ss-s^:. IN THE HIBH CCURT OF JUDICATURE AT JAB WRIT PETITION Na ^11 JWRIT PETITION UNDER ftRTICLE Z26/2Z7 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIfi) PETITIONERs KHEMLftL VERMft 3/0 RIKHIRftM VERMft -< ftged about: 31 years, Residsnt of ' village-Baikunth, Tahsil-Tilda, Di.stricibii Raipur (MP). //Versus// j'^Sl. Ths State o-f Madhya Pradesh, through S<cretary, Minaral Resources Department, Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPfiL (MP). 2. The Collector, Raipur (MP). 3. The Deputy Collectar,Raipur .S 4. The Mining Officer, Raipur \I. , ^'ao.\ SK'Bhanaran S/Q Sanaru Yadav, ^iged about 32 years, resident of village-Bitkuli,Tahsil-S; Distt. Raipur (MP). Bisram S/o S/Q Samaru Yadav, ^tged about 45 years, resident af village-Bitkuli,Tahsil-Si(Bgai Distt. Raipur (MP). IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32&/227 OF THE CONSTITUTigM QN_INOm ^ ^ °^^'-?;: -^ . , T XI-HC-22 •g^ .^i<iicf4, ^TfltiJlfi,T°i<?ii^y *111CTI Sh*<l<*l 3Tl^r •q^T CO' P.MO S'l+^t 1^^ w" ft^I' 311^'CT^iI h-U'h SIRS^I sfi^i^ ^if^a 311^1 WffWdte •<iW[cl''il-< lllcff'^'fS'Zt t&l<$lt ^ diPdti sn^r ' Shri Ashish Shrivastava, col Shri Sanjay S Aganval, Govtj uisel for the petitioner, Adv. foi- the State. Shri Alok Sur, counsel for i^spondent No. 5 & 6. The. petitioner has prefen^l 226/227 of tlie Constitution of U dated 25,11.1999 (Amiexure Secretar;/, Mining Departnient < cancelled ttie lease dated 12.2. 1 ftus writ petition under Afticle tdia benig aggrieved by the order P-20) whereby the Additional |>f erstwhile State of M.P. had |1997 granted in favour of fhe petitioner on ttie gix»iuid that on a^t enquity by the CoUector, Raipur it was found that fhe petitioner pier-ein. obtained fhe lease on the strength of forged conseiit letter s|iown to be issued by reBpoudent No.5 & 6. Petitioner's •Detition is fhdt applied for grant of license for sa^ beariilg Khasra No.402/11 & 4C Tahsil Siiaga, District Raipur for i t on 22.2.1989, fhe petitioner area adineasurmg 2.42 hectares {•' >2/12 situate^at Village Bifkuli, ^xtraction of niajor irunerals. On the appUcation of fhe petitioacr opijcctions werc tavitcd by issuuig aotice-dated 08.3.1999 (Aanex(u-e P-l). AI1 tlie concemed authorities grauted no objectio; [1 certificate ia favour of fhe peti.tioa.er, respondent No.5 &, 6, wjio are the lessees ofthe land also granted no objection certificate by 06.12.1989 with the petitioHcr, whi The fh.cn State Goverrunent the license ia favour of the peti.ti( ineasuring 0.737 hectares by order lentering info 011 agreeinent dated fch was duly notarized, ^fter luaking due enquuy granted (ner hereiu ia respect of au area •1-dated 22.4.1991 (Aimexure P-4), fi .%^fa^ XI-HC-22 sii^rqff ft;ti.q> WI^U sh+ilcn tflea .((&^y •S^ -S|l't)l<yiq. ^Til'M'i^t'Ktltty IIICTI g>*ii<*> sf^t ii;ra? .....^^ ""^ 2U9 Rl'bciiil' 311^1 ^MW Ufttt --Z. iiceilise pe|-iod tattun theresafter, on 27.12.1991 a Ucei of tbe petitioner and since fbei^ stones T.vifhout any tntervention On expiry of the said lease obj'ections on 06.11.1992, tli| objection certi&cate froui respon( Aaiiexure P-8 & 9. In the ineaiitimc, rcspond^ the authorities regardtng ob1 petitioiier. The Collector (Mmm( coiuplaiut aud asked the police aud report its outcoine to the Mi thc mattcr could be takcn. Tht investigation and found the complaint ofrespondent No.5 & TehsUdar, Suliela, who also fduni| & 6 to be baseless. Thereafter, a regular lease dced in Fonn-K the arca ia question on lease for petitiouer is canying on fhe mir^ out to him aud payiug royalty aai^ It was further case of the v ncver inadc any coinplaiat with which was given by theia in fUed a petition before fhe Honlai No.3669/97. In that petition th( COIB. favotr •tfr[^^i.4^f! *tf*wi?'