National Green Tribunal
1. Harbans Singh vs 1. State Of Haryana on 18 August, 2023
Item No.1 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original ApplicationNo.306/2022
(I.A. No. 102/2022 & I.A No. 299/2022)
Harbans Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Date of Hearing:- 18.08.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER.
Applicant: None for the applicant.
Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 7.
Mr. Gi. Gi. C. George, Advocate for respondent no. 8.
Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Mr. Anshu Mangla, Mr. Bihuti
Krishna and Mr. Aman Anand, Advocates for respondent
no. 9.
Application under Section 14 read with Section 18 of the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the auction of fertile agriculture land as sand
mining sites at villages Jaidhar and Mandewala, District Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana, the Applicant, a resident of Village Dadupur, Tehsil Chachrauli
District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, has filed the present application under
Section 14 read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
seeking the following reliefs:-
a. Direct the State of Haryana to stop any mining activity at
fertile agricultural lands in Villages Jaidhar and Mandewala,
District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana;
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
2
b. Appoint a Committee or Court Commissioner to inquire
into the objections raised by the Irrigation Department to mining
operations in Villages Jaidhar and Mandewala;
c. Appoint a Committee or Court Commissioner to inquire
into the rushed manner in which the Haryana State Pollution
Control Board issued CTO dt. 23.10.2021 on a holiday/
Saturday and direct disciplinary action against erring officers;
d. Quash the CTO dt. 23.10.2021 and CTE dt. 25.10.2021
issued by Haryana State Pollution Control Board to private
respondent w.r.t. mining sites at Villages Mandewala and
Jaidhar, respectively;
e. Quash the environmental clearance dt. 20.08.2018
issued to private response w.r.t. mining activity at Village
Jaidhar;
f. Quash the auction notice dt. 27.04.2015 in so far as it
permits auction of mining sites located at Villages Jaidhar and
Mandewala, Dst. Yamuna Nagar;
g. Direct Respondents to pay the costs of the present
Application to the Appellant; and
h. Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit.
Applicant's grounds of challenge to mining
2. The applicant has filed the present application on the following
grounds:-
(i) Report of State Irrigation Dept. dated 12.10.2021 requesting for
no mining ignored.
On 30.11.2020 and 15.12.2020 letters were written by Mr. Ashok
Sangwan, IAS, Dy. Collector showing the seriousness of the problem of
water seepage at Village Jaidhar where water is often pumped out using
pump sets which shows that the area is flood prone and not conducive
for mining. The Irrigation Dept., Haryana vide its report dated
12.10.2021 specifically requested the District Administration to not
permit mining activities at Villages Jaidhar and Mandewala since the
same would affect the stability of Western Jamuna Canal bund and the
Dadupur Head Works.
(ii). Discrepancy in GPS coordinates of mining sites.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
3
As per the auction notice the area of mining sites at Village Jaidhar is
25.60 Hectares and at Village Mandewala is 15 Hectares. Environmental
clearances issued for both mining sites also contain the GPS coordinates
of the proposed mining site. However, a simple verification of the GPS
coordinates on Google Maps shows that the area of these coordinates is
only 11 Hectares and 1.50 Hectares, respectively. Further, these GPS
coordinates contain village homes and roads as reveled by the maps
annexed with the Application.
(iii). Report of State Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Ambala,
Haryana dated. 27.07.2016 showing low water table at Vill. Jaidhar
ignored.
On 19.04.2016 the Dy. Commissioner, District Yamuna Nagar conducted
public consultation w.r.t. mining site at Village Jaidhar. Various villagers
objected on the ground that the water table is within 4-5 feet in the area
and as such mining activity cannot be permitted being within 2 meters of
water table. This objection was over-ruled by the Dy. Commissioner on
the ground that the general report of the Central Water Commission for
entire Tehsil Chachrauli shows water table at 9 meters while ignoring to
observe/record water table measurements on site. On 27.07.2016 the
Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Ambala in his report dated 27.07.2016
categorically stated that the pre-monsoon water table at Village Jaidhar
is 1.80 meters, which falls further during the monsoon months. Village
Jaidhar is located very close to the Dadupur Water Head Works and the
Western Jamuna Canal and as such water table is available at 4-5 feet
only. As such, this is violative of Clause 30 of the auction notice, which
restricts mining within 2 meters of water table and therefore this site
ought not to have been auctioned in the first place.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
4
(iv). Both sites were auctioned to a company, which is accused by
the Serious Fraud Investigation Office ("SFIO") for illegal mining and
is facing prosecution at Delhi Courts pursuant to orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Both the mining sites at Villages Jaidhar and Mandewala are auctioned
to M/s Saharanpur Mines Management Services P. Ltd., which is
accused by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office ("SFIO") for illegal
mining and is facing prosecution in Criminal Complaint No. 720/ 2017
filed by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in the Court of Special
Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka, New Delhi against 176 persons and
companies, including M/s Saharanpur Mines Management Services Pvt.
Ltd. (Accused No. 118) pursuant to order dated 16.08.2017 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Writ Petition (C.) No. 818/
2015. Grant of mining permission to a company, which is accused of
being part of the mining syndicate/ mafia is a disturbing development
which fact has been completely ignored by the administration.
(v) No mining permitted on an area notified as a "Controlled Area"
u/s 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction
of Unregulated Development Act, 1963).
Mining site located in Village Jaidhar falls within the area notified as a
controlled area vide notification dated 21.12.1981 issued u/s 4 of the
Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated
Development Act, 1963. Section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads &
Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963
prohibits mining activity without the prior permission of the Director,
Town & Country Planning Dept., Haryana. Admittedly, the Director,
Town Planning has not permitted any mining activity in Village Jaidhar
and as such the mining site could not have been auctioned.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
5
(vi) Violation of Clause 4.1.1 (m) and 4.3 (s) of the Enforcement &
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 (EMGSM, 2020) which
restricts sand mining in agricultural areas where there is no
possibility of replenishment. The mining sites are admittedly located
in fertile agricultural areas and there is no possibility of annual
replenishment of sand. Mining operations will entail removal of the fertile
top layer, which will render the lands unfit for agricultural purposes and
cause irreversible environmental harm. Large tracts of land in villages
located near River Yamuna have been rendered unfit for agriculture due
to large scale illegal mining by the local mafia. No study has been
conducted to measure rate of replenishment at the mining sites. The
Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining issued by MoEF
& CC in the Year 2020 prohibit mining activity within 5 kms of a river
bed and on an area where no replenishment is possible. Admittedly both
the mining sites at Villages Jaidhar and Mandewala are located on fertile
agricultural lands away from the river bed where no replenishment is
possible. Further, the site at Village Mandewala being 1.5 kms away
from River Yamuna falls within 5 kms of a river bed and in view of the
Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020 no
mining is permissible there.
(vii) Environmental clearance dated 27.06.2016 (valid for 5 years) for
Village Mandewala site has already expired on 26.06.2021 and
SEIAA has refused renewal pending an internal investigation.
The Environmental clearance dated 27.06.2016 issued for the mining
site at Village Mandewala was valid for 5 years which period has already
expired on 26.06.2021. SEIAA refused renewal pending an internal
investigation SEAC was investigating into allegations of illegal mining.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
6
The Senior Environmental Engineer, HSPCB objected to issuance of CTO
on this ground but this objection was over-ruled and CTO was issued in
a rushed manner on a holiday/ Saturday dated 23.10.2021. The site
inspection was carried out by HSPCB on 22.10.2021 at 8:40 PM and six
minutes later at 8:46 PM a detailed report was uploaded. Then on
23.10.2021 (Saturday) at 7:48 AM approval was granted for issuance of
CTO. The mala fides of the HSPCB in grant of CTO are evident from the
manner in which the CTO was issued. On 25.10.2021 the Haryana State
PCB issued a Consent to Establish ("CTE") to the project proponent w.r.t.
mining site at Village Jaidhar ignoring all objections of the Applicants
and the fact that the mining site lies in a "Controlled Area" where mining
activity is not permitted.
3. The applicant has further submitted that the applicant raised the
above grounds in representations dated 04.10.2021, 18.10.2021,
26.10.2021 and 03.12.2021 but no action has been taken on the same.
Cause of action in the present case arose on 04.10.2021 and 18.10.2021
on failure to take action on his representations. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of In Re.: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Moto
Writ Petition (C) No. 3/ 2020) vide orders dt. 23.03.2020, 27.03.2021
and 10.01.2022 has extended the period of limitation. As such the
present Application is within limitation as prescribed in the National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
4. Vide order dated 06.05.2022 notices were ordered to be issued to
the respondents requiring them to file replies specifically responding to
all averments made in the application.
5. Pursuant to notice replies have been filed by Respondent no. 1-
State of Haryana and 2- Assistant Mining Engineer vide email dated
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
7
30.11.2022; by Respondent no. 4- HSPCB vide email dated 30.11.2022;
by Respondent no. 5- Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Ambala vide email
dated 30.11.2022; by Respondent no. 6-Irrigation and Water Resource
Department vide email dated 30.11.2022; by Respondent no. 7-SEIAA,
Haryana vide email dated 09.11.2022; by respondent No.8 vide email
dated 26.12.2022 and by Respondent no. 9-M/s Saharanpur Mines
Management Services Pvt. Ltd, vide email dated 18.08.2022. No reply has
been filed by respondent No.3 Town & Country Planning Department.
6. The Applicant has filed additional affidavit vide email dated
12.01.2023 . Reply to the additional affidavit of the applicant has been
filed by respondent no. 9 vide email dated 04.02.2023.
Reply by Respondents no. 1 and 2- State of Haryana and Assistant
Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Yamunanagar,
Haryana
7. In their reply Respondents no. 1 and 2 have taken objections to
maintainability of the application. Respondents No.1 and 2 have
submitted that remedy against grant of EC was filing of an appeal under
section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 within 30 days.
Reliefs claimed by the applicant are hopelessly barred by limitation. The
application is not maintainable in view of Rule 14 of the National Green
Tribunal (Practices and procedures) Rules, 2011 as instead of seeking
one or more reliefs consequential to each other based on single cause of
action, permissions granted by different authorities at different times in
respect of two different mining sites at different villages have been
sought. The present application has been filed at the belated stage only
to stop the legal mining in pursuance of the permissions granted by
concerned statutory authorities. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have
controverted the grounds of challenge and submitted that Respondent
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
8
No.9 obtained NOC from District Town Planner, Yamuna Nagar vide
memo dated 8.10.2021 Annexure R/3. Nowhere in the District Yamuna
Nagar depth of water table is less than 3.10 meter. The areas where
these mines are located, depth of water table is 10-20 meters as per
figure 2 of report on Aquifer Mapping and Management Plan Annexure
R/4 given by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and
Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India in 2016.
Reply by Respondent No. 4- Haryana State Pollution Control Board
8. In its reply Respondent no. 4-HSPCB has taken objection that remedy
against grant of CTE/CTO was statutory appeal before the Appellate
Authority and the present application is not maintainable. Respondent
No.4 has mentioned the status of both the mining blocks and submitted
that CTE/CTO were granted after following due procedure and as per
policy of HSPCB. Respondent No.4 has also mentioned that in view of
ad-interim injunction order the mining sites are lying closed.
