Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khuman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 20870 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KHUMAN, S/O SHRI NOKHE PATASKAR, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE
SHAKH, POST, UMARHAR, P.S. CHAND, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVI SHANKAR SAINI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R), CHHINDWARA,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL CHHHIDWARA DISTRICT-
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KALKA, S/O SHRI KUMER CHOURE, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SHAKH, POST UMARHAR,
P.S. CHAND, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RADHE S/O SHRI KUMER CHOURE, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SHAKH, POST UMARHAR,
P.S. CHAND, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P) SEONI, DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRIPAL S/O SHRI KUMER CHOURE, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SHAKH, POST
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 9/22/2022
12:17:03 PM
2
UMARHAR, P.S. CHAND, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P) SEONI, DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the office of Collector, Chhindwara regarding the case of illegal mining by the respondents no.4 to 6 for just decision of case. 7.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may further kindly be direct to respondents no.1 to 3 to take necessary legal action against the respondents no.4 to 6 as per provision of Mines and Mineral Act, in the ends of justice. 7.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper also be awarded in favour of petitioner."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of Village Sakh, Post Umarhar, Police Station Chand, Tehsil and District-Chhindwara wherein, the Government land is situated at Patwari Halka No.117, B.No.544, R.I.Division Chhindwara-3 of Khasra Nos.708 and 709, Rakba 0.324 and 0.881 Hectares respectively. Some land including mountain was allotted to the private respondents on lease for cultivation of fruit bearing trees in the year 1988-89.
3. The petitioner submitted a complaint regarding illegal mining activities being carried out on the land allotted on lease to the respondent no.2 who has directed the Tehsildar to enquire into the matter. The patwari report was called for and after going through the patwari report, a final order was passed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 9/22/2022 12:17:03 PM 3 authorities dated 14.06.2022 wherein, the lease granted in favour of Kalka Prasad S/o Shri Kuber in the year 1988-89 was cancelled and the land was restored back in the name of the State Government.
4. It is argued that part action has been taken by the authorities. Once there is a specific finding with respect to illegal mining activities, their action should have been taken under the mining act and penalty should have been imposed for illegal mining upon the private respondents.
5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has submitted that it is not the case of illegal mining, rather some hilly side of the land has been leased out in the year 1988-89 to the private respondents who has extracted the material to level the land for plantation. The inquiry report shows that the extraction was done but it also shows that the land was been leveled and some fruits bearing small plants were found as reflected from the patwari report. The private respondents have not used the land for which it was granted to him, therefore, the lease was cancelled but it is not the case of illegal mining, therefore, no action under the mining laws was intiated and no penalty was imposed. He prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7 . On perusal of the record, it is seen that the complaint made by the petitioner has already been acted upon by the authorities and the lease granted in favour of the private respondents have been cancelled by the impugned order. As far as other relief for imposition of penalty in terms of illegal mining is concerned, it is not a case of illegal mining rather it is a case wherein the extraction was done for leveling the land as is reflected from the patwari report. 200 fruit bearing small plants were found as per the patwari report. But the fact Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 9/22/2022 12:17:03 PM 4 remains that the land was allotted more than 30 years back to the private respondents for growing of fruit bearing trees but they have not utilized the same for plantation of fruit bearing trees.
8. In such circumstances, as the complaint of the petitioner has already been acted upon and considering the fact that it is not the case of illegal mining, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Order impugned has rightly been passed and does not call for any interference.
9. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Sha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHALINI
LANDGE
Signing time: 9/22/2022
12:17:03 PM