1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 892 of 09 Mohammad v. The District Collector ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.A. Naik, Adv for petitioner. Mr D.P. Thakare, AGP for respondent. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 24th March 2009 1. Heard Mr A.A. Naik, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr D.P. Thakare, learned Assistant Government Pleader. for respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted mining lease by the Collector vide order dated 11.5.2007 out of Gat No. 75, area 2 hector situated at mouza Mouda, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. It is contended that since the formal execution of lease deed was not done as per the provisions of rule 5 (2) of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral extraction (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1966 for a long time, the petitioner has filed present writ petition for direction. Learned 2 counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the reply filed by respondent Collector, it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted mining lease vide order dated 11.5.2007. However, because of mistake committed by Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILR) in carrying out the measurement of the mining area, formal document of lease agreement could not be executed. It is contended that in the reply it is also mentioned that the petitioner should get the mining area measured and demarcated through TILR in presence of competent Revenue Officer and on the basis of measurement report, lease agreement will be executed without further delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the earlier occasion the petitioner had deposited requisite fees for the purpose of carrying out measurement of the mining area through TILR. The mistake, if any, was committed by TILR in carrying out the measurement and, therefore, petitioner should not be penalised by asking him to deposit once again the fees in this regard and direction be given to TILR to carry out the measurement of the mining area allotted to the petitioner as per the procedure applicable. 3. Mr D.P. Thakare, learned AGP has not disputed the factual aspects of the matter, however, contended that for the purpose of carrying out measurement regarding the mining area, it is necessary to deposit requisite fees for this purpose and, 3 therefore, petitioner was asked to do so. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties. In the backdrop of the above- referred facts, it is evident that though the Collector vide order dated 11.5.2007 granted mining lease to the petitioner, however, the agreement of lease could not be executed for want of proper and accurate measurement in respect of mining area of the petitioner due to mistake committed by TILR in carrying out the same. Since the petitioner, on the earlier occasion, has already deposited the requisite fees in this regard and the mistake, if any, was committed by TILR in carrying out the measurement, we are of the view that the petitioner should not be put to monetary loss for the fault of TILR. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to the TILR concerned to carry out measurement in respect of mining area of the petitioner in presence of competent Revenue Officer by following procedure applicable in this regard at the earliest. Judge. Judge. hsj