Back
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
1. Heard Shri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for all the respondents and perused the record.
2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and, therefore, the writ petition is being finally decided.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned dated 15.11.2018 whereby the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bulandshahr (respondent No. 2) has levied upon him a sum of Rs.1,46,360/- (Royalty Rs.21,060 + Mineral Value Rs.1,05,300/- + compounding Fee Rs.20,000/-) under Rules 3 and 70 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 read with Section 4 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be joint tenure holder of Bhumindhari land covered by Khasra Plot No. 133 measuring 2.3040 hectares situated at village Fatehpur Buzurg, Pargana Baran, Tehsil and District Bulandshahr; copy of revenue records annexed. It is pleaded that in pursuance of an inquiry dated 15.06.2012 held behind the back of the petitioner, a report was prepared by the Tehsilder, Sa
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 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 judgment establishes that mining authorities have the right to impose penalties for illegal mining activities based on evidence collected during inspections, and that due process must be followed....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned orders granting extension of time for lifting sand were illegal, without authority of law, and without jurisdiction, and thus des....
The State Government cannot levy royalty on brick earth unless ownership is established, despite its classification as a minor mineral under the relevant laws.
The court emphasized that penalties for illegal mining must align with statutory provisions, confirming the authority's limits in directing land restoration without proper jurisdiction.
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....
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