^fsll<3ii •^I'^K ^ ^fpa^ ^^ in Fona-F was issued in favour the petitioner was extracting the ou behaJf of respondent No.5 & 6. the authorities agam invited petitioner agam. submitted no lent No.5 & 6 on 20.10.1993 vide 6 madc a coinplaint to otl |nt No.5 of forged agreem.ent by the OfHcer) made an enquity into tlie [ufhorities to niake an uivestigation tiug office, so ffaat furfher action iu police authorities conducted aa liplaint to be baseless. The said was also iavestigated by tlie Naib fhe coinplaint ofrespondent No.5 27.6,1997 the CoUector executed ^i favour of fhe petitionc^ graiitiag period of20 years, since then ffae |ing operations on fhe area leased also inonfhly rent. ititioner that respondent No,5 & 6 rcgard to no objection certificate, of ttie petitioner. Mowever, they High Court ofM.P. bearing W.P. High Court passed aii oider XI-HC-22 -TgTqpiTciq, •^jte^TSrft^rey WNWT g>NI<*> an^r ira^? ..^ljP.....^e.:...^'u)o>^ R«><{y" snESrqii h-i 3IRSI st>Hl^ itfeit 3{E^f ?^fl^E< <rff?a - 3. cfe^d?41^; %*^'i'^ ^s^ •^ii<%« ^ ^FtN ^^B!- on 12.4.1997 directmg the CoUe^tor to coiuluct axi eiupiiry and to find out the aufbenticih' aad veit have bcen given by lESpondcut N( heretn and three inonttis time wt parties were directed to appear b| On 10.5.199 the petitioner appeaj' ^city of the coasent letter said to by fhat ttme, copy of-fhe order in fhc df&cc. of fhc CoUcclt ttiat ratimation shaU be sent to| Thereafter, a notice-dated 9.6.1991 received by fhe petitiouer on 17.(] appear on 15.6,1999. After rec i.5 & 6 in favoi.ir of thc pctitioaer is grauted to the CoUector, Ttie sfore the CoUector on 10.5.1999. •ed before the Collector, but siace lassed bv fhe Hon'l>le Court was prate, thc pctitioner was informed Iiim about tfae date of hearias. 1 issued by the Mming Of&cerwas 1.1999, whereby he was asked to ^ipt of the itptice, the petitioner iininediately appearcd on 18.6.19p9 and he was informed by ou' Sharad Shrivastava that uitiiaatio ti of furtfa.er date of hearing would be given to him. The; petittoner accordiagly submitted a represeatation on 2.8.1999 (Anne^ure P-15A) to tfae CoUector tliat he be apprised about the date o givcn to fhc petitioncr and ultiina about fhe report prepared by ffae < hearing but n6 uitunatioii was ;ely, fhc petitioncr caxae to kncnv tollector on 19.7.1999 aud based on fhat the Additional Secretaiy Ii|as canceUed fhe lease grauted ia. favour of the petitioner. Retum on. behalf of the St4lte has been filed. It has been raentioned iii the rctuin that as p r the direction of fhc High Court fhe CoUector accorded ample oppo^tunity to the petitioner, wtuch is evident. fi'oia enquuy report (^nnexure R-l), tliereforc, fhe contention of the petitioner that nc^ opportuzuty was^^iven to Inm is XI-HC-22 TBI -!