HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 2233 of 2015 (M/S)

Davendra Singh

..…Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

.…Respondents

Present :

Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate assisted by Mr. Devendra Singh Dashoni, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Dated: 23^rd April, 2019

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

By virtue of the mining lease dated 7^th March, 2014,

the petitioner was granted a mining lease for the period of five

years to be operated from the land as included in Appendix-1 of

the said lease dated 07.03.2014. As per the Appendix-1, which

constituted part of the lease, it was naap land, which was belonging

to the petitioner was under his ownership as was recorded in

Shreni 1-ka, over which, the mining rights was given to be

exercised by the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner instead of conducting the mining

operation over and on the area, lying over land in Shreni 1ka, i.e.

khasra Nos. 32/1, 33 and 34, having a total area of 1.504 hectares,

in fact, after removing the pillars, which was demarcated and

placed by the mining authority, had rather in fact had started the

excavation of the mining material, i.e. RBM from the river bed

areas, which fell to be in Shreni 6 (1) of the Land Revenue

Manual.

3.

For the said purpose, an inspection was conducted and

report has been submitted against the petitioner on 5^th May, 2014,

2

whereby, it has been recorded that the petitioner has illegally

mined 16420 cubic meter of RBM from khasra No. 55/1, having a

an area of 1.042 hectares recorded as Shreni 6 (1) and, hence, it

was illegally mined from the area which was not falling within the

area demarcated in his favour by the mining lease dated 7^th March,

2014, and as a consequence thereto, the respondents have

determined the payment of royalty @ Rs. 450 per cubic meter,

which totalled to a sum of Rs.73,89,000/-.

4.

Based on the aforesaid report as submitted by the

Inspecting Team constituting of Tehsildar and S.D.M, a notice as

contemplated under the Rules of 2005, which stood amended in

2011, was issued to the petitioner on 15^th May, 2014, calling upon

him to submit his explanation, to the report submitted against him

for conducting an illegal mining from an area of land which was

outside the area which was leased to him and he was directed to

submit his explanation by 9^th June, 2014. In pursuance to the

notice as issued on 15^th May, 2014, Case Nos. 52/16 and 52/18 of

2014, State Vs. Devendra Singh and others was registered against

the petitioner. The same was contested by the petitioner by filing

an objection on 7^th May, 2017 and, ultimately, the District

Magistrate, while considering the explanation dated 07.05.2017

given by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 15.05.2014

and also considering the finding which has been recorded in the

report dated 09.05.2014, had affirmed the imposition of the royalty

@ Rs. 450 per cubic meter and, ultimately, the District Magistrate

by the impugned order had imposed the royalty at the said rate

along with a penalty as provided under Section 47 of the Act and,

consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.15,02,800/-.

5.

Being aggrieved against the said order dated 20^th

August, 2014, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the

Commissioner, Kumaon Division, which was numbered as Appeal

3

No. 16/2014-15, Devendra Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand through

District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Simultaneously, during

the pendency of the Appeal, itself, the petitioner has also filed a

Writ Petition No. 492 of 2015, Davendra Singh Vs. State of

Uttarakhand and others, which was disposed of by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court, directing the Appellate Authority to decide

the Appeal exclusively on its own merits within a period of 60

day