Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY TEWARI, ALKA SARIN, JJ.
M/s Haryana Mining Company – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Others - Respondents
CWP-16395-2021 (O&M)
Decided on : 06-09-2021
Illegal Mining - Mining Lease Termination - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 21 - Environmental Protection Act, 1986, Section 15 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 2 - The court discussed the termination of a mining lease due to illegal mining activities outside the leased area. The court analyzed demarcation reports, GPS coordinates, and findings of the mining officer and additional deputy commissioner to conclude that the petitioner had engaged in illegal mining. The court also highlighted the limited scope of its jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings and emphasized the need for evidence of legal inadmissibility or lack of support to challenge findings of fact.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of its mining lease due to alleged illegal mining activities outside the leased area. The court analyzed demarcation reports, GPS coordinates, and findings of the mining officer and additional deputy commissioner to conclude that the petitioner had engaged in illegal mining.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had engaged in illegal mining activities outside the leased area based on the demarcation reports, GPS coordinates, and findings of the mining officer and additional deputy commissioner. The court emphasized the limited scope of its jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings and the need for evidence of legal inadmissibility or lack of support to challenge findings of fact.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of a mining lease due to illegal mining activities outside the leased area, the admissibility of evidence, and the scope of the court's jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of demarcation reports, GPS coordinates, and findings of the mining officer and additional deputy commissioner, highlighting the limited scope of its jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings and the need for evidence of legal inadmissibility or lack of support to challenge findings of fact.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination of the mining lease due to illegal mining activities outside the leased area.
JUDGMENT :
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. Heard through video conferencing.
2. By way of the present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has inter-alia challenged the order dated 10.1.2020 (Annexure P-19) whereby the mining lease granted to it has been terminated and has also challenged the order dated 13.8.2021 (Annexure P-25) whereby it’s appeal against the said termination order has been dismissed and the order of termination of the mining lease has been upheld.
3. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioner participated in an e-auction held by the Haryana State Government on their web portal for obtaining mining lease of minor mineral in Village Garhi, District Mahendergarh. The petitioner is stated to have given the highest bid of 7,92,50,000/- per annum against the reserve price of 7,90,00,000/- per annum in respect of minor mineral mine in Village Garhi, District Mahendergarh. The bid of the petitioner was accepted and on 24.7.2015 a Letter of Intent (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner in respect of minor mineral mine of Garhi for a period of 10 years for extraction of “stone along with associated minor minerals” in area of 6.70 hectares falling in Khasra No.7, Village Garhi, District Mahendergarh. On 24.11.2015 and 5.4.2016 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) the petitioner is alleged to have informed respondent No.3 about illegal mining going on in the Garhi mining area allotted to it and in the Aravali area adjoining to it. The lease deed for mining was executed between the petitioner and the State Government on 11.4.2016. On an application submitted by the petitioner, the mining area was demarcated on 11.5.2016 (Annexure P-8). After obtaining the relevant permissions the petitioner commenced mining operations on 15.6.2016. Thereafter, one of the partners of the petitioner firm submitted a representation to the Tehsildar, Mahendergarh for demarcation of the mining area leased to the petitioner and on 5.4.2017 a demarcation is stated to have been carried out (Annexure P-9). On 21.8.2018 the mining area was got demarcated on the basis of some complaint alleging mining outside the mining area (Annexure P-10). On 17.12.2018 the mining area was again got demarcated on the basis of another complaint alleging mining outside the mining area (Annexure P-11).
4. Thereafter, the Sarpanch of Village Khudana, which adjoins Village Garhi, submitted a complaint vide Resolution dated 8.1.2019 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul alleging that the petitioner was carrying out illegal mining in Khasra Nos.366-367 measuring 49 Kanals 16 Marlas of Village Khudana which area abutted the mining area leased to the petitioner in Khasra No.7 of Village Garhi. A month later, on 8.2.2019, the Gram Panchayat of Village Garhi passed a Resolution (Annexure P-12) stating that the mining work was being carried out within the area allotted to the lessee. The Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Nodal Officer, District Illegal Mining Observation Team, Narnaul conducted an enquiry and prepared a report dated 25.2.2019 (Annexure P-13) observing that “illegal mining is found having taken place in Khasra No.366-367 in Aravali Forest area, however, it is not proved as to who committed said excavation”.
5. The petition reveals that on the basis of the complaint received against the petitioner of carrying out mining outside the leased area, the Mining Officer, Narnaul vide his memo dated 4.2.2019 reported that as per the demarcation report it had been found that the petitioner had undertaken mining in the adjoining area of Khasra No.366-367 of Village Khudana which was outside its leased area. This report has not been attached with the writ petition. Taking up this report by the Mining Officer, Narnaul, the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana issued a notice dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-14) to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause why the mining lease be not terminated prematurely for having breached
The court emphasized the limited scope of its jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings and the need for evidence of legal inadmissibility or lack of support to challenge findings of fact.
Termination of Mining Lease – Constitutional courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, would not examine sufficiency of evidence – However, interference is warranted if it is found that ....
The court ruled that findings of illegal mining were perverse and unsupported by evidence, allowing the writ petition and quashing the penalties imposed.
The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.
A person aggrieved by the order granting mining lease can challenge the same before the appropriate authority of the Central Government. The petitioner-Society did not avail the alternative efficacio....
The court established that premature termination of a mining lease is justified if the lessee fails to comply with lease terms and safety regulations, and that the authority must grant a reasonable o....
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
