Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/190/2022 on 2 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2022
2nd JANUARY, 2023
Between:
Anuvrat Verma ...... Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari and
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned
counsels
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
Counsel for the State / respondent
Nos. 1 to 3
: Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No. 4
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
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 Verma Vs State of
Uttarakhand and others.
2
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.
3
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) 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
4
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.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 2nd JANUARY, 2023
Negi