Reply by Respondent No. 5- Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell,
Ambala, Haryana
9. Respondent no. 5- Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Ambala Haryana
has submitted in his reply that the office of Hydrologist, Ground Water
Cell, Ambala had provided tentative water level of the village Jaidhar,
Devdhar, Begumpur, Pipli Majra, Malikpur Khadar of District-
Yamunanagar to Mining Officer, Department of Mines & Geology,
Yamunanagar during the year 2016. Ground Water Cell, Haryana has
established groundwater observation points at distance of 20 sq. km. grid
pattern. The Ground Water Cell does not have groundwater observation
points in the mentioned villages. The tentative water level of the village
Jaidhar, Devdhar, Begumpur, Pipli Majra, Malikpur Khadar of District-
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
9
Yamunanagar during June, 2022 (Pre-monsoon period) on the basis of
groundwater contouring and nearby observation points is as under:
Sr. District Village Water Level
No. during June,
2022 (in mtrs)
1 Yamunanagar Jaidhar 10.50
2 Devdhar 05.96
3 Begaumpur 12.50
4 Pipli Majra 14.50
5 Malikpur Khadar 15.00
"
Reply by Respondent No. 6- Irrigation & Water Resources
Department State of Haryana
10. Respondent no. 6-Irrigation & Water Resources Department, State of
Haryana has submitted in its reply that a committee comprising of
District Revenue Officer, Yamuna Nagar, District Mining Officer, Yamuna
Nagar and Executive Engineer, Water Services Dadupur was constituted
by the Deputy Commissioner Yamunanagar to report on the complaint of
Shri Ranbir Singh. The committee considered all the issues raised in the
complaint pertaining to environmental aspects concerning mining blocks
i.e. Jaidhar and Mandewala and concluded vide report dated 27.09.2022
that the Project Proponent will maintain level of 2 meters of ground
water. If this condition is violated, mining will be closed. The committee
also observed that Lease has been allotted to the Project Proponent by
the department after verifying all the documents as per the lease
conditions for open auction. Also, public consultation (hearing) was
conducted under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner Yamuna
Nagar on dated 05.04.2016. Inquiry with regard to objections raised by
the irrigation Department to mining operations in villages Jaidhar and
Mandewala, was got conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and the
same has been concluded vide report dated 27.09.2022.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
10
Reply by Respondent no. 7- SEIAA
11. In its reply respondent no. 7-SEIAA, Haryana has reiterated the
factual position regarding grant of EC for mining Mandewala and Jaidhar
mining blocks on 27.06.2016 and 20.08.2018 respectively on
recommendations of SEAC on the basis of Mining Plan approved by the
Director General, Mines and Geology, Mines and Geology Department on
10.03.2016 and 12.01.2016. EC dated 20.08.2018 was issued before
issuance of EMGSM, 2020. The GPS coordinates mentioned in the EC
were as per the mining plans approved by the Director General, Mines &
Geology Department, Haryana. In its reply Respondent no. 7-SEIAA,
Haryana also mentioned pendency of the matter of extension of validity of
EC.
Reply by Respondent No.8-Central Water Commission under the
Ministry of Jal Shakti.
12. Respondent no. 8-Central Water Commission under the Ministry of
Jal Shakti has submitted that Respondent No. 8 has no role to play in
the current issues and not being a necessary party may be ordered to be
deleted from the array of parties.
13. Subsequently, in compliance with order dated 16.01.2023 Report on
the measured distance between mining blocks at Mandewala and Jaidhar
to River Yamuna was filed by Respondent No.8 vide email dated
28.01.2023.
Reply by Respondent No. 9- M/s Saharanpur Mines Management
Services Private Limited
14. In its reply Respondent no. 9 has submitted that the business
rivals initiated proxy litigation against respondent No. 9 by abusing the
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
11
process of law and the mining contracts granted in favour of respondent
No. 9 were sought to be cancelled by leveling allegations of Shell
Company as well pendency of criminal prosecution against respondent
No. 9. The litigation was initiated before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court, Chandigarh vide CWP No. 1010 of 2018 and CWP No. 19286 of
2021. After the failure of the first round of proxy litigation initiated
against respondent No. 9, the business rivals resorted to the present
litigation and filed the Original Application before this Tribunal by
raising fabricated issues relating to the environmental norms. The
application has been filed with a malafide intention without any just
cause or reason. The Respondent no. 9 has further submitted that
auction was conducted by respondent No. 1 after following the due
procedure and the mining contracts were granted in favour of respondent
No. 9 by following the due procedure. As per the letter dated 08.10.2021
issued by Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana it has been
clarified that land in all the khasra numbers except one Khasra number
which comprise Jaidhar Mining Block does not fall in any Urban Area or
Controlled Area declared by Department of Town & Country Planning,
Haryana. In so far as the land in one khasra number is concerned,
respondent No. 9 shall not conduct any mining operations therein. With
respect to objection regarding water level in Jaidhar mining block
Respondent No.9 has submitted that during the course of public
consultation, one of the residents raised the issue regarding the water
table at Village Jaidhar and the same was duly addressed by the
Environment Consultant on the basis of Report of CGWB, Yamunanagar
(2012) wherein it was stated that the water table is more than 10 meters.
It was further stated that the lease holder shall be bound to stop the
mining operations 2 meters above the water table at any given stage.
Respondent No.9 has further submitted that the mining lease area is
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
12
allocated by respondent No. 1 on the basis of the khasra numbers
mentioned in the revenue record and respondent No. 9 shall not conduct
any mining activities beyond the mining lease area and any discrepancy
in the geo-coordinates, though denied, shall not have any effect on the
mining contract and mining operations. Respondent No.9 has admitted
that respondent No. 9 has been arrayed as one of the accused but
submitted that the trial is still pending and there is presumption of
innocence until proven guilty. Moreover, the mining contracts were
executed in June, 2016 and the prosecution was launched in 2017 which
shall not have any retrospective effect. The credentials of respondent No.
9 have been verified by respondent No. 1. Respondent No.9 has
submitted that Mandewala and Jaidhar Mining Blocks have been
classified as outside riverbed mining blocks. As per the Sustainable
Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 (SSMMG, 2016), extraction
of minor minerals from agricultural fields in the State of Haryana has
been duly recognized and it has also been recognized that there is
replenishment of the land due to various agricultural processes. The
replenishment of minerals has also been recognized in the respective
mining plans approved by respondent No. 1. There is Joint Verification
Report and all the structures are at a safe distance from the mining lease
area. There was absolutely no illegality in the grant of CTE/CTO by
respondent No. 7 in favour of respondent No. 9.
Reply by Respondent No. 9- M/s Saharanpur Mines Management
Services Private Limited to the Additional Affidavit dated
10.01.2023 filed by the applicant
15. In its reply to the Additional Affidavit dated 10.01.2023 filed by the
applicant, the respondent no. 9 submitted that the Enforcement and
Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020 (EMGSM, 2020) are not
applicable in the present case on account of the fact that the auctions
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
13
were conducted in 2015 and the LOI were issued in favour of the
answering respondent on 19.06.2015. There is no provision of law
authorizing retrospective application of the guidelines. Even the tone and
tenor of the EMGSM, 2020 shall reveal that the guidelines are
prospective in nature.
16. This Tribunal observed in its order dated 26.04.2023 that questions
regarding possibility of replenishment justifying mining and
rehabilitation /reclamation and user of the land under Mining Closure
Plan are also involved for adjudication in the present case and the parties
were given opportunity to submit documents and address arguments in
respect of above referred questions and also to file written arguments
regarding the same, if so desired.
17. In compliance of order dated 26.04.2023 respondent no. 9 has filed
affidavit vide email dated 03.05.2023 the relevant part of which reads as
under :-
"Additional Affidavit on behalf of Respondent no. 9-M/s
Saharanpur Mines and Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
X X X X
2. That in pursuance of the directions issued by this
Hon'ble Tribunal, it is submitted as follows:
i) That as per mining plan (Annexure R-9/6), Jaidhar and
Mandewala mining blocks have been classified as "outside
riverbed blocks". The land comprised in the aforesaid blocks is
agricultural land.
ii) That as per mining plan (Annexure R-9/6), Jaidhar
mining block is located at Village Jaidhar, District
Yamunanagar with a total area of 25.60 hectares. The details
of the Khasra numbers are also provided in the mining plan.
iii) That as per mining plan (Annexure R-9/6), Mandewala
mining block is located at Village Mandewala, District
Yamunanagar with a total area of 15 hectares. The details of
the Khasra numbers are also provided in the mining plan.
iv) That as per the mining plan (Annexure R-9/6), the mining
operations are to be conducted on a pre-determined area of the
mining block at a given point of time. In view thereof, after
determining the specific portion of the mining block for the
purpose of extraction of minerals, agreement is to be executed
with the owner of the particular piece of land for the purpose of
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
14
payment of compensation which is decided by way of mutual
settlement. After payment of compensation as per agreed terms
and conditions, area shall be used for the purpose of extraction
of minerals.
v) That respondent No. 9 shall conduct mining operations
after executing agreement for compensation with the concerned
land onwers.
vi) That as per the mining plan (Annexure R-9/6), the mining
shall be carried out by open cast semi-mechanized method. The
average permitted depth of mineral is around 9 meters. Out of
which there is over burden of about 1 meter thick soil and
remaining 8 meter depth is of mineral i.e. boulder, gravel and
sand. The mining shall be conducted hectare wise by way of
bench formation. The top layer of around one meter depth shall
be removed through excavators which will be stacked nearby
for back filling. This shall leave a bench of one meter depth and
atleast 20 meter wide. The minerals below this bench shall be
extracted. The removal of soil precedes the winning of sand.
Once a pre-determined area has been exhausted, the land shall
be given back to the land owners for their use which is mainly
agriculture. In this way, the use of the land shall remain the
same after the extraction of minerals.
vii) That the reclamation of mined out area is provided under
the Environment Management Plan appended with the mining
plan (Annexure R-9/6). It has been stated as follows: In case of
outside riverbed mining, top soil will be removed in advance of
the actual mining and will be stacked in a temporary stack
yard. The same will be utilized for reclamation once the mining
of minerals in 1/2 hectare area is over. This practice of
continuous and simultaneous reclamation shall be continued
during the mining operations. About 10,000 cubic meters of soil
will be needed for each hectare area mind outside the riverbed.
The yearly generation of over burden will be 28,750 cubic
meters. This over burden will be used for reclamation. When
working in each hectare area is completed, the same will be
reclaimed simultaneously. Working in the next hectare area will
be shifted only after reclamation of the mined out one hectare
area. This practice will be continued simultaneously.
viii) That it shall be imperative to state that Mines and
Mineral Development Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund has
been established as per Haryana State Mining Rules, 2012.
One of the purpose of the fund is to provide funding of the
restoration or reclamation or rehabilitation works in the sites
affected by mining operations.
ix) That as per the terms and conditions of the mining
contract as well as the mandate of Haryana State Mining
Rules, 2012, respondent No. 9 shall deposit an amount equal to
10 % of the contract money towards the fund by way of
installments.
x) That for the purpose of safeguarding the lands adjoining
the mining area, the mining plan (Annexure R-9/6) provides for
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
15
"restricted safety zone" of 7.5 meters from the boundary of the
mining block. The total land in the restricted safety zone shall
be 2.56 hectares for Jaidhar mining block and 0.75 hectares for
Mandewala mining block. The area available for mining at
Jaidhar mining block shall be 23.04 hectares out of 25.60
hectares; and the area available for mining at Mandewala
mining block shall be 14.25 hectares out of 15 hectares.
3. That respondent No. 9 shall conduct the mining operations
strictly in accordance with the respective mining plans and
shall abide by all the terms and conditions of the mining
contract as well as the applicable laws."
18. Vide order dated 05.05.2023 this Hon'ble Tribunal directed
respondent No. 9 to provide the details regarding the validity of
environmental clearance granted in favour of respondent No. 9 with
regards to Mandewala and Jaidhar Mining Blocks.
19. In compliance thereof respondent no. 9 has filed additional affidavit
vide email dated 19.05.2023 the relevant part of which reads as under :-
"Additional Affidavit on behalf of Respondent no. 9-M/s
Saharanpur Mines and Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
X X X X
2. That in pursuance of the directions issued by this
Hon'ble Tribunal, it is submitted as follows:
Mandewala Mining Block:
i) That respondent No. 7 i.e. State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority Haryana had granted environmental
clearance to respondent No. 9 regarding Mandewala Mining
Block vide Letter No. SEIAA/HR/2016/500 dated 27.06.2016
for a period of 5 years i.e. till 27.06.2021. The same is attached
alongwith the Original Application vide Annexure A-5.
ii) That as per notification dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure R-
9/7) issued by MoEF & CC, GOI, the validity of the
environmental clearance was extended for a period of one year.
