1 Court No. - 27 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7934 of 1989 Petitioner :- Sant Ram Verma Respondent :- D.M.Faizabad and Others Petitioner Counsel :- J.C.Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard Mr. J.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred
against the impugned notice dated 24.7.1989, contained in Annexure No.2 to the
writ petition.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on March
27, 1982, an auction was held for seven lots for excavating sand in Tehsil Tanda,
District Faizabad. The petitioner submitted the certificate of solvency to the
amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and being the highest bidder for lot No.4, he was
sanctioned licence for the period of one year commencing 31.3.1983. Being
highest bidder, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.25,050/- on the same
date, i.e. 27.3.1982 which is the half of the total earnest amount of Rs.50,100/-.
After finalisation of lease, the State Government was required to give the
possession of lot No.4 in pursuance to the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the U.P.
Minor Mineral Concession Act, 1963. The State was also required to execute a
lease deed in favour of the petitioner under Section 29 but the same was not done
though the petitioner had submitted stamps worth Rs.2,130/-. The petitioner has
also filed writ petition No.1206 of 1983 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to
direct the State Government for demarcation of the land and give possession for
which he is entitled. By an interim order, the opposite parties were required to
demarcate the land under Rule 17. In spite of the order passed by this Court, it has
been stated that no demarcation was done by the respondents. The writ petition
filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.3.1985 with the finding that since the
period of lease expired, hence it calls for no interference under extraordinary
remedy available under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. A copy of the
judgment and order dated 26.3.1985 has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court has given liberty to the
petitioner to file a Civil Suit for breach of contract and for refund of amount
deposited by him and claim damage.
2
The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that in spite of the fact that the
land was not demarcated and the possession for mining work was not given, by the
impugned notice, the respondents have directed to pay the balance amount. While
filing counter affidavit, it has been stated that since the petitioner has not deposited
the total instalments of royalty before 24.7.1989, hence the impugned notice was
sent to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the amount of Rs.25,050/-. However,
it has nowhere been stated that the respondents have taken steps to execute the lease
deed in favour of the petitioner and also deliver the possession of lot No.4 to
proceed with the mining work. The judgment and order dated 26.3.1985, passed by
the Division Bench of this Court also indicates that at no stage the respondents have
indicated that the demarcation of land in question was done and the possession was
delivered. In view of above, the respondents do not seem to be justified in issuing
the impugned notice for recovery of remaining dues. The respondents have been
failed to discharge their statutory duty to hand over the possession in accordance
with law for mining work though stamp for agreement was deposited.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued
quashing the impugned notice dated 24.7.1989, contained in Annexure No.2 to the
writ petition, with consequential benefits.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 11.1.2010
kkb/