BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has not put in appearance.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the two orders 20.2.98 and 19.8.98 passed by respondent No. 2 and 1 respectively. The admitted fact of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the concerned Department on 1.3.97 by which Khasra No. 302 having an area of 8 acres was advertised for mining. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner moved an application for grant of lease of Khasra No. 302, area 8 acres of a place by the name of Gora Machhiya in District Jhansi. The application of the petitioner was made for the plot of Khasra No. 302 having an area of 8 acres. It is the petitioner's contention that the petitioner was the first applicant to reach his application on 2.4.97. Thus, the petitioner states that under the provisions of Rule 9 of the U.P. Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 1963, he acquired preferential rights for the grant of lease over the other applicants whose application was received later. Other considerations were also taken into account arid it is also admitted to the State that lease was granted in favour of the petitioner on 31.8.87 by the respondent No. 3. This is contained in Annexure No. 9, page 88. Thereafter, the petitioners started excavating on the site.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the respondent No. 5, another applicant, who had also moved his application on 2.4.97 claimed that the lease should have been granted in his favour. He had applied for six acres of land. The respondent No. 5 moved an appeal before the appellate authority and an order was passed in appeal, by which the appellate authority by way of appellate order dated 20th February, 1998, bifurcated the lease and gave 4 acres each to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the appellate order, filed a revision under Rule 78 of the Rules aforesaid. The revisional or appellate order of the appellate authority and the revisional order dated 19.8.98, bifurcation of the lease was upheld.' From the perusal of the record of the case, it appears that an advertisement was made of plot No. 302 as a compact area of 8 acres and this being the case, the lease was settled on the petitioner by way of an order dated 31.8.97 as a compact area.;