In view thereof, the EC was valid till 27.06.2022.
iii) That respondent No. 9 had submitted an application
dated 02.07.2021 with respondent No. 7 for the purpose of
seeking extension of the environmental clearance. Respondent
No. 7, after due consideration and deliberation, has extended
the environmental clearance vide Letter bearing Memo No.
SEIAA/HR/2023/23 dated 17.01.2023. The extension has
been granted till 18.06.2024 and the same is subject to the
final outcome of the Original Application No. 306 of 2022. Copy
of EC extension Letter dated 17.01.2023, is attached herewith
as Annexure R¬9/10.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
16
Jaidhar Mining Block:
iv) That respondent No. 7 i.e. State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority Haryana had granted environmental
clearance to respondent No. 9 regarding Jaidhar Mining Block
vide Letter No. SEIAA/HR/2016/1072 dated 20.08.2018 for a
period of 5 years i.e. till 20.08.2023. A copy of Environmental
Clearance dated 20.08.2018 is attached herewith as Annexure
R-9/11.
v) That as per notification dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure R-
9/7), the validity of the environmental clearance was extended
for a period of one year.
vi) That it shall be imperative to state that the mining
contract granted in favour of respondent No. 9 qua Jaidhar
Mining Block is valid till 18.07.2024. In view of the notification
dated 18.01.2021 coupled with the duration of the mining
contract, the environmental clearance dated 20.08.2018 is valid
till 18.07.2024."
20. Vide order dated 08.05.2023 Respondent no. 2 was directed to
provide the detailed information regarding the following aspects:
a) Name of the farmers to whom the agricultural land in which mining is
to be carried out belongs;
b) Details of compensation to be paid by the mining leaseholders to the
farmers and the modalities for making of such payments;
c) Cropping pattern adopted for the last five years in the land in question
where mining is to be carried out; and
d) Whether the agricultural land where mining is to be carried out falls
under any command area.
21. Report has been filed by the respondent no. 2- Department of
Mines and Geology, Uttar Pradesh vide email dated 25.05.2023. The
relevant part of the report on behalf of respondent no. 2 is reproduced
below:-
"REPORT ON BEHALF OF DEPARTMENT OF MINES &
GEOLOGY IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED 08-05-2023
2. That pointwise information is as follow:
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
17
a).Name of the farmers to whom the agricultural land in
which mining is to be carried out belongs:
The details of the land owners with Khasra Nos falling in
Mandewala and Jaidhar Mining Blocks have been provided by
the concerned revenue officers i.e., Naib Tehsildar of Tehsil
Partap Nagar and Naib- Tehsildar of Tehsil Chhachhrauli,
District Yamunanagar. As per the information provided, the
ownership details and cropping pattern as per Girdvari Report
of village Mandewala mining block (Provided through letter
dated 12.05.2023 of Naib Tehsildar, Pratapnagar) is enclosed
herewith as Annexure R-1 and village jaidhar mining block
(through letter dated 24.05.2023 of Tehsildar, Chhachhrauli
giving details of land owners and cropping pattern i.e Girdavari
report) is enclosed herewith as Annexure-R2.
X X X X X
b).Details of compensation to be paid by the mining lease
holders to the farmers and the modalities for making of
such payments:
It is humbly submitted that Chapter-9 of the Haryana Minor
Mineral Concession, Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and
Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 deals with 'Payment
of Rent and Compensation to the landowners and
determination thereof'. The Chapter 9 contains Rule No.62 to
65. The relevant Rules as amended upto date are being
reproduced below:
Rule 62. (1) Where a mineral concession is granted
under these rules over any land in respect of which minor
mineral rights vest in the State Government, the rights of the
landowner shall be subordinate to that of the State Government
for extraction of the mineral, access to the quarry/ mine,
stacking of minerals and other subsidiary purpose. The
landowner is entitled to a fair rent and compensation for such
use of the land and any damage or injury caused to such land.
(2) A mineral concession holder, who is granted the mineral
concession under these rules, is entitled to use the land/area
for extraction of mineral in respect of which the said concession
is granted. The mineral concession holder shall be liable to pay
(a) the annual rent in respect of the land area blocked under the
concession but not being operated, and (b) the rent plus
compensation in respect of the area used for actual mining
operations.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
18
(3) In case the landowner is allowed to use part of the area
granted under the mineral concession for his normal operations
for which it was being used prior to the grant of mineral
concession, concurrent with the concession grant, no rent shall
be payable in respect of such portion of land which is not being
used for actual mining operations for such period as it remains
available to the landowner for his normal use. In case where
the mineral concession holder blocks the entire concession area
as a result of which the landowner is not able to use such land
or part thereof for his normal operations, the rent shall be
payable in respect of the entire blocked area.
Rule 63. The amount of annual rent and the compensation
shall be settled mutually between the landowner and the
mineral concession holder.
Sub Rule 63A. Fixation of annual rent and compensation by
Government- In case where no agreement is reached by way of
mutual settlement between land owner and mineral concession
holder, the Government may fix and notify the rate of annual
rent and compensation, to be paid by the mineral concession
holders to the landowners for area granted on mineral
concession for mining under these rules.
Rule 64.(1) Where no agreement is reached by way of mutual
settlement between the landowner and the mineral concession
holder regarding the rate of rent, the mineral concession holder
shall offer to pay an amount equal to two percent of the
Collector rate or at such rate as may be notified by the
Government as per rule 63A in respect of such land/area,
whichever is higher, as rent.
(2)Where the land owner is not agreeable for a mutual
settlement under rule 63 and is also not satisfied with the rent
offered to be paid under sub-rule (1) above, the landowner or
the concession holder may apply to the officer-in-charge of the
concerned district to make a reference to the District Collector
for determination of the fair rent payable in respect of such
land.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
19
(3) Where either of the parties prefer a reference to the
District Collector under sub-rule (2) above, the officer-in-charge
of the concerned district shall forward the reference to the
District Collector for determination of the fair market rent in
respect of such land. The mining officer-in-charge of the district
shall also require the mineral concession holder to deposit the
rent for one year as prescribed under sub-rule (1) above as a
tentative rent with the collector. Upon so doing, the mineral
concession holder shall be entitled to commence mining
operations over the land area.
(4) Upon a reference from the mining officer-in-charge of the
district concerned, the District Collector may call upon the
parties to furnish the details of their claims and counter claims,
inter alia, containing information on the parameters prescribed
under sub- rule (5) of this rule and afford an opportunity of
hearing to the parties.
(5) (I) Pursuant to the hearing granted to the parties to
the reference, the District Collector shall determine the fair
market rent of the land keeping in view the following:
(i) Nature/character of the land i.e arable (single crop or
multiple crop) or barani or banjar;
(ii) Use to which such land was being put immediately before
the grant of mineral concession;
(iii) Annual net income that the landowner was able to
derive/earn from such land use;
(iv) Normal increase in the income level that would have taken
place in such net income during the intervening period;
(v) Amount so worked out shall be added an amount equal
to thirty percent in lieu of compulsory use of the land;
(II) While determining the fair market rent, the collector shall
also decide the rate at which such rent would be increased on
year-to - year basis during the currency of the mineral
concession.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
20
(6) Notwithstanding the parameters prescribed for
determining the fair market rent under sub-rule (5) above,
Collector shall not determine the rent at a rate lesser than the
amount as prescribed under sub-rule (1) or rate of rent fixed
and notified, if any, by the Government in respect of such
area/land, whichever is higher.
(7) The District Collector shall order parties and the mineral
concession holder to pay such rent to the landowner from time
to time, as determined by him.
(8) Any appeal against the order of the District Collector
shall lie with the Government.
Rule 65 (1) In addition to the rent settled between the parties
under rule 63 or determined and payable under rule 64, the
landowner would also be entitled to payment of fair and
reasonable compensation for any damage caused to such land
in respect of the area under actual mining operations.
(2) In cases where the amount of compensation is not
mutually settled between the parties under rule 63, the
tentative amount of compensation shall be equal to an amount
0.5 % of the collector rate in case of riverbed mining and /or 1%
of collector rate in all other cases (except Riverbed mining) or at
the rate of an amount of compensation, as notified by the
Government under rule 63 A, whichever is higher.
(3) Where the landowner or the mineral concession holder is not
agreeable to accept the amount of compensation prescribed
under sub-rule (2) above, either of them may seek reference
through mining officer-in -charge to the District Collector for
determination of fair and reasonable compensation with
reference to the damage or injury caused to such land. Pending
a decision by the District Collector on such reference by either of
the parties, the mineral concession holder shall deposit the
tentative compensation amount for one year with the District
Collector in accordance with sub-rule (2) above, where after the
concession holder shall be entitled to operate the area.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
21
(4)Upon a reference from the officer-in-charge, of the district
concerned, the District Collector shall proceed to determine the
fair compensation amount on account of any damage likely to
be caused to such land on account of the mining operations.
The Collector shall invite claims and counter claims and afford
an opportunity of hearing to the parties before determining the
compensation amount.
(5) (I) The collector shall determine the fair compensation for
the damage or injury caused to such land keeping in view the
following:
(i) nature or character of land i.e arable (single crop or
multiple crop)or barani or banjar;
(ii) economic activity for which such land was being used
immediately before the grant of mineral concession;
(iii) nature and extent of damage caused and as to whether
such land is fully or partially reclaimable after closure of the
mining operations or the damage is irreversible;
(iv) economic activity for which such land can be used after
mine closure, with or without any investment, and the kind of
returns it is capable of yielding after such restoration.
(v) extent of efforts and expenditure proposed to be made by
the mineral concession holder for restoration or reclamation or
rehabilitation of the land as per the mine closure plan for its
eventual use by the landowner;
(II) While determining the compensation amount, the
Collector shall keep in view the total rent and the estimated
compensation amount payable to the landowner throughout the
concession period. In case the sum total of the rent and the
compensation amount assessed is more than the prevailing
market value of land, the mineral concession holder may be
given an option to buy the land at such rates subject to the
landowner agreeing to the same. Alternatively, the Collector
may determine the compensation amount keeping in view that
the landowner would continue to retain the ownership of land
after the closure of mining operations.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
22
(III) In case the mineral concession holder and the landowner
(s) are able to settle the compensation mutually in respect of a
portion of the land required for actual mining operations,
compensation for such portion of the land shall not be a subject
for settlement. However, the amount of compensation already
settled in respect of part of the operating area shall be kept in
view while settling the compensation for the disputed area.
(6) Where the amount of final compensation determined by the
Collector works out to be more than the tentative amount of
compensation already deposited as per sub-rule (2), the mineral
concession holder shall deposit immediately on demand by the
Collector, the additional amount of compensation with fifteen
days:
Provided that in case the amount of final compensation works
out to be less than the amount already deposited by the
contractor/lessee, the excess amount shall be refunded to him
within fifteen days.
(7) The compensation amount determined by the District
Collector shall be final and binding on the parties and the
mineral concession holder shall be liable to pay such
compensation amount to the landowner annually during the
currency of the mineral concession.
(8) An appeal against the order of the Collector shall lie with
the Government.
It is humbly submitted that no reference as mentioned in Rule
64 (2) and 65(3) has been made to the District Collector,
Yamunanagar in respect of Mining Blocks in question.
It is also submitted that agreement as referred in above stated
rules are to be executed before the commencement of mining
operations.
c) Cropping pattern adopted for the last five years in the
land in question where mining is to be carried out:
As per the Girdawari report obtained from the revenue
department, the crops grown during the Kharif and Rabi season
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
23
are mainly the Zeeri (Paddy) and Gehu (Wheat) crops
respectively. Copy of Girdawari reports are part of Annexure -
R1 and- R2.
d) Whether the agricultural land where mining is to be
carried out falls under any command area
As per the information provided by the Executive Engineer,
Water Services Division, Dadupur (Yamunanagar), None of the
Khasra Nos of village Jaidhar fall in the command area of any
of the channels. However, all khasra Nos in village Mandewala
except Khasra No 15//21/8 fall in the commands of the
channels.
Copy of letter dated 11.05.2023 of Executive Engineer, Water
Services Division, Dadupur is annexed as Annexure-R/3)....."