<l'l)lcf''4, •@FgftPi?,"l;t''tW3< •tiAfi^i R-fi'ti 3i^r Sfr+ltet* •y^tt KIIRSI «>*lld> Sff^f ~V(S(SR ^3 f (Oo. s-t)-^ ""at ft^p— ^- 3(R?T^<H^R ^ifeffl •s tncorrect. A notk-e-dated 09.6.1 issued to ffae petitioner froiu fhe fhe enqutry proeccdings, Althougl|. any proof to establish tbat he recej 1999 (Atinexure P-15) was also but he assei-ted that because tli4 after 15.6.1999 lie could not appetu- before the CoUector on. fhe said date. The representation as cont^ined in Aniiexure P-15A is silent with rcgard to any laaterial so as letter ia question was a genuuie oiiguial copy of fhe said docum.enl; would have piit forth, ifany, iu tbe niatter along wifh represe^itation dated 02.8.1999 itself. However, on oae pretext or the appearance bcforc thc authority. sent to the petitioner to appear bf this intuaation was served on fh| House Ofilcer, Police Station Sul^ela, which fact is evident frcni' perusal of the iatiination letter absolutcly false to sav that on thc no intmiation regaffling the enqu: with an adequate opportunity ofbe}ng heard. It has been further aientioui recorded the stateinents ofvarioue tib.cu' signatures as witn^sses naml •Janaku Lal Sahu s/o ofBodhaa S; ofVfllage Bifkuli. Respondent No.: subinitted fhe report to respond 'W&ifBl-t, MI'ltetE'S fe'fil <&>OEit i^ S^FF ^I^T ffice of CoUector to participate iu. fhe'petitioncr bas not put forth ved the said notice on 17.6.1999, said notice was served on him to dcinonstTate that the conseiit document. As a matter of fact, other the petitioner evaded his On 22.6.1999 mtimation was :fore the CoUector on 28.6.1999, petittoner through fhe Station ^nnexure R-2. Tlierefore, it is [part of fhc pctitioner that he had ty aad fb.at he was not .afforded jd ia fhe retum fhat the CoHector persons includiag those who put ;ly Tihaniraiii s/o Firkataram & ^fau, Ex-Sarpanch bofti residents as per flie direction ofthe Court 'nt No. 1 within the stipulated 'Rg^ T XI-HC-22 -SVS -^MWf, '^SSWVSrfwwy 3n^?T XRra? Q f.yOQ_S:^ill *(IHCTI ai*li<» «1. M sl^ R(<»<{W 311^(^1 f^ii<i> <ii^?l a**fiq»-yt&^ <ttt^^ S«It'^•<;sfe?l s- 'wiifewh t|i*teiE'?fe!38 «15»si< ^ ^^WK <Hl^t- period and petitioner was not abl^ ^iven by respondent No,5 & 6 was I havc heard thc lcanicd coiA Leamed counsel for the peti^ oi-der dated 12.4.1999, respoadenl into the aUegations of respondent inonths after giviag an opportuiutj' bccn givcn. Thereforc, fhc iinpug| same is based on the enquuy re| which was m.ade by the Collector to prove that fhe consent letter ;enuine. iscl for ttie partics. ioner argued that pursuaiit to the CoUector was required to enquire io.5 & 6 witllia a period of three to fhe petitioner, which has not icd order is bad in law, as ort submitted bv tfae Collector, 'ifhout givhig Euiy opportunifar to the petitioner. On the ofher hond Shri Sonjay S Aganval, Govt. Adv, for flie State whilc drawing thc attcntion report submitted by the CoUector t was given to the petitioner, but produce the origm.al docxuuents sl pf thc Court towards fhc cuquir;7 jrgued fhat sufficient oppoilunltt' fhe petitioner was not able to l.owiu.g that the consent given bv respondeat No.5 & 6. I have pcruscd the cnqijiiry report dated 07.07.1999 submitted by the Coflector, Raipu order caaceUirig the lease granted passed. Perusal of fhe enquiry report based on which fh.e unpugned iu favour of tiie petitioner was ^•eveals that iaitiaUy a notice was issued on 8.6.1999 to tlie part^s askiag thciD. to appear on 15.6.1999, but on that date n^body appeat-ed. However, on 17.6.1999 the petitioner hercin. £ regardiag non-receipt of the notict jipeared and made a complaint fhen he was asked to produce ^ XI-HC-22 -F31 -t<l'S|ltyt<l, yTflWlli, ft<'lt'K1< 3ii^?r 'qa^ ^l..!