Tejbali Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3085 Chatt

                                 1




                                                                NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                Order Reserved on : 29.03.2022

                Order Passed on : 28/04/2022
             Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1469 of 2019
1. Tejbali Dhruw S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 66 Years
2. Sourabh Verma S/o Bhorelal Verma, Aged About 41 Years
3. Bhojram Dewangan S/o Jhabbulal Dewangan, Aged About 62
   Years
4. Ramcharan Dhruw S/o Maniram Dhruw, Aged About 26 Years
5. Parasar Verma S/o Shri Bhorelal Verma, Aged About 37 Years
  (All are R/o Village Kukurdih, Tahsil- Balodabazar, District-
  Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh)
                                                       ---- Petitioners


                              Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of
   Revenue, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, P.S.-
   Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda
   Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Ulratech Cement, Ravan, Ravan Cement Works, Grasim Vihar,
   Tahsil Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

5. M/s Ashok Kumar Yadu, Civil & Mining Contractor, Branch Office
   Nayapara, Post Damaru, Tahsil & District- Baloda Bazar-
   Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                  ---- Respondents

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1047 of 2019

1. Tejbali Dhruw S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 66 Years

2. Sourabh Verma S/o Bhorelal Verma, Aged About 41 Years

3. Sanvat Ram Dhurw S/o Tularam Dhruw, Aged About 65 Years

4. Arjun Singh Gond S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 59 Years

5. Parasar Verma S/o Shri Bhorelal Verma, Aged About 37 Years

(All are r/o Village - Kukurdih, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector, Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Ultratech Cement, Ravan, Ravan Cement Works, Grasim Vihar, Tahsil Simga, District- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

5. M/s Ashok Kumar Yadu, Civil & Mining Contractor, Branch Office Nayapara, Post Damaru, Tahsil & District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

& Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1732 of 2019

1. Arjun Singh S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 59 Years

2. Gajra Bai W/o Arjun Singh, Aged About 60 Years

3. Sawat S/o Tularam Gond, Aged About 65 Years

(All are r/o Village- Kukurdih, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh)

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector, Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Ultratech Cement, Ravan, Ravan Cement Works, Grasim Vihar, Tahsil Simga, District- Baoda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

 For State                 :        Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate.
 For Respondent No.04      :        Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant C A V ORDER

28/04/2022

1. All these petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. These Petitions have been brought praying to quash/set aside the

mining lease deed (Annexure-P/1) dated 04.11.2010 granted to

the respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement Ltd.

3. In W.P.(C.) No.1732/2019 and in W.P.(C.) No.1469/2019, the

prayer is made to acquire/set aside the mining lease granted in

favour of respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement Ltd. In W.P.(C.)

No.1047/2019, the prayer is made to acquire/set aside the order

dated 13.09.2018 passed by respondent No.03/S.D.O.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners are the owner of agricultural lands situated in the

respective area from which they are earning their livelihood. It is

submitted that without following any process of law and without

obtaining any consent or approval from the land owners i.e. the

petitioners, the State Government has granted the mining lease

over the lands of the petitioners to respondent No.04/Ultratech

Cement, which is in complete violation of Rule 22 of The Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960. It is submitted that the petitioners raised

their objection and prayed for compensation as per The Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Act, 2013'). The land of the petitioners has not been

acquired regarding which the petitioners made representations on

which no action has been taken till date. Therefore, the mining

lease granted to the respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement is not

sustainable and liable to be quashed. Therefore, it is prayed that

appropriate orders be passed.

5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of M.P. High Court in the case

of Shyam Bihari Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported

in (2008) 4 M.P. L.J. 255, in which it is held that where surface of

the land belongs to some private owner, then the consent is

required to start mining operation. It is submitted that no consent

has been obtained from the petitioners in all the cases. It is further

submitted that in the case of Smt. Anita Agrawal Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and Others in W.P.(C.) No.1649/2017 decided by

the Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2018, notification of the

State Government dated 04.12.2014 was challenged which had

the fixed multiplier of 1.00 (one) in calculating the compensation

for lands situated in rural areas across the State. The Division

Bench of this Court has striked down the notification dated

04.12.2014 (Annexure-P/1). Hence, it is prayed that appropriate

orders be passed.