22. Written Submissions have been filed by the applicant vide email
dated 24.04.2023 and by Respondent no. 9- M/s Saharanpur Mines and
Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vide email dated 21.03.2023.
23. We heard learned Counsel for the parties and reserved the matter
for disposal by passing of detailed order. However, on carefully examining
the matter we consider further hearing/enquiry to be necessary for the
reasons stated hereinafter.
24. Even though no appeals challenging validity of ECs granted by
SEIAA in favour of Respondent No.9 were filed by the applicant or any
one else, yet prima facie the questions as to the mining leases being
violative of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and
the Guidelines issued under the same being integral to operation of the
mines in compliance with environmental norms can be gone into by this
Tribunal on the present Application.
25. In Civil Writ Petition No.8470 of 2004 Ajeet Singh and Others vs
State Of Haryana and Others and connected writ petitions filed by Ajeet
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
24
Singh and other farmers belonging to District Karnal challenging mining
in agricultural land in the State of Haryana, Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana had, by an order dated 31.08.2005, elicited the
views of specialists in the agriculture sector and impleaded the Haryana
Agriculture University, Hisar as a party to one of the petitions, to
determine the environment hazards, if any, involved in mining of sand
from agriculture land in the State of Haryana. A Committee comprising
seven experts from different disciplines constituted by the Vice
Chancellor of the University, submitted a report to Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana pursuant to the said order, in which it was, inter-
alia, opined that sand mining in agriculture lands had destroyed the
natural soil profile and resulted in land degradation due to soil erosion in
the fields adjacent to the mined area. It was also pointed out that the
sand mining has adversely affected the texture, structure, organic matter
and available nutrients status of the soil, which would obviously
decrease crop productivity in the affected area. Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana was, on perusal of the said report, prima facie of
the view that the situation arising out of mining of sand from fertile
agriculture lands was alarming and that in case remedial steps were not
taken, such mining operations may adversely affect the environment and
accordingly stopped the on-going mining activity in the villages in
question by an order dated 05.04.2006.
26. The Director of Mines and Geology, Haryana in reference to the
above said case requested the Director, Central Soil Salinity Research
Institute (CSSRI) Karnal, to study different mining sites in Karnal,
Panipat and Sonipat districts so as to know the impact of sand mining on
soil properties and crop yield in comparison to the un-mined fields so as
to provide guidelines for framing sand mining policy in the State. A team
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
25
of scientists from the CSSRI under a consultancy project studied the
mined and adjacent un-mined sites at several places in Karnal, Panipat
and Sonepat districts to ascertain the impact of sand mining on soil
properties and crop growth. The CSSRI Committee recorded its Salient
findings, some recommendations and conclusions as under :-
"SALIENT FINDINGS AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Sand is an integral part of soil composition and also an
important aggregate used in bulk in construction industry.
2. Small sized sand pits spoil surface configuration of the
landform and are difficult to rehabilitate. Therefore, large
contiguous areas should be earmarked for sand mining.
3. Depth of sand mining, which used to be about 5-6 m earlier,
has now increased to about 10 m. this has direct bearing on
soil erosion especially when side slopes of mines bear an angle
of 450 or more. Restricting mining depth and decreasing degree
of side slopes are recommended to prevent erosion of adjoining
lands and silting of the bottoms of sand pits. The mining depth
and degree of slope shall vary from site to site depending upon
soil texture and other site characteristics.
4. Width of buffer zone around the sand mine pit should be
sufficiently wide to save any form of loss accruing from sand
mine to the land and property of the neighbouring farmer. Side
slopes and buffer zones are the most fragile components of
rehabilitation, their stabilization is extremely important.
Therefore, regular maintenance and monitoring by a team of
experts and other stakeholders is recommended.
5. Rehabilitated sand mines have responded well to soil
development and improvements in soil physical, chemical,
microbiological and nutritional properties. However, the
resulting lighter soil textures are likely to induce higher
infiltration rates causing loss of water and plant nutrients
through enhanced leaching. To prevent such losses and also to
keep down cost of crop production, state of the art and location
specific soil and water management measures are
recommended.
6. Lighter soil textures have opened new options for crop-
diversification. A host of commercial crops like tubers,
vegetables, flowers, fruits and herbal plants etc hold good
promise in these soils.
7. Crop yields remained subdued until 4-5 years of
rehabilitation. Afterwords, the yields were comparable or even
better than those obtained from the original un-mined soils.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
26
This has happened due to nutrient transformation, weathering
of sand minerals and adoption of best management practices.
8. Cultivation of sugarcane that produces abundantly dense
root system and leaf-trash for recycling into soil was found the
most useful crop to improve soil during initial years of
rehabilitation.
9. Research studies to fine-tune various aspects of sand mining
and rehabilitation of mined areas to agriculture and other
profitable land use are recommended. Scope of mine areas for
ground water recharge and rain water harvest needs
exploitation.
10. Sufficient scientific literature addressing problems arising
due to sand mining and their solution including packages of
practices for quick rehabilitation of land be prepared and
disseminated to the concerned officials and farmers.
Conclusions
Sand mining apparently is a land degradation process which
disturbs soil profile spoils surface configuration and
considerably alters topography of the land. Rehabilitation of
sand mines starts with spreading mixing and leveling of topsoil
with sand. The resulting loose mass contains about 60 to 70
percent lesser clay and silt in comparison to topsoil but most
importantly they inherit some useful genetic characteristics that
favour soil profile development. Commencement of agricultural
operations for crop production causes soil cohesion, which
further lead to improvements in soil properties. The reclaimed
soils produce significantly lesser yields in the first few years
but picks up gradually to reach almost at par by 5th year of
reclamation. The processes of soil formation like profile
development; physical, chemical, biological and nutritional
properties of soil improve simultaneously. Depending upon the
method and process of rehabilitation, the breakeven point in
crop production and soil improvement is reached between 5th
and 12th years of reclamation. It is, therefore, concluded that
sand mining from agricultural fields in Yamuna basin should be
permitted but regulated and managed in scientific manner to
enable concurrent reclamation of sand mines for immediate
return to agriculture."
27. On 22.05.2007 the attention of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana was drawn to the report submitted by Central Soil Salinity
Research Institute, Karnal and the comments offered by the said
institute regarding the report submitted by the Haryana Agriculture
University which were at variance with each other. In order to resolve the
conflict, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
27
Committee of Experts, earlier constituted by the Haryana Agriculture
University, to visit three other districts of Haryana also, namely
Yamunanagar, Sonipat and Panipat in order to evaluate the hazards of
mining of sand of agricultural land. On the submission of the said report,
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana forwarded the report
submitted by the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal as also
the report submitted by Haryana Agriculture University to Haryana State
Pollution Control Board as also to the Central Pollution Control Board for
their comments regarding the same. The respondents were also directed
to examine whether the matter could be referred to the Central
Environment Impact Assessment Authority constituted by the Central
Government.
28. However on 22.07.2009 Mr. Randhir Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the State of Haryana submitted that the mining for removal
of sand in the State of Haryana had all expired by efflux of time and that
the Government had after proper examination of the environmental
concerns expressed in certain quarters, taken a decision that while
granting fresh leases, the lessee shall have to obtain prior environmental
clearance from the competent authority in terms of Notification dated
14.09.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment
and Forests, before they commence the mining activity. In support, he
placed on record a copy of Auction Notice dated 10.03.2008. and
submitted that auction of leases for mining of sand would be subject to
proper evaluation of the environmental hazards and clearance by the
State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by
the Government of India in terms of Notification dated 14.09.2006 and
all issues regarding the possible environmental degradation of the area
on account of mining activities would have to be addressed and proper
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
28
clearance obtained from the above authority constituted by Government
of India in terms of Notification dated 21.04.2008, before the lessees are
allowed to commence their mining activities. Learned Counsel for the
State of Haryana further submitted that since a specialized expert
Committee would grant environmental clearance before the mining
activity started, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the
continued mining of sand from the agricultural land would result in
irreparable damage to the quality of the soil or productivity of the land,
would also be addressed and examined by the Authority concerned. In
the light of the terms and conditions stipulated by the State Govt. and
the fact that all issues relating to the impact of mining on environment
would be examined by the State Level Committee, the petitions could be
disposed of with a direction that the mining operations shall conform to
the requirements of the Auction Notice and the Notification dated
14.09.2006 issued by the Government of India.
29. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the writ
petition accordingly with the following observations:-
"In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the
submissions made at the bar, we see no reason to keep these
proceedings pending with us any longer. In view of the change,
that has been introduced by the State Government during the
pendency of these proceedings, in the approach to be adopted
towards grant of leases and the care, that has to be taken
while allowing the lessees to undertake mining operations, as
also the fact that an expert Authority constituted by the
Government shall have to grant clearance before the mining of
sand starts, we see no reason to assume that all these
safeguards notwithstanding, there will be any danger to the
environment on account of unregulated and unabated mining
operations. All that we need say is that the respondent State
Government and its agencies shall ensure that the terms of the
Auction Notice are strictly adhered to by the lessees concerned
and no mining activity is allowed to be carried out, except after
obtaining proper clearance from State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority constituted in terms of the notifications
mentioned above. Needless to say that in case any violation of
the above policy of the State Government and the legal
framework provided for the mining activities is noticed, the
petitioners shall be free to re-agitate the matter in appropriate
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
29
proceedings before this Court. These petitions are disposed of
with the above observations."
30. In its report 'Sand Mining or no mining in agricultural fields in
Haryana' CSSRI Committee observed as under:-
"Yamuna basin is bordered by river Yamuna from
Yamunanagar to Delhi and National Highway No. 1 from
Nilokheri to Delhi. Between Nilokheri and Delhi the National
Highway No. 1 is aligned on the levee of River Yamuna and
acts as water divide between the ancient River Saraswati and
Yamuna. The Riverine action deposited several meter thick
sand layers in the riverbed. Slow shifting of river Yamuna
towards east left behind several meter deep sand deposits,
which was subsequently covered by alluvium consisting sand,
silt and clay to form topsoil. The Yamuna basin (Figure 1)
measuring around 1700 sq km is estimated to have 300 billion
cu m sand deposits lying below agricultural land."
31. In its report CSSRI Committee also made the following observations:
"Sand mines have definite impact on surface configuration and
topography of the land. Small sized mines are prone to flooding
and erosion and a permanent threat to the adjoining lands.
While large sized sand mines by virtue of their size are less
threatened by floods, rather these could play vital role of a
large ground water recharging or water harvesting body in the
event of unusually large floods feared in future due to global
warming. Highly sloping edges and buffer zones were found
the most fragile components in sand mining. High degree of
priority must be accorded to preserve them by computing
appropriate width of buffer zone and suitable degree and shape
of slopes with long term stabilization under vegetation adopting
site-specific soil and water conservation measures..."
32. In the present case the Respondents have not produced any
material to show that State of Haryana has framed any policy regarding
permitting of sand, boulder, gravel mining in non-governmental
agricultural land by considering the environmental concerns flagged in
the report of Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor, Hisar
Agricultural University and observations/recommendations made in the
report of the CSSRI Committee. The Respondents have not produced
copies of environment impact assessment report prepared/considered by
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
30
the SEAC/SEIAA to show that such environmental concerns
/recommendations were considered by SEAC/SEIAA. There is urgent
and mandatory requirement of due consideration of the environmental
aspects referred in the above said Committee reports.
33. The SSMG, 2016 provide for management of sand deposited after
flood on agricultural field of farmers and the relevant part thereof is
reproduced hereunder:-
"MANAGEMENT OF SAND DEPOSITED AFTER FLOOD ON
AGRICULTURAL FIELD OF FARMERS
The Standing Committee on Water Resources on issues,
concerning flood management, compensation, and status of
ownership of submerged and eroded land in the country
including compensation to farmers for loss of their crops
destroyed by floods and right to disposal of the sand left in the
fields of farmers in its meeting held on 29.04.2015 made
observations on this subject.