^.....£^^^^^ "^PI w»i<?ir%*ii«<» (cl'txi^'" 3?I^T^I f^ll<=h <»^Q 5ft*1Pft -9^^ ^^t '•^•fcdia^'^afetf ^Eq^a^ln *iT*KT^'^ Es'Slli ^ ^ ^PcfHi ^t^l! ob origiual copy of ftie consent lette[ that fhe consent letter given bv rt inspite of that fhc petitioner hi Agaia QD. 22.6.1999 a notice was 28.6.1999, that notice was sen1 Police Station Suttela but fhe 05.7.1999 stateinen.ts ofrespondf Minm.g Officcr, Raipiu- in wbich back fhe land in question was giv^a was not fit for cultivation they Chaadra Shekliar for a period of Shekhar got fhe einploynient ui| thcrcfore, hc lcft thc said land. respondent No.5 & 6 went to the 1^ as Chaudra Shekhar had left tht should stop excavating stones petitioner refused to do so, accor^ the Police Station Suhcla. This report further reveals hereia his brofher namely Ripu Si lieard by fhe Coltector. T'he letter-dated 27.7.1995 ia which it\w. required the original conscnt letter was asked to produce that origma] producing origiual consent letter h^ Suliela aad Naib Tehsildar has alr< or any ofber docuiuent showing •spondent No.5 & 6 is not forged, id nol" produccd aiiy dociiinent. issued to the parties to appear on through Station House Officer, petitioner did not appear. On tnt No.5 & 6 were recorded bv the picy had stated that 15-16 years }n to thein on lease, since ftie land [gave this leasehold laiid to one |en years, however, said Chaiidra the goverrunent establishiiient, coTmng to knoiiv about tbis fact, ;titioner hereiii and iafonned fhat land in question, fiierefc.ie, he Ifroin ftie said land. But fhe Lingly, a coinplaint was lodged io. Ithat on behalf of the petitioner ^dan Verma appearcd aad he was peti^ioner^s brofher also presented a it Iwas nientioned fhat as and when |wiU toc produccd, accordingly, he letter. On fhe contranr, \<iftiout hfc stated fhat as the PoUce Station ali^ady enquired iato tlie ^a.tter aiid XI-HC-22 -s'53 •^RRR, ^atw^,1^?tRl5c an^r xRra? wwi a>«<id> "~^ 311^% q»( ^u^ •^lE^E TSf^S s^R^ '^^|^'@« i^^fe^ *wferi"l, NfNiriT'ftfeStt5t«!j:l« '^^a'^^^li ^y V-'Qvf^ ,^^' ^L ;om.plaiat of fhe la-tid owners \\~as\ ttus coinplaint be filed. Ultiinatelj conclusion that thc pctitioncr hcr< ;onseut letterwas genuine aad iss^ Perusal of fhe above repon); petiuon.er himself appeared in Uie produce fhe origiaal consent lettei ivcn his brother Ripu Sudan Verm^ ;onsent letter, which he assured |was not produced. Therefore, in. view oftlie abov< Iproper opportuiiity was not given fe jthe petitioner was not prcvented [letter witii this writ petition showiu^ {respondent No. 5 Ss 6 aad as fhe o| [Collector to him, fherefore, he before the CoUector. As such I do nc Ipeution, saiiie is wifhout forcc |Accordiiigly, it is disniis'sed. found to be baseless, fb.erefore, tlie Collector reacfaed to fhe •ui was'failed to prove fhat thc ;d by respondent No.5 & 6. fai'tlier reveals that oace the ^ollectorate, he was directed to , wbicll he could not produce. was also asked to produced his b file, but ultiinately fhat letter COTUd facts, it caniiot be said fhat fh.e the petitioner. Even otlierwise, 1-oin fiiiiig fhLC origm.al coiisent that ftie consent was given bv Ipportunity was not given by fhe not produce the said letter (t find anv substance iil this writ and Uable to bc dismisscd. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^\^^ :^ c [xft^ ^fo*) ^^ ^