Manual Soil Digging Under 2 Meters for Brick Making Not ‘Mining Operation’ Without Proof of Illegal Activity: Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court Quashes Royalty Levy on Farmer for Soil Digging Under Two Meters

Allahabad, India – In a significant judgment favoring a farmer, the Allahabad High Court has quashed an order levying royalty and penalties for alleged illegal mining of soil. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Kshitij Shailendra, ruled in favor of Petitioner Om Prakash , setting aside an order by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Bulandshahr.

Case Background

The case arose from an order dated 15.11.2018, issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, demanding Rs. 1,46,360/- from Om Prakash . This demand was for royalty, mineral value, and compounding fees, alleging illegal mining of 2340 cubic meters of soil from his Bhumindhari land. The authorities relied on inquiries conducted in 2012 and 2018 which indicated that Om Prakash had engaged in soil mining.

Om Prakash challenged this order, arguing that a Government Order dated 24.12.2012 exempts manual excavation of ordinary earth up to a depth of two meters for brick making from being classified as ‘mining operations’. He contended that his digging activity fell within this exemption.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel : Shri Prateek Kumar, representing Om Prakash , argued that the Government Order of 24.12.2012 clearly states that manual digging of earth up to two meters depth is not considered mining. He cited a precedent judgment of the same High Court in Ramvir Singh vs State of U.P. , which upheld the validity of this Government Order in a similar context. He emphasized that the fresh inquiry report dated 30.04.2018, upon which the impugned order was based, was conducted after the GO came into effect, making the GO applicable to his case.

Respondent's Counsel : Shri Rajiv Gupta, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, argued that the proceedings against Om Prakash began based on an inquiry report dated 15.06.2012, predating the Government Order of 24.12.2012. He further argued that even under the GO, royalty is payable if the soil excavation is for commercial purposes like brick kilns, suggesting Om Prakash 's activity fell under this category.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Legal Principles

The High Court critically examined the impugned order and the State's arguments, finding them unconvincing. The court emphasized that the order wrongly placed the "negative burden" on the petitioner to prove that his activity was not illegal mining before the GO came into force.

> "The order impugned, in fact, casts a ‘negative burden’ upon the petitioner to establish as to what was the permissible depth concerning digging activity prior to issuance of Government Order dated 24.12.2012 and it has been strangely observed in the order impugned that the petitioner has not brought anything to demonstrate that digging activity upto what extent would not fall within the meaning of “illegal mining operations”."

The bench underscored the principle of strict construction of penal and fiscal statutes, stating that the burden to prove wrongdoing and justify levy lies squarely on the revenue authorities, not on the individual to disprove it. Referring to Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs Amin Chand Payrelal , the court reiterated that negative evidence is not required, and the onus is on the prosecution to establish guilt.

The court noted the respondents failed to provide any evidence that Om Prakash 's digging, which was confirmed to be within two meters depth in the later report, constituted illegal mining operations under any statutory provision. Furthermore, the court dismissed the State's argument about brick-making, finding no evidence on record to support the claim that Om Prakash was engaged in brick-making activity. The court refused to rely on "hypothesis, presumption, conjecture and surmises."

Applying the principle of interpretation of penal statutes, the court stated that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the individual potentially subjected to penalty, citing a series of Supreme Court judgments including Tolaram Relumal , M/s Virtual Soft System Ltd. , and Excel Crop Care Ltd. , among others.

Final Decision and Implications

The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 15.11.2018. The court held that Om Prakash was entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 24.12.2012 and that his case was covered by the precedent set in Ramvir Singh .

This judgment provides significant relief to farmers involved in manual soil excavation for agricultural or related purposes, clarifying that activities within the specified depth limit, in the absence of concrete evidence of illegal mining operations, should not attract royalty or penalties. It reinforces the principle that fiscal levies must be clearly justified by the authorities, and the burden of proof cannot be reversed onto the citizen.