The Committee observed that pursuant to Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India decision in "Deepak Kumar Case" in 2012,
regulations were framed by the Ministry of Mines to guide
environmental clearance of minor minerals. ... The Committee,
therefore, desires the Ministry of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation to work in close
coordination with the Ministry of Mines and Environment,
Forest and Climate Change to frame regulations / Guideliness
in this regard expeditiously.
Mining of Sand
The Committee further observed that due to the floods, the
agricultural land of farmer is destroyed and rendered infertile.
Further the farmer loses his livelihood as the produce of his
land is destroyed by flood and become unsalable. The farmer is
also deprived of the right of lifting sand from his land. He is
therefore, left helpless and destitute and leave their land in
search of job.
The Committee observes that "mining operation" means any
operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral.
Accordingly, if desilting is undertaken perse with the objective
of winning a mineral then only it will be construed as a mining
operation. Apparently, if the desilting is undertaken not for
winning any mineral, it will not be construed as mining
operation and therefore, the farmer can remove the sand from
the land without requiring the requisite permits. However, the
Committee strongly feels that the farmer be given the right to
use and dispose-off the sand accumulated over their land post
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
31
flood, by incorporating the necessary provisions in the Mines
and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957".
Removal of sand from the agricultural field by the owner farmer
of the land from environment point of view will not be
considered as mining operation and its removal and disposal
can be allowed without the requirement of environment
clearance till it is done only to the extent of reclaiming the
agricultural land. The sand deposited after flood only be
removed, so no mining / digging below the ground level is
allowed. For removing sand in case where private land has
gone into the river due to erosion, the requirement of mining
lease and environment clearance will continue. This operation of
removal of sand deposited on agricultural field should be done
after a mapping of deposition is done by the Land Management
Committee of the Gram Panchayat. The sand so deposited post
flood can be removed by the farmer owning the land / group of
farmers affected by this post flood sand deposition or the Gram
Panchayat. Customary rights to remove and dispose off the
sand should be given to the farmer affected by deposition of
sand on account of sudden flood in his agricultural land."
34. However, the mining leases in the present case do not fall in the
category of mining of sand deposited after flood on agricultural field of
farmers.
35. The SSMG, 2016 also noticed the practice of Mining of Sand from
Agricultural Field in the State of Haryana and made recommendations
regarding the same. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"MINING OF SAND FROM AGRICULTURAL FIELD
This practice is prevalent in Haryana, where the top layer of
soil varying between 1 and 2 meters is removed and stacked
separately and thereafter the sand deposit which may be 10-15
meter deep is mined. After removing the sand layer up to a
maximum depth of 09 meters, the top soil stacked is spread out
on the field and the same is brought under the cultivation.
Though the level of this land (mined out area) is lowered to the
depth of the excavation and in initial years of cultivation the
productivity is low, but the productivity of the fields improves
with continued cultivation and addition of organic manure in
the field. In Haryana some leases are of large area (ranging
from 1000 hectare to 2000 hectare) the agricultural fields and
river bed both are included in the same lease for mining.
The following recommendations should be kept in mind for
mining in such leases:
1. Mining of sand in such mine leases will require
environment clearance.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
32
2. The lease should be of sand mining either from the
agricultural field or river. In same lease both type of area
should not be included.
3. The sand mining from agricultural field is being done in
Haryana for a long time and it can be done in a more
sustainable manner without adverse impact on agricultural
productivity, if proper environmental safeguards are taken.
4. The slope of mining area adjacent to agricultural fields
should be proper (preferably 45-60 degree) and adequate gap
(minimum 10 feet) be left from adjacent agricultural field to
avoid erosion and scouring."
36. The EMGSM, 2020 also acknowledged that practice of mining of
Sand from Agricultural Fields is prevalent in Haryana and also made
recommendations regarding the same. The relevant part thereof is
reproduced hereunder:-
"8.2 Mining of Sand from Agricultural Fields
This practice is prevalent in Haryana; to ensure that mining
from outside doesn't affect rivers, no mining is permitted in an
area up to a width of 100 meters from the active edge of
embankments or distance prescribed by Irrigation department
whichever is critical. The top layer of soil varying between 1
and 2 meters is removed and stacked separately and thereafter
the sand deposit which maybe 10-15 meter deep is mined.
After removing the sand layer up to a maximum depth of 09
meters or the maximum mineable minerals, as permitted by
competent authority. The topsoil stacked is spread out on the
field and the same is brought under the cultivation. Though the
level of this land (mined out area) is lowered to the depth of the
excavation and in initial years of cultivation the productivity is
low, but the productivity of the fields improves with continued
cultivation and addition of organic manure in the field. In
Haryana, some leases are of large area (ranging from 1000
hectare to 2000 hectare) and agricultural fields and river bed
both are included in the same lease for mining.
The following recommendations should be kept in mind for
mining in such leases:
1. Mining of sand in such mine leases will require environment
clearance.
2. The lease should be of sand mining either from the
agricultural field or river. In the same lease, both types of area
should not be included.
3. The sand mining from the agricultural field is being done in
Haryana for a long time and it can be done in a more
sustainable manner without adverse impact on agricultural
productivity if proper environmental safeguards are taken.
4. The slope of mining area adjacent to agricultural fields
should be proper (preferably 45 degree) and adequate gap
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
33
(minimum 10 feet) be left from adjacent agricultural field to
avoid erosion and scouring.
The provision for sand mining in agricultural field may
be permitted, whenever replenishment of sand occurs due
to natural phenomena.
Permission may also be granted by competent authority (District
administration) for excavation of sand/Soil from agricultural
fields, after due diligence of this prevailing condition in order to
avoid any unacceptable impact on the environment and nearby
livelihood from agriculture provided such objective of such
excavation mining of Soil/Sand in limited increase the
productivity of sand agricultural field."
37. It may be observed here that in both the SSMG, 2016 and the
EMGSM, 2020, it is mentioned that sand mining from agricultural land
can be done in a more sustainable manner without adverse impact on
agricultural productivity, if proper environmental safeguards are taken
but the requisite environmental safeguards, other than 'slope' and 'gap',
are not enlisted in the SSMG, 2016 and the EMGSM, 2020.
38. The question as to what 'proper' environmental safeguards are
required to be taken for carrying out sand mining in agricultural land in
a more sustainable manner without adverse impact on agricultural
productivity also needs to be also considered.
39. In these facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate that a
Joint Committee be constituted to look into all relevant aspects of sand
mining in non-governmental/private agricultural land and make its
recommendations regarding environmental safeguards/ measures for
mining on agricultural land with the objectives to ensure sustainable
development. Accordingly, we constitute a Joint Committee comprising
of one representative of Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEF & CC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Indian Institute of Soil and
Water Conservation, (IISWC), Dehradun, Chaudhary Charan Singh
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
34
Haryana Agricultural University (CCHAU), Hisar, Central Soil Salinity
Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal and Haryana State Pollution Control
Board (HSPCB) and direct the same to meet within two weeks, undertake
requisite visits to the mining sites including the mining blocks in Jaidhar
and Mandewala as may be considered necessary, look into all relevant
aspects concerning sand mining in agricultural land in the State of
Haryana, take into consideration both the reports submitted by the HAU
Committee and CSSRI Committee for ascertaining as to (i) whether the
practice of sand mining in agricultural land adversely affects
fertility/value of agricultural land and damages environment; and (ii)
whether the practice of sand mining in agricultural land needs to be
permitted/continued and (iii) in case the practice of sand mining in
agricultural land is allowed/continued what are the environmental
safeguards/measures required to be undertaken for ensuring
sustainable agriculture and achieving sustainable development and
make its recommendations regarding the same including environmental
safeguards/measure for undertaking mining, reclamation/rehabilitation
of mined land for making it suitable for sustainable agriculture and
achieving sustainable development. For this purpose, the Committee
may also co-opt any other expert as may be considered appropriate and
may receive representation from and/or give opportunity of being heard
to the applicant, representative of the project proponent and any
NGO/voluntary agencies or association of land owners or mining lease
holders as may be considered appropriate. The HSPCB will be the nodal
agency for coordination and compliance and will bear all travel and other
expenses of the Committee out of the amount of the environmental
compensation lying deposited with it. The Report of the Committee be
submitted within two months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
35
in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form
of Image PDF.
40. So far as the question of permissibility of sand mining in
agricultural land under the present regime of environmental norms is
concerned, Guideline 4.1(m) of the Enforcement and Monitoring
Guidelines for Sand Mining 2020 provides as under:-
"m) The mining outside the riverbed on Patta land/Khatedari
land be granted when there is possibility of replenishment of
material. In case, there is no replenishment then mining lease
shall only be granted when there is no riverbed mining
possibility within 5 KM of the Patta land/Khatedari land. For
government projects, mining could be allowed on Patta
land/Khatedari land but the mining should only be done by the
Government agency and material should not be used for sale in
the open market. Cluster situation as mentioned in para k
above is also applicable for the mining in Patta land/Khatedari
land."
41. Guideline 4.3 (s) of the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for
Sand Mining 2020 provides as under:-
"s) Mining Plan for the mining leases (non-government) on
agricultural fields/Patta land shall only be approved if there is
a possibility of replenishment of the mineral or when there is no
riverbed mining possibility within 5 KM of the Patta
land/Khatedari land. For Government Projects mining could be
allowed on Patta land/Khatedari land but the mining should
only be done by the Government agency and material should
not be used for sale in the open market."
42. Thus, the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining
2020 stipulate that mining leases (non-government) on agricultural
fields/Patta land shall only be approved (i) if there is a possibility of
replenishment of the mineral or (ii) when there is no riverbed mining
possibility within 5 KM of the Patta land/Khatedari land.
43. The Applicant has claimed that there is no possibility of
replenishment of sand in both the mining sites at Villages Jaidhar and
Mandewala and mining site at Village Mandewala is located at a distance
of 1.62 to 2.02 kms from River Yamuna and there is riverbed mining
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
36
possibility within 5 KMs and 12 mining areas fall within 5 kms of mining
site at Village Mandewala and mining leases are in clear violation of 2020
Guidelines. The applicant has submitted that EMGSM, 2020 guideline
are applicable to mining by respondent no. 9 and the applicant has relied
on Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Bihar
Vs. Pawan Kumar reported at (2022) 2 SCC 348.
44. In their replies respondents no. 1 and 2, 4 and 7 have not
specifically replied to the aspects as to (i) whether there is a possibility of
replenishment of the mineral in mining sites in villages Jaidhar and
Mandewala and (ii) whether there is riverbed mining possibility within 5
KMs of mining site in village Mandewala. In his reply Respondent No.9
has submitted that it has been recognized in EMGSM, 2020 that there is
replenishment of the land due to various agricultural processes. The
replenishment of minerals has also been recognized in the respective
mining plans approved by Respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 9 has
further submitted that the EMGSM, 2020 are not applicable in the
present case on account of the fact that the auctions were conducted in
2015 and the LoI were issued in favour of the answering respondent on
19.06.2015. There is no provision of law authorizing retrospective
application of the guidelines. Even the tone and tenor of the EMGSM,
2020 shall reveal that the guidelines are prospective in nature.
Respondent no. 9 has further submitted that the EMGSM, 2020 are
mandatory but with prospective effect. The guidelines laid down under
the EMGSM, 2020 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of
cancellation/termination of mining contract which was
auctioned/granted way back in 2015/2016. The guidelines shall be
applicable to Respondent No. 9 only for the purpose of the same being
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
37
followed with regards to the conduct of mining operations in future which
shall include aspects like replenishment study, environmental audit etc.
45. The questions as to (i) whether the EMGSM, 2020 are applicable to
the mining leases in question (ii) if yes whether there is a possibility of
replenishment of the mineral in mining sites in villages Jaidhar and
Mandewala or (ii) whether there is riverbed mining possibility within 5
KMs of mining site in villages Jaidhar Mandewala have to be determined
in the present case and response of MoEF & CC, respondents no. 1 and
2, 4 and 7 in this regard is essentially required and factual position in
this regard also needs to be verified.
46. Accordingly, MoEF & CC being necessary/proper party is ordered
to be impleaded as respondent no. 10. Memo of parties be amended
accordingly and notice be issued to respondent no. 10 requiring it to file
its response.
