By the Court.—This is plaintiff’s appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) arising from judgment dated 9.9.1994 and decree dated 13.9.1994 passed by Sri Anurag Kumar, Civil Judge, Meerut dismissing Original Suit No. 455 of 1993.

2. Plaintiff, Jagpal Sharma, instituted aforesaid suit vide plaint dated 6.5.1993 impleading District Magistrate/Collector, Meerut; State of U.P. through Collector, Meerut; Prabhari Adhikari (Khanij), Meerut; Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Meerut; Sub-divisional Officer, Tehsil Baghpat, Meerut; and, Tehsildar, Tehsil Baghpat, Meerut as defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Plaint case set up by plaintiff is that vide auction/ tender notice dated 13.4.1991, defendants advertised auction of mining rights to excavate sand of Yamuna River in the area detailed at the foot of plaint in Schedule-A, which comprised of following :

Name of

Tehsil Name of

Village Gata No. Area

in Hactare

Baghpat Sankrod Khadar

668 of 25 to 28, 30, 113, 114, 127 to 129, 132, 154, 155, 159, 161, 162 18.439 Hectare

Ma 668 of vi Kala 1326,1357 to 1362, 1364, 1367 to 1379, 1385, 1386, 1389, 1390 5.570 Hectare

Jagos Khadar 101 to 104 3.808 Hectare

Chhaprauli Khadar 1 Minjumla 61.000 Hectare

Gauri Pur -1/2 12.899 Hectare

Sisana Khadar 164 to 194, 278 to 303, 715 to 721, 784, 744, 750 to 779 40.025 Hectare

Khandwari Khadar 2 to 108, 194, 284, 263 35.075 Hectare

Baghpat Khadar 188, 193 to 226, 334, 335, 487 to 491, 402 73.046 Hectare

3. The auction was held on 13.5.1991. Plaintiff participated in the auction and offered highest bid, which was accepted by order dated 20.6.1991 of defendant 1 communicated by defendant 3 vide letter dated 29.6.1991. The bid was for Rs. 27,05,000/-. The mining rights were given for a period expiring on 30.9.1992. Plaintiff deposited Rs. 6,76,250/-, 1,50,250/-, 5,26,000/-, 1,56,000/- and 6,76,250/- (total Rs. 21,84,750/-). Defendants, however, despite their obligation to execute a lease-deed in favour of plaintiff under Rule 29, U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1963”) failed to execute the same and also did not allow plaintiff to undertake mining activities. Mining area spread over eight villages having total area of 249.862 hectares. Possession thereof was to be given to plaintiff, free from all hurdles and disputes, but defendants failed to do so. After a great difficulty plaintiff was handed over possession of only 5.5 hectares land in village Mavi Kalan and 10.5 hectares in Village Baghpat. When plaintiff proceeded for mining activities, found that entire area handed over to him had crop cultivation like sugarcane, watermelon, cucumber, wheat etc. besides several dwelling units of villagers. On inquiry, plaintiff was informed by villagers that entire land was given on Patta to those villagers, long back, who were socially backward people. In fact, defendants had already executed Pattas in respect to some of land, to others, for crop cultivation etc. For the aforesaid reason, plaintiff was not able, either to take possession or undertake any excavation of sand, in the said area. Defendants have grossly flouted and violated terms and conditions of statute as well as terms and conditions of auction. Defendants are guilty of having perpetrated fraud upon plaintiff by taking money in respect to land which was never available for mining lease. Several representations were given by plaintiff on 25.7.1991, 19.11.1991 and 16.3.1992 but no response was given by defendants. The Officer-in-charge (Mining) sought a report from Tehsildar who submitted report stating that land was already under crop cultivation and in possession of other lease holders, hence could not be given in possession to plaintiff. Despite that, defendants have raised demand of Rs. 6,76,250/- upon plaintiff vide demand notice dated 15.5.1992, though it was wholly illegal and barred by Section 92 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereina