Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Anil Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Upon an inspection being done by the Lekhpal on 27.03.2017 a report was submitted by him to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who in his turn forwarded the same to the Mining Authorities by a communication dated 06.04.2017. Thereafter, the prescribed authority (Mines) on behalf of the District Magistrate, Shamli issued a show cause notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why royalty and fine totalling Rs.3,94,000/- may not be charged from them, for excavating 2050 cubic metre of soil illegally.
3. The petitioners replied to the show cause notice on 22.04.2017 stating therein that the petitioners, who were the owners of the plot in question namely Plot No. 520 of Village Kaidi, Tehsil & District Shamli had never excavated any soil from the plot in question and that they had only tried to level their plot of land for irrigation purposes and they had further submitted through the said reply that someone had maliciously made a complaint against the petitioners and therefore, had prayed that the notice be withdrawn.
4. However, on 20.05.2017, the Dis
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair inspection procedures and the application of relevant legal provisions to determine the legality of excavation activities.
The court emphasized the importance of proving evidence as per the law and upheld the permissible limit of excavation as per the State authorities.
The burden to establish illegal mining operations and fiscal charges lies upon the authorities, and any ambiguity in penal provisions should be resolved in favor of the person subjected to penalty.
The central legal point established is the interpretation of mining operations under Rule 3 of the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and the requirement to demonstrate the purpose of extrac....
The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing to the petitioner before making a final decision on the show cause notice.
Petitioners have the right to excavate soil from their patta lands but not from tank beds, with due legal process required for any alleged violations.
Excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes did not attract levy of royalty and penalty under the provisions of Section 48(7) of the M.L.R. Code, 1966, especially when the excavated earth ....
The purpose of excavation determines liability for royalty and penalty under Section 48(7) of the MLR Code, 1966, and excavation of ordinary earth for construction purposes does not attract royalty a....
Excavation of earth for development and levelling of the same land does not require additional permission or royalty payment.
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
