Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 416 (MP)

VANDANA RAJPOOT v. STATE OF Madhya Pradesh

2024-05-10

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, VIVEK RUSIA

body2024
ORDER : (Vivek Rusia, J.) : The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 28-6-2019 (Annexure P/4) and 7-2-2020 (Annexure P/6), both passed by Under Secretary, Mining Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under :— (i) On 18-11-2005, respondent No. 4 Ashok Singh Yadav applied for a grant of a quarry lease of the stone of area 2 hectares for making Gitti by mechanical process i.e. crusher. After considering the application, the competent Authority vide order dt. 25-9-2007 granted the lease of a stone quarry admeasuring 0.75 hectares of land bearing Survey No. 3624/1 situated at Village Billowa, Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior for a period of ten years. (ii) One Kapil Bhalla submitted an application for allotment of quarry lease of area 4 hectares of Survey No. 3624/1 for manufacturing of Gitti through crusher on 8-5-2007. Under Rule 18(2) of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”), the said application was treated as deemed rejected. In letter dt. 5-4-2013, the Collector informed Kapil Bhalla that his application is deemed to have been rejected by virtue of Rule 18(2) of the Rules of 1996. Kapil Bhalla preferred an appeal challenging the communication dated 5-4-2013 before the Director, Mining Department. The appeal was rejected on 26-12-2013 on the ground that Kapil Bhalla did not challenge the order of deemed rejection and letter dt. 5-4-2013 cannot be treated as an order. Thereafter, Kapil Bhalla approached the State Government by filing a revision and vide order dt. 23-7-2016 revision was allowed, order dt. 26-12-2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 3 to decide on the basis of merit. (iii) Virendra Chaurasia and one other filed W. P. No. 6719/2017 challenging the validity of order dt. 23-7-2016. Vide order dt. 17-1-2018, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dt. 23-7-2016 by observing that the Collector: Gwalior would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for grant of quarry lease over the land admeasuring 2.50 hectare available over survey No. 3624/1. (iv) In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Collector forwarded as many as 10 applications received for allotment of various areas of land of survey No. 3624/1 for allotment of quarry lease. (iv) In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Collector forwarded as many as 10 applications received for allotment of various areas of land of survey No. 3624/1 for allotment of quarry lease. In this matter, respondent No. 4 submitted an objection that in the year 2005 he had applied for allotment of 2 hectares of land but due to non availability of land, only 0.750 hectares of land was allotted to him. Therefore, his application is liable to be treated as the first application for allotment of 2 hectares of the land for quarry lease. The aforesaid objection was turned down and vide order dt. 8-3-2019, petitioner Vandana Rajput has been allotted 1.286 hectares of land for quarry lease and 1.214 hectares of land was allotted to Smt. Santo Chaurasiya. (v) Being aggrieved by the order dated 8-3-2019, respondent No. 4 preferred a revision before the State Government and vide order dated 28-6-2019, the State govt. allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 8-3-2019 by remanding the matter back to the Collector to reconsider the applications mainly submitted by respondent No. 4. The petitioner preferred a review petition and the same has been dismissed vide order 7-2-2020. Hence, this present petition before this Court. (vi) After notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed reply justifying the impugned order passed by the State Government and supported the case of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has also filed a reply in support of the impugned order. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner Shri Dudawat argued that respondent No. 4 has no right to file a revision against the order dated 8-3-2019 as he was not the applicant out of the ten applicants whose applications were to be considered by the Director for allotment of quarry lease. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that the allotment of 0.75 hectare of land of Survey No. 3624/1, vide order dated 25-9-2007 had attained finality as respondent No. 4 did not challenge now, he can not pray for allotment of additional land by submitting an objection. The principle of waiver will apply as he waived his right to challenge the order dated 25-9-2007. 4. The principle of waiver will apply as he waived his right to challenge the order dated 25-9-2007. 4. Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that when the application submitted by respondent No. 4 was considered, the Authorities were under the wrong impression that only 0.75 hectare of the land was available whereas respondent No. 4 applied for allotment of 2 hectares of land for quarry lease. Now, the said mistake has been corrected. Hence, no interference is called for. 5. Shri N. K. Gupta learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 contended that when respondent No. 4 applied for 2 hectares of land, the then Tahsildar sent an incorrect report about the availability of 0.75 hectares of land; therefore, respondent No. 4 was allotted the aforesaid area of the land. Vide letter dated 21-1-2019 (Annexure R/4), the Mining officer district Gwalior has clarified that earlier also 2.5 hectares of land were available in Survey No. 3624/1. Therefore, respondent No. 4 has rightly been treated as the first applicant who applied way back in 2005 for the allotment of 2 hectares of quarry lease. Hence, no interference is called for and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 6. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 had applied for grant of quarry lease of 2 hectares of land without mentioning any survey number of any Government land. However, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 considered the application and granted 0.75 hectares of land of Survey No. 3624/1 for a period of 10 years. The quarry lease was allotted to respondent No. 4 by executing an agreement. The period of 10 years has expired. The application which was submitted by respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P/1 on 18-11-2005 was exhausted and cannot be treated as pending for fresh consideration of another part of the land of survey No. 3624/1. Respondent No. 4 ought to have challenged the order dated 25-9-2007 at the relevant point of time that against 2 hectares of land, a lease has been given for only 0.75 hectares of land. Therefore, that order has attained finality. Thereafter, the period of 10 years has already been lapsed. Respondent No. 4 ought to have challenged the order dated 25-9-2007 at the relevant point of time that against 2 hectares of land, a lease has been given for only 0.75 hectares of land. Therefore, that order has attained finality. Thereafter, the period of 10 years has already been lapsed. Therefore, on the basis of this application dated 18-11-2005, respondent No. 4 has wrongly submitted an objection before the Director for allotment of quarry lease. The Director vide order 8-3-2019 has rightly rejected the objection of respondent No. 4. The State Government has wrongly entertained the revision filed by respondent No. 4 and set aside the order dated 8-3-2019. When 10 applications were considered by the Director, no application of respondent No. 4 was pending and the claim based on the application of 2005 is not tenable because that application dated 18-11-2005 had already been considered and the same cannot be treated as pending. 7. Even otherwise, vide order dated 17-1-2018 passed in W. P. No. 6719/2017 while considering the case of Mr. Bhalla, this Court held that by virtue of Rule 18(2) of Rules of 1996, the application submitted by Mr. Bhalla had already stood rejected under the deemed rejection Clause and therefore, the said application cannot be considered and therefore, the State Government has wrongly directed the Collector to consider the said application dated 1-6-2007. Therefore, the same analogy will apply in the present case. The application of respondent No. 4 had already been considered and allotment was made hence cannot be treated as pending; therefore, the impugned orders dated 28-6-2019 (Annexure P/4) and 7-2-2020 (Annexure P/6) both passed by the Under Secretary, Mining Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh are hereby set aside and the order dated 8-3-2019 (Annexure P/3) is hereby restored. 8. Because of the objection submitted by respondent No. 4 in the allotment of the quarry lease, the petitioner could not operate the lease. Not only the petitioner has suffered business loss but the State Government has also suffered loss of rent and royalty. As held above, respondent No. 4 had no right to claim allotment of quarry lease on the basis of application of 2005. No fresh application was submitted by him and he has unnecessarily brought this matter into litigation by filing frivolous objection. Therefore, the State Government, as well as the petitioner, both may claim the damages from him. 9. As held above, respondent No. 4 had no right to claim allotment of quarry lease on the basis of application of 2005. No fresh application was submitted by him and he has unnecessarily brought this matter into litigation by filing frivolous objection. Therefore, the State Government, as well as the petitioner, both may claim the damages from him. 9. In view of the above, the petition is hereby allowed with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable to the petitioner by respondent No. 4.