6. The additional affidavit has been submitted by the petitioners,

mentioning, that some of the petitioners have entered into an

agreement with respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement and on that

basis, the land belonging to those petitioners shall be acquired but

the compensation proposed is minimal, whereas the petitioners

have entitlement to compensation according to the Chhattisgarh

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement and (Determination of Multiplying

Factor in case of Rural Areas) Act, 2019. Hence, it is again prayed

that appropriate directions be issued.

7. Learned State counsel representing respondent No.1 to 3 in all the

cases opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement raises

the ground of maintainability of the petitions submitting that on the

application moved by petitioners and the respondent No.04, the

S.D.O. has initiated a proceeding under Section 247 of The C.G.

Land Revenue Code, 1959, as that petition is pending, the

petitions now filed are infructuous. It is submitted that the State

has the authority to grant mining lease and the same authority has

been exercised. The petitioners who are member of Schedule

Tribe have moved an application before the Collector praying for

permission to sell the land in question regarding which documents

vide Annexure-R4/1 is filed and in the meanwhile, the petitioners

have also executed an agreement in favour of the answering

respondent vide Annexure-R4/2. The petitioners in all the cases

have received advance payment in lieu of the said agreement,

which is mentioned in the agreement itself. It is further submitted

that Section 22(3)(h) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 does not

require consent of the owner in the matter of grant of mining lease

and further, the agreement executed by the petitioners mention

about the consent of the petitioners and it was on this basis, the

mining lease was granted to the answering respondent. It is further

submitted that the lands of the petitioners which may be utilized in

future shall be assessed to compensation and orders shall be

passed in accordance with Section 247(4) of the Rules, 1959 and

also in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013. Therefore, the petitions are not maintainable.

9. Considered on the submissions. As per the facts present, the

respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement has in its favour lease

granted to it by the State Government for mining operations. This

grant of lease is governed by the Mineral Concessions Rules,

1960. The Rule 22(3)(H) of the Rules, 1960 does not require a

consent of the owner of a private land in the matter of grant of

lease by the State Government. The only condition according to

this Rule is this that the lessee shall have to obtain consent of the

owner of land before starting the mining operations. It has been

similarly held in the case of Shyam Bihari Singh (Supra).

10. The submissions of the Respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement has

not been thereby countered by the petitioners' side. It appears to

be clear that the petitioners had agreed to sell their land to the

respondent No.04/Ultratech Cement and also they have received

some amount of the sale price in advance regarding which they

have executed agreements to sell. It is not the statement of the

respondent side that they have purchased the land of the

petitioners by execution of sale deeds or that the land of the

petitioners have been acquired, therefore, in such a case in view

of the provision under Section 247 (4) of Code, 1959 and also the

provisions under the Act, 2013, the petitioners have entitlement for

appropriate compensation. Hence, all these petitions are disposed

off. The respondents in all the cases are directed to file fresh

representations before respondent No.2 and 3 within a time limit of

15 days praying for proper acquisition of their lands for the

purpose of grant of compensation. On filing of such representation,

the respondent No.2 and 3 shall take into consideration these

representations as there is no dispute present regarding the land

belonging to the petitioners having been leased out in favour of the

respondent No.4/Ultratech Cement, therefore, proceeding be

initiated for determination of fair compensation in favour of the

petitioners in accordance with law, if the need be present. The

amount whatsoever if already paid by the respondent

No.4/Ultratech cement to some or any of the petitioners, then the

same shall be adjusted with the compensation, which may be

determined in the future with respect to such petitioners, who have

received such payment.

11. With these observations, all these petitions stand disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Monika