Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Ajay Tewari, Rajesh Bhardwaj, JJ.
Joginder Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 15610 of 2020
Decided On : 16-10-2020
Vikram Singh, Advocate, Ankur Mittal, Advocate, Anuj Balian, Advocate, Sanjeev Bawa, Advocate
Recognition of the government's right to extract minerals and the landowners' entitlement to fair compensation under Rule 65.
Headnote:
Mining - Land Dispute - Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Mineral and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 - Rule 65
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of disputed land and sought to restrain mining activities until title suits were decided. The government contended that regardless of land ownership, they had the right to extract minerals and landowners were entitled to fair compensation under Rule 65 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the government to follow the procedure under Rule 65 and involve all parties in price fixation. The fixed amount would benefit the successful party in the title suit.
Issues: Dispute over land ownership and mining rights, entitlement to fair compensation under Rule 65.
Ratio Decidendi: The government's right to extract minerals and the landowners' entitlement to fair compensation under Rule 65 were recognized. The court emphasized the need for all parties to participate in the price fixation procedure.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the government to follow the procedure under Rule 65 and involve all parties in price fixation.
JUDGMENT
Ajay Tewari, J. - At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view of the short reply filed by respondent No.6, he seeks no relief against respondent No.6 and therefore, he prays for deletion of the name of respondent No.6 from array of parties and seeks time to implead the effected person. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the Memo of Parties.
2. Short reply dated 9.10.2020 by way of affidavit of Om Dutt, Mining Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Panchkula, Haryana, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the same is taken on record. This petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming that the land in dispute is owned by them and the same is being claimed by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat of Village Shamtoo. It is further averred that the proceedings under Section 13 A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act are pending wherein the petitioners and others land owners have agitated this claim and those cases are still not decided. It has further averred that during the pendency of the said cases the Government-respondents No.1 to 4 have proceeded to open the land in dispute for mining and the prayer made is that the mining should be restrained till such time the title suits are decided. Further, the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land and it had been so their forefather.
3. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents No. 1 to 4 is that regardless of who the owner of the land is, the Government have the sovereign and pre-emptory right to extract minerals and the only benefit which any land owner can seek is to get the compensation which may be determined under Rules 65 of Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Mineral and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012.
65."(1) In addition to the rent settled between the parties under rule 63 or determined and payable under rule 64, the landowner would also be entitled to payment of a fair and reasonable compensation for any damage caused to such land in respect of the area under actual mining operations.
(2) In cases where the amount of compensation is not mutually settled between the parties under rule 63, the tentative amount of compensation shall be equal to 10% of the annual contract money, dead rent/ royalty actually paid by the mineral concession holder to the Government, less the amount of rent settled or determined.
(3) Where the landowner or the mineral concession holder is not agreeable to accept the amount of compensation prescribed under sub-rule (2) above, either of them may seek a reference through mining officer-in-charge to the District Collector for determination of fair and reasonable compensation with reference to the damage or injury caused to such land. Pending a decision by the District Collector on such reference by either of the parties, the mineral concession holder shall deposit the tentative compensation amount for one year with the District Collector in accordance with sub-rule (2) above, where after the concession holder shall be entitled to operate the area.
(4) Upon a reference from the officer-in-charge, of the district concerned, the District Collector shall proceed to determine the fair compensation amount on account of any damage likely to be caused to such land on account of the mining operations. The Collector shall invite claims and counter claims and afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties before determining the compensation amount.
(5) (I) The Collector shall determine the fair compensation for the damage or injury caused to such land keeping in view the following:
(i) nature or character of the land i.e. arable (single crop or multiple crop) or barani or banjar;
(ii) economic activity for which such land was being used immediately before the grant of mineral concession;
(iii) nature and extent of damage caused and as to whether such land is fully or partially reclaimable after closure of the mining operations or the damage
