The court emphasized that penalties for illegal mining must align with statutory provisions, confirming the authority's limits in directing land restoration without proper jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Leave is granted to the learned advocate for the appellant in both the appeals to amend the memoranda of appeal by incorporating the appropriate date of the impugned order of the writ court.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with two writ petitions, one filed by the present appellant and other by the private respondent.

3. The premise of the writ petition of the private respondent was a complaint made by the private respondent to the concerned D.L. and L.R.O. to the effect that the present appellant has been violating the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 by carrying on mining activities without proper license.

4. The complaint stated that the plot in question i.e. Plot no. 198 in Mouza –Kallya, J.L. no. 45 under PS – Salanpur was a joint property of the appellant and the private respondent, on which illegal mining activities was being carried on by the appellant.

5. Prior to filing of the present writ petition, the private respondent had moved another writ petition, complaining of such activities, whereupon a learned Single Judge of this court, by an order dated March 27, 2025 passed in WPA 2583 of 2025, had inter alia directed that the jurisdictional Collector, after receiving the copy of the order of the writ court, within a week therefrom, shall issue a prior hearing notice of at least 7 days to the petitioner and the private respondent therein and after granting such opportunity, to decide the issue by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. It was further recorded, inter alia, that if the Collector is of the view that the nature and character of the land has been changed and excavation of mines and minerals are carried out therefrom without due process of law, then the Collector shall be free to decide and pass its reasoned order in accordance with law.

6. The writ court went on to record further that in the event the reasoned order confirms the excavation of mines and minerals being done from the land without due process of law by either of the parties, the jurisdictional Collector and/or other State authorities shall take all necessary and consequential steps against the delinquent, strictly in accordance with law, including directing to restore the subject land to its original state.

7. It was also observed that the order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner or the private respondent therein if they do not succeed in their respective contentions before the Jurisdictional Collector strictly in accordance with law.

8. Pursuant to the said direction, a proceeding was initiated by the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer (D.L. & L.R.O), giving rise to Case no. Misc. 04/MM of 2025, which culminated in an order dated April 25, 2025 whereby, inter alia, it was recorded that as per provision laid down under Section 21 (1) of the 1957 Act, the present appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- multiplied by 1.044, which equals to Rs.5,22,000/- as pen