- (1.) According to the allegations made in the writ petition the Military Estates Officer, Lucknow, Respondent No. 4, granted a lease in favour of the Petitioner for excavating sand for a period of one year commencing from 1st April, 1978 over certain plots of land situate at Fort Area, Cantonment, Allahabad. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are interfering in the right of the Petitioner in excavating the sand. The prayer contained in the petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 not to interfere with the normal functioning of the business of the Petitioner. The petition has been contested by Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Prem Sanehi, Naib Tehsildar, Mines has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of these Respondents. In the said counter-affidavit it has been asserted that sand constitutes minor mineral within the meaning of the Minor Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and it was State Government alone which, in view of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder, was entitled to lease out the land for excavation of sand. It has further been asserted that in view of the powers conferred by the Act and the rules framed thereunder the State Government had let out the sand in the plots in question to one Chunni Lal in an open auction.
(2.) It has been urged by counsel for the Petitioner that since the plots in dispute lie within the cantonment area, which is managed by the Military Estates Officer, it is only that Officer, who could lease out the land for excavating sand. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1937. According to the counsel for the Petitioner these rules were framed under Section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. Rule 5 inter-alia classifies quarries under the management of the Military Engineering Services as class A (1). Rule 6 contemplates that quarries which have been granted to private persons in the manner described in Clause (iii) of this Rule should be classified as Class B (3) land. On its basis it was urged that the Military Estates Officer was entitled to lease out the plots in question. We, however, find ourselves unable to agree with this submission. Whatever may have been the position under the Cantonments Act and the rules framed thereunder, has in our opinion now been altered after the enactment of Minor Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Entry No. 54 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution provides for regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. Section 2 of the Act makes the necessary declaration. It is to the following effect: Section 2. Declaration as to expediency of Union Control-It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the regulation of mines and the development of minerals to the extent hereinafter provided.
(3.) Section 3(e) defines minor minerals which, inter-alia, includes ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes. In the instant case it is not disputed that the lease that was granted by Respondent No. 4 was in respect of ordinary sand which will fall within the definition of minor minerals aforesaid. Section 15 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules in respect of minor minerals. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 15 aforesaid the State Government has framed U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. Rule 2(7) defines 'minor minerals' and it includes ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes. Apparently the definition of minor minerals under these Rules is the same as under the Act. Rule ? is almost a reproduction of Section 4 of the Act. Chapter II deals with giant of mining leases. It is not necessary to deal with it in detail. Suffice it to say that the right to grant lease in this behalf vests in the State Government. In Bhagwan Dass v. State of U.P., 1976 AIR(SC) 1393 it was held: These provisions of the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1963 are clear and explicit, admitting of no doubt or difficulty. If the deposits left by the receding waters of the river are of the description mentioned in Section 3(e) of the Act or Rule 2(7) of the Rules, Rule 3 must come into full play with the result that no mining operation in respect of the deposits can be undertaken except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a lease or permit granted by the Government under the Rules of 1963. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that after the commencement of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder it was only the State Government which could have granted the lease for excavating sand on the plots in question inasmuch as under Chapter IV of the Rules this power vests in the said Government. The lease granted by Respondent No. 4, on the basis of which the Petitioner claims the right of excavating sand from those plots, on the face of it is not enforceable and on its basis the relief prayed for in the present writ petition cannot be granted.;