Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2021
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-6145-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-6145-2020
(SANJAY SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
WP-6072-2020
(PYARELAL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-10-2021
Heard through virtual/physical modes.
Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
Shri Suresh Prasad Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP-
6145-2020.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP-
6072-2020.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
Both the writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arise from the common orders passed by the Collector, Satna and the Divisional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, whereby the Collector has imposed penalty on the petitioners for illegal extraction of "Murram".
I n WP-6072-2020, the petitioner - Pyarelal Singh has also filed a review against the order passed by the Collector and the same also faced dismissal. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that that the orders passed by the respondents regarding imposition of penalty, is contrary to the Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 [for short, "the Rules 1996"].
We have perused the order passed by the Collector from which it is evident, that in a joint inspection carried out on 10-11-2015 by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raghuraj Nagar, Mining Officer, Tahsildar, Assistant Mining Officer, Mining Inspector, Revenue Inspector and Patwari with police force, it was found that the land bearing Khasra No.332, Area 2 WP-6145-2020 0.332 hectare on a partial part of it, at Village, Matehna, Tahsil - Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna and on the government land bearing Khasra No.329 area 3.589 hectare, illegal and illicit mining of "Murram" was being carried out by the petitioners. The JCB machines and dumpers/trucks of the petitioners were seized at the spot itself.
On the basis of the report of the said inspection, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, who filed their separate replies.
The case of the petitioners is that their JCB machines and dumpers/trucks were being used by the complainant, Rajesh Singh and at his instance, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and their JCB machines and dumpers/trucks have been directed to be seized.
The Collector, Satna recorded the statement of the Patwari, Vijay Bahadur Singh, who has also deposed that there was illegal mining being carried out by the petitioners. That apart, from the spot "Panchnama" also, it is clear that illicit mining was being carried out by the petitioners on the land in question and there were pits found on the spot. Measurements of the pits were taken and statements of the persons, who were present at the spot, were also recorded.
On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Collector has passed the impugned order imposing penalty 10 times of the market value of the extracted mineral against the petitioners.
The aforesaid order was also challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in appeal. The appellate authority has also taken into consideration the material available on record, spot inspection, statement of the Patwari and defence of the petitioners and thereafter, recorded the findings that the petitioners were indulged in illegal mining and affirmed the order passed by the Collector, Satna.
Thus, both the authorities have recorded the concurrent findings that the petitioners were involved in illegal mining of "Murram"
We have noticed that in the State of M.P., cases of illegal mining are 3 WP-6145-2020 rampant and strict legislation and its implementation are required to stop the illegal and illicit mining and preserve the natural resources.
We do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in WP-6145-2020 has relied on the order passed by this Court in WP-25743-2018 (Kanhaiyalal Dhangar vs. State of M.P. and others), dated 21-01-2019. The said case would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case the Collector has passed an order of confiscation of truck and trolley and also imposed fine. The said order was challenged on the ground that being the first offence, no such order could have been passed by the Collector under the provisions of Rule 53 of the Rules 1996.
In the present case, no such argument was advanced either before the Collector or the Commissioner - the appellate authority. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the order passed in Kanhaiyalal Dhangar (supra) would not render any assistance to the petitioners.
We do not perceive any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Collector, Satna and the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa.
The writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
ac.
Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI
Date: 2021.10.04 15:52:10 +05'30'