47. Specific detailed response by respondents no. 1 and 2, 4, 7 and 10
be filed within two months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in
the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of
Image PDF.
48. Further both the SSMG, 2016 and the EMGSM, 2020 acknowledge
that the Sand mining in agricultural land (i) lowers the level of mined out
land to the depth of the excavation and (ii) lowers the productivity in
initial years of cultivation. In its report the CSSRI Committee had
mentioned that sand mining is a land degradation process which
disturbs soil profile, spoil surface configuration and considerably alters
topography of the land. The reclaimed soil produce significantly lesser
yields in the first few years and breakeven point in crop production and
soil improvement is reached between 5th and 12th year of reclamation. In
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
38
its report the CSSRI Committee noted favorable response of some land
owners in view of the fact that sand mining for 2 to 3 years fetched an
amount of Rs. 6 to 8 lakhs per hectare. However, in the present case the
respondents no. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 7 have not mentioned
anything about the amount payable to the land owners. Reference has
been made to Rules 62 to 65 the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession,
Stocking, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining
Rules, 2012 (Haryana State Mining Rules, 2012) under which the
quantum of rent and compensation is left to mutual agreements between
the land owners and mining lease holder and in case of failure of
/grievance against mutual settlement, to reference to the District
Collector. In the present case leases were granted in the years
2016/2018 but such rent and compensation agreements have not been
executed so far. Further the entire agricultural land to be mined does not
abut public roads and does not have passage for transportation of mined
minor minerals. The aspect of providing passage for transportation is
also left to mutual agreement between the concerned land owners and
mining lease holder. Again reclamation of mined agricultural land under
mining plan seems to have been left to mutual settlement between the
concerned land owners and mining lease holder. Even though,
Respondent No. 9 has submitted that Mines and Mineral Development
Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund has been established as per the
Haryana State Mining Rules, 2012 and one of the purpose of the fund is
to provide funding for the restoration or reclamation or rehabilitation
works in the sites affected by mining operations and as per the terms
and conditions of the mining contract as well as the mandate of the
Haryana State Mining Rules, 2012, respondent No. 9 shall deposit an
amount equal to 10 % of the contract money towards the fund by way of
installments. However, respondents no. 1 and 2 have not mentioned that
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
39
in case of default by the mining lease holder the State of Haryana is
under any obligation for reclamation of the land mined by utilizing the
Fund or at its own cost with or without liberty to recover the same from
the mining lease holder.
49. In these facts and circumstances, the Director General, Mining and
Geology Department, Haryana is directed to file an additional affidavit
providing information in tabular form with respect to the following
aspects:-
(i) number of mining leases for sand mining in agricultural land already
completed;
(ii) number of mining leases for sand mining in agricultural land
currently in operation;
(iii) number of mining leases for sand mining in agricultural land which
are yet to commence operation;
(iv) the quantum of rent and compensation per hectare paid/agreed to be
paid under agreement between the land owners and mining lease holders
under mining leases already closed and mining leases nearing
completion;
(v) amount lying deposited in Mines and Mineral Development
Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund; and
(vi) amount spent on reclamation/restoration out of the Mines and
Mineral Development Restoration and Rehabilitation Fund.
It be also mentioned in the affidavit as to whether the State of
Haryana has carried out reclamation of any mined agricultural land by
utilizing the Mines and Mineral Development Restoration and
Rehabilitation Fund or at its own cost with or without liberty to recover
the same from the mining lease holder.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
40
50. In the present case, Report on the measured distance between
mining blocks at Mandewala and Jaidhar to River Yamuna was filed by
respondent no. 8 and relevant part thereof is reproduced below:
"Report on the measured distance between mining blocks
at Mandewala and Jaidhar to River Yamuna:
The latitude and longitude of the corners of Mandewala Mining
Block have been taken from the Environment Clearance Order
dated 27/06/2016 given at Annexure 5 of OA no. 306/2022.
Latitude and Longitude of corners of Jaidhar Mining Block have
been taken from Environment clearance Order dated
20/08/2018. Latitudes and Longitudes given below, have been
considered for measuring maximum and minimum distance
from the river Yamuna:
Mandewala Block Latitude Longitude
Corner 1 30°15' 57.4" N 77°30'31.7" E
Corner 2 30°15'46.2" N 77°30'32.1" E
Corner 3 30°15'41.9" N 77°30'25.9" E
Cumer 4 30°15'11.5" N 77°30'38.4" E
Jaidhar Block Latitude Longitude
Corner 1 30°13'42" N 77°24'30" E
Corner 2 30013'50" N 77°24'42.5" E
Corner 3 30°13'36" N 77°24'06" E
Corner 4 30°13'44" N 77°24'52.5" E
Maximum and minimum distances have been measured using
Google Earth.
Distance from Mandewala Block to river Yamuna is between
1.62 km to 2.02 km. Map showing location of Mandewala
mining block and it's distance from river Yamuna is attached.
Distance from Jaidhar Block to river Yamuna is between 8.0 km
to 8.98 km. Map showing location of Jaidhar mining block and
its distance from river Yamuna is attached."
51. The Mining Officer, Yamuna Nagar and Tehsildar Chhachhrauli
submitted Joint siting verification report dated 19.10.2021 in respect of
mining site at village Jaidhar the relevant part of which is as under:-
Sr. Siting Parameter Actual
No Distance
(Kilometer)
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
41
1 The minimum distance of the 01 K.M
mining block from Dadupur Head
Works
2 The minimum distance of the 01.50 K.M
mining block from Bhoruka
Power Plant at Dadupur
3 The minimum distance of mining 0.300 K.M
block from WJC MLU which runs
from Hathni Kund Barrage to
Dadupur Pond
52. The Mining Officer, Yamuna Nagar and Naib Tehsildar, Partap
Nagar submitted Joint siting verification report dated 19.10.2021 in
respect of mining site at village Mandewal the relevant part of which is as
under:-
Sr. Siting Parameter Actual
No Distance
(Kilometer)
1 The minimum distance of the 2 ¼ K.M
mining block from the nearest
river bed
2 The minimum distance of the 6 K.M
mining block from X-Regulator
and Head Regulator at RD 2758
of WJC main line lower for
diversion of water supply to
Hedel Channel
3 The minimum distance of mining 5 K.M
block from RLDSE bund
downstream of Tajewala
4. The minimum distance of mining 1 K.M
block from WJC MLU which runs
from Hathni Kund Barrage to
Dadupur Pond
53. The Applicant has objected to mining in village Jaidhar district
Yamuna Nagar on the ground that letter no. 6958-62/117-M dated
12.10.2021 was sent by the Executive Engineer, Water Service Division,
Dadupur to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar for not permitting
mining activities at village Jaidhar which has been ignored.
54. The Respondents have submitted that the issue was considered by
the Committee comprising of (i) District Officer, Yamuna Nagar, (ii)
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
42
District Mining Officer, Yamuna Nagar and (iii) Executive Engineer,
Water Service Division, Dadupur constituted by the Deputy
Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar vide letter no. 18/MA dated 04.01.2022
which submitted Report dated 27.09.2022 that the aforesaid structures
were found to be at safe distance.
55. However, a perusal of report dated 27.09.2022 shows that the above
said Committee did not make any such observations. On the other hand
the Committee observed that the issue raised by Water Service
Department is specific issue and has to be decided by the Department of
Mining and Irrigation at highest level whether mining is permissible or
not in the area for which complaint has been made. The relevant part of
the report reads as under:-
"XEN, Water Services Division, Dadupur vide letter dated 12-
10-2021(Annexure-16) apprised Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna
Nagar that Dadupur Head Works exists in the vicinity of village
Jaidhar and therefore the area around it has been notified as
controlled area vide notification no. 12038-10-DP-81/21145
dated 21-12-1981. Section 7(i) of The Punjab Schedule Roads
and Controlled Area Restrictions of Unregulated Development
Act 1963 states as:
"No land within the controlled area shall, except with the
permission of the Director, (and on payment of such conversion
charges as may be prescribed by the Govt. from time to time) be
used for purposes other than those for which it was used on the
date of publication of the notification under Subsection-I of
Section-4, and no land within such controlled area shall be use
for the purposes of a charcoal kiln, pottery kiln, lime-kiln, brick-
kiln or brick field or for quarrying stone, bajri, surkhi, kankar or
for other similar extractive or ancillary operation accept under
and in accordance with the conditions of a license from the
Director on payment of such fees and under such conditions as
may be prescribed."
He further elaborated that construction of Bhoruka Power Plant
Dadupur problem of seepage and water logging has been
witnessed. The water level in this area is around 1.8 meter and
mining is allowed up to 2 meter above the ground water level as
per Gazette notification of Mining and Geology Department
dated 27-05-2015. The Area between Hathni Kund Barrage to
Dadupur pond has sandy strata and mining activity in this
area may affect the stability of the channel and the bridge.
Mining activates are not advisable in this area.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
43
XEN, Water Services Division, Dadupur vide dated 12-10-
2021(Annxure-17) appraised Deputy Commissioner regarding
mining notice and violation of Environment Clearance of village
Mandewala and reported that:
" 1. The Mandewala mining lot is located at a distance of 1.5
Km from the river bed whereas as per condition 'm' on page
15(page 18) of Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for sand
mining it is clearly mentioned (copy enclosed):-
"The mining outside the riverbed on Patta land/ Khatedari land
be granted when there is possibility of replenishment of
material. In case, there is no replenishment then mining lease
shall only be granted when there is no riverbed mining
possibility within 5 Km of the Patta Land/Khatedari land. For
Government projects, mining should only be done by the
Government agency and material should not be used for sale in
the open market..."
Since there is no possibility of replenishment of material after
mining in this area, it would not be advisable to give mining
contract.
2. There exists a X-Regulator and Head Regulator at RD
2758 of WJC Main Line Lower for diversion of water supply to
Hydel channel which is at a distance of about 150 Mtr.
Therefore any mining activity in this area may affect the
stability of these structures.
3. RLDSE bund Downstream of Tajewala was constructed a
long time ago for the protection of Village Tajewala/Mandewala
and other villages in close vicinity. The work for strengthening
of this bund was undertaken in the year 2011-12 for an
estimated amount of 40.00 Crores. The Natural Surface Level
(NSL) in the mining lot is lower than the bed level of the river
Yamuna. Therefore, any mining activity in this area will further
lower the NSL which may damage the RLDSE bund and banks
of the
river resulting into endangering the safety of the above named
villages.
In this regard a report on the joint demarcation of the river bed
mining area falling under the revenue estate of village Tajewala
to Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar with a copy each to
superintending Engineer, HathniKund Barrage Circle, Jagadhri
and the Mining Officer, Yamuna Nagar vide endst No. 8510-
12/117-M dated 13/11/2020(copy enclosed).
4. WJC MLU which runs from HathniKund Barrage to Dadupur
Pond has sandy strata and therefore any mining activity in this
area may adversely affect the stability of the channel and the
bridges over it. Therefore no mining activities are advisable in
this area.
Therefore, in view of the above, it is requested that no mining
activities be allowed in this area so as to safeguard the
interests of I&WR Deptt and to protect the agricultural lands of
the farmers from high water table."
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
44
Department has auctioned the area i.e. Jaidhar Block/YNR B
34 and Mandewala Block/YNR B 38 to the Company by
considering all the points raised in the complaint and by Water
Services Department. Clearance certificate has been granted by
the Haryana State Pollution Control Board. Moreover, DG
Mining and Geology Department has passed detailed orders for
the operation of mining by the Company. This Company is a
Private Limited Company and DGMG has passed orders in
favour of the Company on dated 13-09-2021. DGMG has
passed two detailed orders on 13-09-2021 in which all the
issues such as EMG guidelines for sand mining 2020, mining
plan, NOCs issued by HSPCB etc. were considered. Moreover,
complainant was heard during the proceeding by the DGMG.
