- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 15-7-1997, 4- 9-1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut and the order dated 30-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut acting as the appellate authority under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, for short "the Rules". Prayers for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to realize the amount in question in pursuance of the order dated 15- 7-1997 passed by the District Magistrate, to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner in excess what was actually due with interest or alternatively to demarcate and survey the land in dispute and permit the petitioner to excavate sand from the land in dispute for a further period of three years at 15% to 20% enhanced royalty (vide application dated 1-12-2001), have also been made. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in reply to a notice issued from the office of the District Magistrate/district Officer, Meerut, published on 28-9-1994 in the newspapers, the petitioner after completing the formalities for the same applied for grant of mining lease in respect of the minor minerals (sand) in the eight villages, namely, Sakrod Khadar, Mawi Kalan, Jagos Khadar, Chhaprauli Khadar, Gauripur, Sishana Khadar, Khandwari and Baghpat Khadar for an area measuring 249. 862 hectares, for short "the land in dispute". By his order dated 23-11-1994, the then acting District Magistrate accepted the application of the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition for a period of three years commencing from 1-12-1994 and ending on 3-11-1997. It was on the same date that the work order was also issued by the District Magistrate to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000 on 3-1-1995 as survey and demarcation charges through treasury challan duly passed by the competent authority. Since neither the land in dispute was surveyed nor demarcated as required under the aforesaid Rules, the petitioner requested the competent authorities vide letters dated 5-1-1995, 1-2- 1995 and 13- 3-1995 for survey and demarcation of the land in dispute and for delivery of actual possession over the land allotted to him; but neither the land was demarcated nor actual possession was ever delivered to him. In the meanwhile, it is stated that on account of fluvial action of the river Yamuna, major portion of the land, which was leased out to the petitioner, except 10 hectares, gone to the side of Haryana and Delhi. The petitioner with difficulty could start working in villages Khadar Sakrod and Gauripur in an area measuring about 10 hectares without survey and demarcation as time of lease was passing and the authorities were not paying any heed to his requests and were not performing their statutory duty. It may also be stated here that in the meanwhile, the authority concerned obtained the thumb-impression of the petitioner on a draft lease deed in which only plot numbers and their areas were mentioned. Boundary, description of which conspicuously scored out, as it is evident from Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit. The said lease-deed was not read out to the petitioner, who is an illiterate man, before his thumb-impression was obtained on it at the office of the District Magistrate, Meerut. It was only a paper transaction. In the said lease-deed, it is stated that the terms and conditions of the lease were also mentioned, which were also not read out to the petitioner. It was on 20-3-1995 that the District Magistrate directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baghpat to survey, demarcate and to prepare a map. The said order passed by the District Magistrate was not obeyed, therefore, the petitioner had to file Writ Petition No. 10095 of 1995 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 18-4-1995 with the direction to the District Magistrate to get his order obeyed. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below : "on these facts, the petition is disposed of finally with the observation that petitioner may make a representation referring to the direction given by the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2) which has not been carried out by the subordinate authority, within ten days from today and then the same shall be disposed of by production of a certified copy of this order alongwith the representation before him by the petitioner. If respondent No. 2 find that the contention of the petitioner is correct then he will see that his direction is duly complied with by subordinate authority to enable the petitioner to operate the lease and to get the lease-deed executed. If respondent No. 2 comes to the conclusion that the owner of the land in respect of which the lease was granted to the petitioner, is entitled to compensation then he will take necessary steps to determine and pay the compensation to such land holder, so that he may not cause any interference in the operation of the lease by the petitioner. "
(3.) IN pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner made a representation dated 22-4-1995 but of no consequence, therefore, a reminder had to be filed on 12-6-1995 by the petitioner for compliance of the order passed by this Court. The District Magistrate, however, for the first year reduced the amount of royalty from Rs. 37,02,000 to Rs. 32,02,380. The order passed by this Court, referred to above, dated 18-4-1995 was not obeyed in spite of the representations and reminders filed by the petitioner on 13-9-1995, 22-9-1995 and 16-6-1995. The petitioner had to approach this Court again and file Writ Petition No. 16815 of 1995. IN the said writ petition, this Court by means of an interim order directed the District Magistrate to comply with the order dated 18-4-1995 and to decide the representation made by the petitioner within two weeks. The said order was communicated to the District Magistrate but of no result. The said petition was ultimately disposed of finally by order dated 17-5-1996 with the direction to the District Magistrate to decide the representation dated 22-4-1995 within one month from the date the order of this Court was communicated to him. A certified copy of the aforesaid order was immediately thereafter communicated by the petitioner to the District Magistrate. In spite of the aforesaid order passed by this Court having been communicated to the District Magistrate neither representations were decided nor survey or demarcation were done nor map was prepared. As stated above, on the other hand, a lease-deed was prepared and the petitioner was made to put his thumb-impression on the same in total defiance of the order passed by this Court as well as against the Rules. In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 17-5-1996, the Additional District Magistrate (City), Meerut again directed the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Baghpat for survey and demarcation of the land in dispute. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in turn on 16-1- 1997 asked the Revenue Inspector, Baghpat to comply with the order and to report to him and also gave detailed instructions. The aforesaid order was also not complied with. The petitioner, therefore, had to make fresh representations dated 7-5-1997 and 27-6-1997. There was not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the survey or demarcation of the land in dispute was done or any map was prepared after the land in dispute was leased out in favour of the petitioner. The District Magistrate wholly arbitrarily rejected the representations of the petitioner by his order dated 15-7-1997 and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 76,71,403 after adjusting Rs. 56,00,000 deposited by the petitioner without deciding the question of compliance of the rules regarding demarcation and survey of the land observing that the petitioner could not prove that under what provision, the amount of Rs. 25,000 was deposited as demarcation fee. He has wholly arbitrarily assumed that the petitioner voluntarily and happily executed the lease-deed which means that he was satisfied with the same. The validity of the said order again was challenged by the petitioner in this Court in Writ Petition No. 23671 of 1997 which was not entertained on the ground of availability of the statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner against the order passed by the District Magistrate under Rule 77 of the Rules. The petitioner, therefore, had to file an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 16-8-1998. A certified copy of memo of appeal running over 64 pages has been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. On application made by the petitioner, realization of the aforesaid amount was stayed by Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was pending disposal before the Commissioner but the District Magistrate acting wholly illegally by means of order dated 4-9-1997 cancelled the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to deposit the amount of royalty as indicated above without giving any notice to the petitioner as provided under the Rules. Ultimately, the Commissioner also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner arbitrarily without dealing with the questions involved in the appeal particularly the questions of survey, demarcation of the land and preparation of map observing that no case for interference in the orders dated 15-7-1997 and 4-9-1997 was at all made out, by his order dated 30-3-1998, hence, the present petition.;