM-11 from 15.02.2019 to 26.05.2019 for transportation of excavated minor mineral sand/morum from the mining area allotted to him and excavated a total of 22,820 cubic meters of sand/morum in the said period. 4. So far as the factual aspect of the matter, the same is not disputed by Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Singh Parihar, learned Counsel, because the quantity is already quantified by the respondents. The endeavour of the petitioner is to get return of amount for the said period with effect from 15.02.2019 till 26.05.2019. The total excavated sand/morum may be deducted and accordingly, the rest amount may be paid with interest. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, as it is apparent from the face of record, we accordingly modify the order dated 30.09.2022 to the effect that the opposite party would be a liberty to deduct the amount from the total outstanding amount to the effect of total excavated sand/morun of 22,820 cubic meters, as it is alleged the same has been excavated by the petitioner with effect from 15.02.2019 to 26.05.2019 and accordingly, the rest of amount along with requisite interest may be returned. 6. Accordingly, the review application is allowed in part.