The matter was elaborated in detail in the report of RO,HSPCB
dated 26-04-2022 while deciding a complaint in the office of
RO,HSPCB. The matter raised by XEN, Irrigation has been
addressed wherein it is stated that report has been obtained
from a joint committee of Revenue and Mining Officer by Deputy
Commissioner. After consideration of various factors, SEIAA
has issued Environment Clearance for mining. Moreover, mining
blocks are selected, finalized after field research and NOC from
the concerned deptts. Mining monitoring is being done by as per
the mining plan and compliance of conditions of LOI is being
done by the Mines & Geology Deptt. Mine LOI has already been
issued by the Mines & Geology Deptt. and DGMG has allowed
the mining for operation in Mandewala and Jaidhar area. The
Issue raised by Water Services Department is specific
Issue and has to be decided by the department of Mining
and Irrigation at highest level whether mining is
permissible or not In the area for which complaint has
been made. Likewise, no prohibition of operation of petrol
pump has been pointed out by mining department on issuing of
the LOI. The site was inspected by the committee on dated 09-
03-2022 (Annexure-18). The land included In the mining plan is
a plan cultivable stretch of land having thick plantation of
poplar trees and other fruit trees as per the khasra girdawari of
village Jaidhar (Annexure-19). As per the site map, the mining
area is situated around 1 Km from WJC and about 1.5 Km from
Dadupur Head work whereas distance from hydel canal is 0.3
Km (Annexure-20). However, in the present case DG, Minerals
and Geology has issued LOI to the Company with condition that
Company will maintain the level of 2 meter of ground water. If
this condition is violated, mining will be closed."
(Emphasis Added)
56. In these facts and circumstances, the question of safety of above
said structures needs to be examined.
57. The Applicant has objected that as per report dated 27.07.2016 of
the Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Ambala the pre-monsoon water table
at Village Jaidhar is 1.80 meters and mining in village Jaidhar will be
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
45
violative of Clause 9.4(3) of the EMGSM, 2020 which requires that a
safety margin of two meters above groundwater table be maintained
while mining in areas located outside river bed.
58. The Applicant has also submitted that the Respondents have tried to
mislead this Tribunal by citing low water table of 18 meters at Khizrabad
water well while concealing that Khizrabad is located 10.6 kms away
(aerial distance) from mining site at village Jaidhar whereas another
water well at Harewa, located 1.9 kms from mining site at village Jaidhar
has a much lower water table of 4.50 meters.
59. Relevant part of Report dated 27.07.2016 of the Hydrologist, Ground
Water Cell, Ambala is reproduced hereunder:-
"Subject: Appeal No. 33 of 2016- Tufel Ahmed and Ors Vs
MoEF and Ors-
Reference:- Your letter No. Mining/ YNR/NGT/Appeal No. 33 of
2026/ 1955 dated Chandigarh the 06-07-2016
Memo:- With reference to the subject cited above, it is to inform
you that the required information of water table of the villages
mentioned in the letter is observed in the month of July 2016 is
as under:-
Sr. Name of Block Depth to Remarks
No. Village Water Table
(meters)
Below
Ground
Level
1 Jaidhar Chhachhrauli 1.80 Reported (in
mining area)
2 Devdhar Chhachhrauli 7.85 Observed (in
Village Boundar)
3 Begumpur Chhachhrauli 7.24 Interpolation by
inverse distance
square method
using October
data of 2015
4 Pipli Chhachhrauli 6.20 Interpolation by
Majara inverse distance
square method
using October
data of 2015
5 Malikpur Chhachhrauli 6.55 Observed (in
Khadar village
Boundary)
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
46
These above water table data having 0.5 to 1.0 meter water
table rise after monsoon period i.e after September month and
this water table may be 2 to 2.5 meter less in the mining area
which is low lying area. This is for your information and n/a
please"
60. In its reply respondent no. 5- Hydrologist Ground Water Cell, Ambala
has submitted as under:-
" 5. It is humbly submitted that the office of Hydrologist,
Ground Water Cell, Ambala had provided tentative water level
of the village Jaidhar, Devdhar, Begumpur, Pipli Majra,
Malikpur Khadar of District-Yamunanagar to Mining Officer,
Department of Mines & Geology, Yamunanagar during the year
2016. (The said list is annexed as Annexure 6 in the OA.).
6. It is further submitted that Ground Water Cell, Haryana
has established groundwater observation points at distance of
20 sq. km. grid pattern. The Ground Water Cell does not have
groundwater observation points in the mentioned villages. The
tentative water level of the village Jaidhar, Devdhar, Begumpur,
Pipli Majra, Malikpur Khadar of District-Yamunanagar during
June, 2022 (Pre-monsoon period) on the basis of groundwater
contouring and nearby observation points is as under:
Sr District Village Water Level
No. during June,
2022 (in mtrs_
1 Jaidhar 10.50
2 Devdhar 5.96
3 Yamuna Nagar Begumpur 12.50
4 Pipli Majara 14.50
5 Malikpur Khadar 15.00
"
61. In their reply Respondents No. 1 and 2 have submitted as under:-
"12. That a report on Aquifer Mapping and Management Plan
by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and
Ganga Rejuvenation Government of India was given in 2016.
Relevant portion of the report (regarding water level
observations regarding Toposheet, Latitude, Longitude, Depth of
water level etc) of the report is annexed herewith as Annexure
R/4.
It is also pertinent to mention here that as per Table- 2 of Water
table data, it is clear that nowhere in the District Yamunanagar
depth of water level is less than 3.10 meter. However, the
areas where these mines are located, depth of water level is 10-
20 meter as per figure 2 of Annexure R/4."
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
47
62. The relevant part of report on Aquifer Mapping and Management
Plan by the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
Rejuvenation Government of India relied upon by Respondents no. 1 and
2 reads as under:-
"2.2 Ground Water Level Behavior:
Depth to ground water level of district Yamunanagar ranges
from 3.10 mbgl at Bilaspur to 50.00 mbgl at Jhiwarheri during
Pre monsoon 2015 (Fig-2). The water level data of all Ground
Water Monitoring Wells of 2015 are shown in Table-2.
Groundwater level is shallow in northern part and deeper in
south-western parts of the district which are adjacent to district
Karnal and Kurukshetra.
Table-2 Water level data (2015) Ground Water
Observation Wells of district Yamunanagar
Depth to RL of
water GL WTE (mains')
Location Toposheet Latitude Longitude level (mamsl)
Choli 53 F/7 30°16'45" N 77°20'30" E 10.50 300.28 289.78
Harewa 53 F/7 30°14'00" N 77°23'00" E 4.50 279.87 275.37
6- Khizrabad 53 F/7 30°18'00" N 77°29'15" E 18.00 302.39 284.39
Nagal Patti 53 F/7 30°19'00" N 77°31'00" E 29.50 313.28 283.78
Dhalaur 53 F/3 30°19'00" N 77°12'00" E 6.00 288.12 282.12
Dhanaura 53 F/4 30°26'00" N 77°23'10" E 14.50 - -
Bilas Pur 53 F/7 30°18'00" N 77°18'00" E 3.10 305 301.90
Depth to RL of
water GL WTE (mamsl)
Location Toposheet Latitude Longitude level (mamsl)
Ramgarh 53 F/4 30°23'00" N 77°21'00" E 8.70 311.39 302.69
Amadalpur 53 F/8 30°08'15" N 77°22'00" E 14.50 278.00 263.50
Shadipur 53 F/8 30°06'00" N 77°16'45" E 14.50 - -
Mustafabad 53 F/4 30°11'45" N 77°08'45" E 8.50 279.62 271.12
Radaur S 53 F/4 30°01'30" N 77°09'00" E 35.00 260.52 -
Jhiwarheri 53 F/4 30°07'30" N 77°05'10" E 50.00 - -
Hayeli 53 F/3 30°26'00" N 77°13'00" E 7.50 318.96 311.46
Rasulpur 53 F/3 30°26'50" N 77°13'00" E 14.50 - -
Sabri 53 F/3 30°21'30" N 77°14'45" E 14.50 - -
Sadhaura 53 F/3 30°24'00" N 77°13'15" E 15.00 306.78 291.78
Salehpur 53 F/3 30°27'00" N 77°14'00" E 15.00 323.02 308.02
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
48
63. In his additional reply filed vide email dated 04.02.2023 respondent
no. 9 has submitted as under:-
"It is submitted that as per the report vide Annexure 13, the
Figure 2 (at page 190) represents the depth to water level map
at District Yamunanagar. A comparison of the location of the
location of Jaidhar Mining Block (through Google Earth) with
Figure 2 shows that the Jaidhar Mining Block falls within the
area where the minimum depth to water level is 10 meters. In
this regard, the Google Earth map and the Figure 2 (extracted
from the report vide Annexure 13) are attached herewith as
Annexure R-9/11.
It shall be imperative to state that the stand of the answering
respondent is further fortified by the averments made in the
reply submitted by respondent No. 1 & 2 wherein it is
categorically mentioned that the groundwater table is at a
depth of 10-20 meters. Respondent No. 1 & 2 had also placed
reliance of the said report.
It is further submitted that latest data regarding the
groundwater table at Jaidhar is provided by respondent
No. 5. i.e. Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Ambala. As per
the reply submitted by respondent No. 5, the water level
for June, 2022 at Village Jaidhar, District Yamunanagar
is 10.50 meters. Furthermore, it has been specifically stated
by respondent No. 5 that the data provided by way its office
letter dated 27.07.2016 (Annexure A-6) was only tentative and
there are no groundwater observation wells at those villages
including Village Jaidhar.
It is further submitted that the issue of the groundwater table at
Village Jaidhar was duly addressed at the time of Public
Consultation dated 19.04.2016 vide Annexure A-4. As per the
Public Consultant dated 19.04.2016, the concerned
Environment Consultant had submitted that as per the report of
CGWB, 2012 (Yamunanagar), the depth of ground water at
Tehsil Chhachhrauli (which includes Village Jaidhar) is more
than 10 meters."
64. However, it may be observed that in Mining Plan and Progressive
Mine Closure Plan Boulder, Gravel and Sand Mine (Mining Mineral),
Jaidhar Block (YNR B-34) prepared by Mr. S. N. Sharma on behalf of
respondent no. 9 the Water Table of the Project area was mentioned to
range from 5.0 m bgl to 10.0 m bgl. The relevant part thereof is
reproduced as under:-
"Depth to Water Level
The depth to water level during pre-monsoon period in the
district ranges between 2.07m bgl at Choli and 15.32m bgl at
Khizrabad. However, in major part of district water level ranges
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
49
between 5.0m bgl and 10.0m bgl. The Depth to water level
during pre-monsoon period in the district ranges between
1.57m bgl at Choli and 18.41m bgl at Bahadurpur. However, in
major part of district water level ranges between 5.0m bgl and
15.0m bgl. Appraisal of water level data of May and November
reveals that some parts of the district have experienced water
level decline whereas in other parts rise in water level has been
recorded. Maximum decline of -0.43m has been observed in
area around Khizrabad and maximum rise of 0.39m was
recorded at Sabri village. During last ten years, majority of
observation points in the district have shown declining trends
ranging from 0.00013 m/yr to 0.389m/yr, however, area as not
recorded any significant rise during last ten years. The
discharge of the shallow tubewells tapping unconfined aquifers
is tube wells ranges from 100 lpm to 500 lpm with moderate
Drawdown values. Near Manakpur, a phreatic aquifer
extending down to 88.0m bgl has Transmissivity value of
2500m2/day, lateral hydraulic conductivity of 31m /day,
However, Water table of the "Project Area" ranges from
5.0mbgl to 10.0m bgl" (Emphasis added)
65. Prima facie the respective stands of Respondents No. 1 and 2,
respondent No.5 and Respondent No.9 as to water Table in mining block
Jaidhar being contradictory and also improbable due to territorial
proximity of the Jaidhar Mining Block to Western Yamuna Canal do not
warrant acceptance/credence particularly as the water table in Jaidhar
Mining Block was not ascertained by appropriate tests on the site.
66. Even though Respondent No.9 has submitted that respondent No.
9 shall conduct mining operations 2 meters above the ground water table
but the matter of permissibility of mining in the Project area cannot be
made dependent on execution of said under taking.
