Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 5 (UTT)

Anuvrat Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-02

R.C.KHULBE, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.05.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order granted in favour of the appellant, who is the writ petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 340 of 2022, titled Anuvrat 0Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. The impugned order has been passed in the said writ petition, as well as in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 678 of 2022, preferred by Arjun Singh, who was impleaded as a private respondent in the writ petition preferred by the appellant Anuvrat Verma, and is respondent No. 4 in the present appeal. 3. The appellant is the owner of bhumidhari land used for agricultural purposes. With a view to exploit the mineral, i.e., RBM, which is State property, on the bhumidhari land of the appellant, the State granted a mining lease to respondent No. 4. The said grant of lease was assailed by the appellant by preferring Writ Petition (M/S) No. 340 of 2022. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 678 of 2022, to enforce his rights under the mining lease. 4. Initially, the learned Single Judge granted stay in favour of the appellant in his writ petition, to restrain the respondents from carrying out mining activity on his bhumidhari land. By the impugned order, that stay has been vacated. The appellant is aggrieved by the said vacation of stay. 5. The petitions involve consideration of issues with regard to the inter se rights of the bhumidhar, the State, and the mining lessee. These issues require to be resolved once and for all, as they are likely to crop up in similar cases. We are informed that respondent No. 4 has not yet commenced mining activity on the bhumidhari land of the appellant, even though the stay was vacated on 24.05.2022. 6. We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of this appeal with a request to the learned Single Judge to hear and finally decide the writ petition preferred by the appellant, as well as by the respondent No. 4 on an early date, and preferably in the next four months. Neither party shall seek, or be granted undue adjournments. 7. The appellant has moved an amendment application in the writ petition. The respondents were granted time to file their objections. However, none has been filed. 8. Neither party shall seek, or be granted undue adjournments. 7. The appellant has moved an amendment application in the writ petition. The respondents were granted time to file their objections. However, none has been filed. 8. Counsel for the respondents state that the amendment sought by the appellant in the writ petition may be allowed. We, accordingly, allow the same. The appellant shall file the amended petition within one week with copy to the counsel for the respondents, who may file the amended counter-affidavits within three weeks. 9. List the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge for hearing on 14.02.2023. Till the disposal of the writ petitions, status quo shall be maintained by the parties.