KRISHNA MURARI, PRASHANT KUMAR
BHARAT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
By the Court.—All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law hence have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Since all these writ petitions are based on same identical facts and directed against similar recovery notice except for there being difference in dates, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties for the purpose of reference, pleadings and documents of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18753 of 2016 are being referred.
3. All the petitioners claim that they are farmers having bhumidhari rights in agricultural land and have been charged of illegal mining from their bhumidhari lands while they were carrying on mining operation. They have filed copy of Khasra and Khatauni of 1417 F. to 1422 F. to demonstrate that they are having bhumidhari rights in agricultural land. A notice dated 23.7.2014 was issued by Incharge Officer (Mining)/Additional District Magistrate-II, Aligarh requiring the petitioners to show-cause why they may not be charged with royalty at the rate of Rs. 14/- per cubic meter and five times price of mineral as well as maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Develo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.