IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15933 of 2006 =================================================== Vivek Varma, Son of Late Singheshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Village- D.K. Shikarpur, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Mines, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran. 5. The District Forest Officer, Division- 1, Bettiah, West Champaran. 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran. 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Gaunaha Block, West Champaran. 8. The S.D.O., Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. .... .... Respondents =================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15993 of 2006 =================================================== Vivek Varma, Son of Late Singheshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Village- D.K. Shikarpur, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Mines, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran. 5. The District Forest Officer, Division- 1, Bettiah, West Champaran. 6. The Assistant Mining Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran. 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Gaunaha Block, West Champaran. 8. The S.D.O., Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. .... .... Respondents =================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.15933 of 2006) For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyavarat Varma, Advocate. For the Mining : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, AC to SC 4. (In CWJC No.15993 of 2006) For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyavarat Varma, Advocate. For the Mining : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Yogendra Kumar Singh, AC to SC- 21. =================================================== 2 3 09-12-2011 These applications have been filed on behalf of the same petitioner to quash the order dated 04.01.2003 passed by the respondent no. 5, i.e., the District Forest Officer-cum-Deputy Director, Valmiki Tiger Project, Division- 1, West Champaran, whereby the petitioners were restrained from carrying out their mining activity, in view of two separate licenses granted to them, on the ground that no mining activity can be allowed in the sanctuary area. Further, for directing the respondent no. 4 (Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran) to extend the lease hold right of the petitioner by such period for which they had been deprived of their statutory lease hold rights. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and Special P.P. Mines. With regard to CWJC No. 15933 of 2006, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his Jamabandi No. 19 was cancelled by A.D.M., Revenue, West Champaran on 14.02.2003. The aforesaid order passed by A.D.M., Revenue, West Champaran on 14.02.2003, was challenged by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Vinay Verma, by filing of CWJC No. 5709 of 2003, as he was also holding a separate license, though on different Jamabandi being Jamabandi No. 17 and was also affected by the impugned 3 order. He had also filed CWJC No. 5492 of 2003. The aforesaid cases along with other analogous cases were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2010, a copy of which is appended as Annexure -8 in the rejoinder of the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 in CWJC No. 15933 of 2006. By the aforesaid order, the impugned order dated 14.02.2003 passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran in case no. 9 of 2001 was quashed and matter was remitted back to the Additional Collector, West Chmparan at Bettiah and the petitioners were directed to appear before the authority concerned within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The authority concerned was directed to dispose of the same within six months. In the CWJC No. 15993 of 2006 also similar stand has been taken that the Jamabandi No. 22, was cancelled by A.D.M., Revenue, West Champaran on 14.02.2003. However, the aforesaid order passed by A.D.M., Revenue, West Champaran on 14.02.2003, was challenged by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Vinay Verma, by filing of CWJC No. 6110 of 2003. The Jamabandi No. 22 was running in the name of one Vindhyachal Rai, who had given power to the brother of the petitioner, namely, Vinay 4 Verma and on the basis of same necessary mining license was granted. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the concerned authority, he had also filed CWJC No. 5492 of 2003. The aforesaid cases along with other analogous cases were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2010 with the observation and direction as indicated above. It is admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid case is yet to be decided by the authority concerned. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed this writ application and the brother of the petitioner namely, Vinay Verma, filed CWJC No. 49 of 2007 for quashing the order dated 04.01.2003, passed by the respondent no. 5, restraining them from carrying out of their mining activity. The aforesaid CWJC No. 49 of 2007 filed by the brother of the petitioner, namely Vinay Verma, has been disposed of on 24.06.2011 with following observations:- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the appropriate authorities decides that the land does not belong to the forest department, then in that case he would be entitled to his lease hold right to the balance period of three years. 5 The petitioner has substance in submission that in case, if the authorities decide that the land does not belong to the Forest Department but belongs to the private raiyats, then he would be entitled for consideration for grant of lease hold right for the remaining period. As the matter is pending adjudication of the authorities concerned, I do not find it expedient to keep it pending any further and dispose of this writ application with the aforesaid liberty mentioned above. It is submitted on behalf of the parties that facts and circumstances of both the cases are identical to that CWJC No. 49 of 2007. Same issues are involved and the same impugned order is under consideration in these cases also which was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ application. Thus, it is jointly submitted that these writ applications can also be disposed of in terms of aforesaid order. In the above view of the matter, these writ applications are also disposed of in the terms of the 6 observation and direction as contained in the order dated 24.06.2011 passed in CWJC No. 49 of 2007. Bhardwaj/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)