67. In these facts and circumstances the question as to what is the
water table in the mining site in village Jaidhar needs to be determined
by conducting of the requisite tests at the Project site and the question of
permissibility of mining at the Project site has to be determined on the
basis thereof.
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
50
68. The Applicant has submitted that ECs issued for both the mining
sites also contain the GPS coordinates thereof and simple verification
thereof on Google Maps shows that the area of these coordinates is only
11 Hectares and 1.50 Hectares and the same also contain village houses
and roads area which cannot be mined.
69. In his reply Respondent No.9 has submitted that the mining lease
area is allocated by Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the khasra
numbers mentioned in the revenue record and respondent No. 9 shall
not conduct any mining activities beyond the mining lease area.
70. In EC dated 20.08.2018, the Khasra numbers of Jaidhar Mining
Block/YNR B-34 and geo coordinates are mentioned as under:-
.
3 Project Mining of Sand Minor Mineral Mines at Details Jaidhar Block/YNR B-34 in Tehsil-
Khasra No. Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar over an area of 25.60 ha comprised in khasra no 24,25,26//25/1,25,2,33//5,32//1/1,1/2,2, Jaidhar 3,4/1,4/2,4/3,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,14,15,16,17,3 Block/YNR 1//1,213,6,7/1,7/2,8,9,10,11,12/1,12/2, B-34 13/1,13/2,14/1,14/2, 15,16/1,16/2,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25/1, 25/2, 43/2,3,4,4/1,4/2, 5, 6, 30//11, 19,20 /1,20/2, 21,22,23,44//1,2.3 Block Latitude Longitude Jaidhar Block 30°13'42" N 77°24'30" E YNR B-34 30°13'50" N 77°24'42.5" E 30°13'36" N 77°24'06" E 30°13'44" N 77°24'52" N O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 51
In EC dated 27.06.2016 the Khasra numbers of Mandewala Mining Block/YNR B-38 are not mentioned but geo coordinates are mentioned as under:-
3 Project Mining of Boulder, Gravel and Sand (Minor Details Minerals) Mines namely "Mandewala Khasra No. Block/YNR B-38" over an area of 15.00 Ha Corners Latitudes Longitudes N 30° 15'57.4" E77° 30'31.7"
N 30° 15'46.2" E77° 30'32.1"
Mandewala,
N 30° 15'41.9" E77° 30'25.9"
N30° 15'41.5" E77° 30'38.4"
71. The khasra numbers and geo-coordinates of mining sites need to be tallied and the land which cannot be mined has to be excluded.
72. The Applicant has submitted that mining site located in village Jaidhar falls within the area notified as a controlled area vide notification dated 21.12.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 and no mining can be done on an area notified as a "Controlled Area"
without permission of the Director Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana under Section 7 of the above said Act.
73. Respondent No. 9 has submitted that the land under Jaidhar Mining Block except one khasra number does not fall in any Urban Area or Controlled Area declared by Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana as per letter dated 08.10.2021 and there can be no embargo on mining activity over the land excluding one khasra number.
74. Notification dated 21.12.1981 relied upon by the Applicant reads as under:-
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.52
"No. 12038-10 DP-81/21145-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i)(b) of section 4 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 and all other powers enabling him, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to declare the area around Dadu Pur Head works at village Dadu Pur Cantt., Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Ambala as specified in the Scheduled given below and shown in the plan appended hereto, to be a controlled area for the purposes of the said Act, namely:-
SCHEDULE Schedule of boundaries for the Controlled Area around Dadu Pur Head works at village Dadu Pur Cantt., Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Ambala to be read with drawing No. DTP (A) 2336/81 dated 21 August, 1981.
North: Starting from Point 'A', i.e. the North-Western corner of Rec. no. 22 of village Sherpur, thence moving towards East along the Northern boundaries of Rect. No. 22 of village Sherpur, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of village Jaidhar up to point 'B', the North-Eastern corner of Rect. No. 25.
East: Thence moving towards South-East along the Eastern boundary of Rect. No. 25, Northern boundary of Rect. No. 33, Eastern boundary of Rect. No. 33 and 41 of village Jaidhar, Northern boundary of Rect. No. 16 of village Tapu Jaidhar upto Point 'C', i.e., North-Eastern corner of Rect. No.16, thence moving towards South along the Eastern boundaries of Rect. No. 16 and 19 of village Tapu Jaidhar, Rect. No. 1, 7, 9, 18 and 21 of village Nandgarh upto point 'D' the South- Eastern corner of Rect.no 21, thence moving from point 'D' towards Sourth-West along the Sourthern boundary of Rect. No. 21 of village Nandgarh and Eastern boundary of Rect. No. 28 and 24 of village Nandgarh and Khadri respectively. Then along the Sourtern boundary of Rect. No. 24 and Eastern boundary of Rect. No. 35 of village Khadri upto point 'E', i.e., the South Eastern corner of Rect. No,35.
South: Thence moving from point 'E' towards West along the Southern boundary of Rect .no. 35, 34, 33,32 and 31 of village Khadri upto point'F'.
West: Thence moving fron point 'F' towards North-West along the Western boundary of Rect. No. 17, Southern boundary of Rect. No. 12, Western boundary of Rect. No. 12 of village of Dadpur Cantt. and Southern boundary of Rect. No. 9, Western boundary Rect. No. 9, Southern boundary of Rect. No. 5, of village Bhagwanpur upto point 'G',i.e., the South-West corner of Rect.no. 5 of village Bhagwanpur, thence towards North along the Western boundary of Rect. No. 5 of village Bhagwanpur, Western boundary of Rect. No.22 and 19 of village Kharwan, Western boundary of Rect. No. 99, 91, 78 and 70, Northern boundary of Rect. No.70 upto point 'H', i.e. the North-West corner Rect. No. 70 of village Balachaur, thence moving towards North-East along the Northern boundary of Rect. No.70,Western boundary of Rect. No.49, 43, Northern boundary of Rect. No. 43 of village Balachaur, Northern Western boundary of Rect. No. 20 of village Balachaur. Thence towards North along the Western boundary of Rect. No. 22 of village Sherpur upto point 'A' i.e. the point of start."
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 53
75. The relevant part of clarification dated 30.06.2016 issued by District Town Planner, Yamuna Nagar in respect of Mandewala Mining Block reads as under: -
"It is intimated that the Mining of "Boulder, Gravel and Sand"(Minor Mineral) at Mandewala Block/YNR B-38 over and tentative area of 15.00 Ha. (Khasra No. 11//13, 17, 18, 23/1, 23/2, 24, 25/1, 25/2, 15/11, 35/1, 9, 10, 11/1, 11/2, 12, 19, 20/1, 20/2, 21/8, 14//3/1, 3/2, 4/1, 4/2, 5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 6/2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15/1, 15/2, 16/1, 16/2, 17, 18, 19, 20/1, 20/2, 21, 22, 23, 24/1, 24/2, 25/1, 25/2, 20//4/1, 4/2, 5/1, 5/2, 6, 7, 19//1 in Teh. Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar does not fall in any of the Urban Area or Controlled Area declared by Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Thus, this information is given subject to the following conditions: -
1. That you will obtain the necessary permission from mining department before initiating any activity at site.
2. That it does not provide any immunity to the site from other Acts and Rules as may be applicable on it.
3. That you will abide by the provisions of Controlled Areas Act No. 41 of 1963/Urban Area Act No. 8 of 1975, when it comes into force at site.
4. That you will abide by the provisions of NBC/BIS code for any type of construction at site.
5. That in case of non fulfillment of the above, this letter shall stand cancelled automatically."
76. The relevant part of clarification dated 08.10.2021 issued by District Town Planner, Yamuna Nagar in respect of Jaidhar Mining Block reads as under: -
"It is intimated that the land falling in Khasra No. 27/12, 13, I4, 16, 2, 17, 18/1, 18/2, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 25. 26//25/1, 25/2, 32//1/1, 32/1/2, 2, 3,4,5, 6,7,8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 31//1, 2,3,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 31//17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 43//2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 30//11, 19, 20/1, 20/2, 21, 22, 23, 44//1, 44//2, 3 situated in the revenue estate of VIII. Jaidhar, (H.B. No:- 82), Tehsil. Khijarbad, Distt. Yamuna Nagar does not fall in any of the Urban Area or Controlled Area declared by Department of Town and Country, Planning, Haryana, Thus, this information is given subject to the following conditions:-
1. That you will obtain the necessary permission from mining department before initiating any activity at site.
2. That it does not provide any immunity to the site from other Acts and Rules as may be applicable on it_ O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.54
3. That you will abide by the provisions of Controlled Areas Act No. 41 of 1963/Urban Area Act No, 8 of I975, when it comes into force at site.
4. That you will abide by the provisions of NBC/BIS code for any type of construction at site.
5. That in case of non fulfillment of the above, this letter shall stand cancelled automatically. Beside above, in Model form for execution of mining contract dated 09.06.2016 Khasra no. 335 falls inside the Controlled Area Around Dadu Pur Head Works At VIII. Dadu Pur Cantt. Hence you are directed to take license fur this khasra on before starting excavation work/construction any type of building etc."
77. The question as to whether the land under Jaidhar Mining Block falls in Controlled Area notified by Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana needs to be verified. The facts regarding these aspects have to be verified by preparation of maps showing (i) the land notified as controlled area and the land comprised in Jaidhar and Mandewala Mining Blocks and (ii) the land falling in khasra numbers comprised in Jaidhar and Mandewala Mining Blocks and land covered by geo- coordinates mentioned in EC/Mining Plans in contrast colours with depiction/demarcation of boundaries in different colours .
78. For the purpose of ascertaining the factual position with respect to the above mentioned aspects, we constitute a Committee comprising of representatives of CPCB, HSPCB, CGWA, Director General, Mining and Geology Department and District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, District Town Planner and Executive Engineer, Water Service Division, Dadupur and direct the same to meet within one month and (a) verify the factual position with respect to the following aspects:-
(i) Whether mining activities at village Jaidhar will affect the stability of Western Jamuna Canal bund and the Dadupur Head Works;
(ii) Whether the Khasra numbers mentioned in mining plan and lease deeds correspond to/match with the geo-coordinates mentioned in ECs;
O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 55
(iii) whether there is any difference/discrepancy in the geo-coordinates and the Khasra numbers of the mining sites;
(iv) whether the difference/discrepancy in the geo-coordinates and the Khasra numbers requires any remedial action by SEIAA due to material change in particulars of the mining sites;
(v) ascertain by conducting requisite tests at the mining sites as to what is the water table in Jaidhar Mining Block and whether mining upto the depth of 9 meters is permissible in Jaidhar Mining Block;
(vi) Whether any part of the mining sites in village Jaidhar falls within controlled area notified under section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963;
(vii) Whether there is possibility of replenishment at mining site at village Jaidhar and Mandewala; and
(viii) Whether there is possibility of riverbed mining (going on or likely to be undertaken) within 5 kilometers of mining site in village Mandewala and (b) suggest remedial measures required to be taken with requisite particulars of the Authority/organization required to implement the same. HSPCB will be the Nodal Agency for coordination and compliance.
79. Report be submitted by the Joint Committee within two months by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
80. The District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar and the Director General, Mining and Geology, Haryana shall provide the relevant record and extend requisite cooperation to both the Committees.
81. Mining in Jaidhar and Mandewala Mining Blocks has been stopped in view of ad interim injunctive order dated 06.05.2022 passed by this Tribunal which shall continue till further orders to the contrary. O.A No. 306/2022 Harbans Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 56 However, it is well settled that a party cannot be made to suffer due to any interim order passed by Court/Tribunal. Therefore, in the eventuality of dismissal of the present application the period during which the mining in Jaidhar and Mandewala remained stayed under ad interim injunctive order passed by this Tribunal will be liable to be excluded from the period of the ECs granted in favour of respondent no.
82. List for further consideration on 30.10.2023.
83. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, (IISWC), Dehradun, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCHAU), Hisar, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal, Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA), Director General, Mining and Geology Department, District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar, District Town Planner and Executive Engineer, Water Service Division, Dadupur and Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM August 18th, 2023 AG