Uttarakhand High Court
Ramesh Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 30 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2020
Ramesh Lal .........Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. .......Respondents
Present:
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Rawat, the learned Special Senior Counsel with Mr.
Pradeep Joshi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Manish Lohani, the learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the impleaded
respondents.
Date of hearing : 30.03.2022
Coram: Sri S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
Sri R.C. Khulbe, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the
following judgment: (Per: Sri S.K.Mishra, ACJ.)
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ (PIL), the petitioner has prayed for the
following relief:-
i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the notification dated
05.05.2020 to the extent where amendment in
Section 23 of Uttarakhand Mines and Mineral Rules
and Regulation, 2001 has been added as clause 1(ka)
in which permission for picking up of mining
material from private naap land of individuals is to
be given..
ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondent not to grant any lease/pattas to
private persons for extraction of RBM from their
agricultural/revenue lands situation on the banks
of rivers throughout the State of Uttarakhand.
iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and directing the
respondents to constitute a monitoring Committee
to prevent illegal mining activities in the bed of river
Kosi and other rivers of the State of Uttarakhand."
3. The controversy mainly arose because of silting of
private land, which, as per the revenue laws of the
State of Uttarakhand known as Bhumidhari land on
which the persons recorded have tenancy or occupancy
right under the State of Uttarakhand. At times of heavy
flood in the rivers of State of Uttarakhand because of
the geological character, lands lying on the banks of
river, on both the sides get silted. Such silting causes
heavy loss to the agriculturist who happened to be
Bhumidhar of such land. It has also ecological hazards.
So the State Government was previously putting the
task of lifting of silt (sand, bajri, stone etc.) from the
Bhumidhari land to third persons by E-auction.
However, the State Government took a compassionate
view of the matter and allowed the private person, who
own the bhumidhar land to remove the silt from their
land and sell it in the open market subject to condition
that they were required to pay 7% on the silt proceed
as royalty to the State Government. The cause of
action for the present writ petition arose when the
State Government issued through its vkS|ksfxd fodkl ¼[kuu½
vuqHkkx&1 la[;k% [email protected]/2020/31[[email protected] Vhlh on 05.05.2020
whereby the following amendment was introduced:
fcUnq 11 dk la'kks/ku% mRrjk[k.M mi[kfut ¼ckyw ctjh cksYMj½ pqxku uhrh 2016
esa uhpw LrEHk&1 esa fn;s x;s orZeku fcUnq 11 ds mi fcUnq ¼x½ ds LFkku ij
LrEHk&2 esa fn;k x;k fu;e j[k fn;k tk;sxk vFkkZr%
LrEHk&1 LrEHk&2
orZeku fu;e ,rn}kjk izfrLFkkfir fu;e
¼x½ futh uki Hkwfe esa pqxku dh ¼x½ unh ry ls yxh futh uki Hkwfe esa
vo/kh%& 01 o"kZA pqxku iV~Vs dh vo/kh%& 05 o"kZA
ijUrq iwoZ ls Lohd`r futh uki ijUrq iwoZ ls Lohd`r futh uki
Hkwfe ds iVVs Lohd`r vof/k rd pyrs Hkwfe ds iV~Vs Lohd`r vo/kh rd pyrs
jgsaxsA jgsaxsA
4. Thus, by change of this policy a bhumidhar has
now become entitled to have a license of picking the silt
from his land for five years whereas as per the earlier
rule it was only for one year. But as per the same
notification in Point No. 10 it is said that as per the
2006 notification after taking permission from the
Environment Department a license was granted for
picking of stone etc., from bhumidhari land from 01
October to 30 June.
5. Learned Special Senior Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand also submits that such is the practise
going on right now only in cases where silting is so
heavy and it cannot be lifted within a period stipulated.
As special case certain extension of time is granted.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.R.S. Gill
submitted that in the garb of removing silt from
bhumidhari land, unscrupulous land holders or tenure
holders are indulging in mining sand, bajri, stone etc.,
from the river bed. He also point out certain
contradiction in the affidavit filed by the State
Government and District Magistrate.
7. Be that as it may, we hereby dispose of the writ
application by reading down the amendment appearing
in Column No. 2 of point no. 11 appearing at page 77 of
the brief to limit the license to lift silt from bhumidhari
land from 01 October to 30 June and not beyond that.
Only in exceptional cases, on taking appropriate
intelligence and information in writing, the concerned
District Magistrate may extend the time limit by
another three months but not beyond six months in
total. And we further direct that no mining activity, in
the garb of removing silt from the bhumidhari land, be
allowed in favour of any person from river bed of any
river of the State of Uttarakhand.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.)
PV
