V. K. Khanna, J. - (1.) -The petitioners took a lease in an auction held in respect of sand and moram i.e. miner minerals in respect of an area consisting of over 2000 bighas situate in village Adhawal and Urauli, Tehsil and District Fatehpur. The petitioners being the highest bidders were granted the lease under U. P. Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for a period beginning from 1-4-1976 and ending with 31-3-1977. It may be noticed that the bid of the petitioners which was accepted was Rs. 2 lacs which represented the amount payable to the State Government towards the royalty for working out of the aforesaid miner minerals i.e. sand and moram. On 31-3-1977 Kirpa Nath, Bishambhar Nath, Piasu and Smt. Bimla Devi moved an application under Rule 67 of the Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 claiming themselves to be sirdars of several plots which were subject matter of the lease having total area of 363 bighas 10 biswas and prayed that compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- be granted in their favour. The aforesaid application was registered as case no. 2 of 1977 by the Collector, Fatehpur. After obtaining a report from the Tehsildar in connection with finding the extent of damage, the Collector-respondent no. 1 made an order on 19-10-1978 and determined the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per bigha in respect of 295 bighas 1 biswa belonging to the respondents. The aforesaid order of the Collector, Fatehpur is contained in Annexure- 5 to this writ petition and has been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the State Government under section 15 of the Act had no power to make a rule like Rule 67 under the Rules, 1963. It has been urged that the rule could only be made for purposes of granting a mining licence under section 15 of Miner Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as "the Act'') and could not be made for purposes of awarding compensation to the owner of the surface of the land on which the licence for working miner minerals has been granted by the State Government. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention inasmuch as the bare reading of section 15 of the Act shows that the State Government has been empowered to make rules for granting mining licence in respect of miner minerals and for purposes connected therewith (emphasis provided). In case the State Government grants mining licence for prospecting miner minerals in respect of the land in which another person has rights over its surface, the State Government will be well within its jurisdiction to make rules under section 15 of the Act for purposes of awarding compensation to the owner of the surface as that will be covered by the powers given under section 15 of the Act in connection with purposes connected with granting of mining lease. We are thus of the opinion that Rule 67 of Rules 1963 is a valid rule made by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under section 15 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners has then contended that in any view of the matter rule 67 has no application inasmuch as the lease which has been granted in favour of petitioners was an auction lease and not a mining lease. Precise argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that rule 67 has application to a mining lease as distinguished from a lease granted in pursuance of an auction. We are not prepared to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A complete reading of Rules 1963 would indicate that a lease for prospecting of miner minerals by the State Government can be given either by inviting application or by following method of auction. Chapter IV of the Rules covers the grant of auction lease, while Chapter II covers the grant of mining lease to a person on an application made by him. Under Rule 1963 whether a lease is granted by following any of the aforesaid modes, the lease is for prospecting miner minerals and will be a mining lease. Provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules will thus clearly apply to an auction also. Useful reference may be made by referring to Rule 3 of Rules 1963 which clearly provides that mining operations should be under mining lease or mining permit. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is untenable and we are of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules, 1963 are clearly applicable to the mining lease which has been granted in favour of the petitioners.
(3.) IT has then been contended that under the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules, 1963 compensation could not be fixed by District Officer inasmuch as it had not been proved that there was no agreement between the parties as contemplated by Rule 67. We are of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 67 of Rules, 1963 are absolutely clear. IT provides that a person having a right in any capacity on the surface of the land covered by a mining lease or a mining permit, shall be entitled to get the compensation from the said holder of the licence for the use of the surface which may be agreed upon between them. In case there is no agreement, the amount of compensation shall be determined by the District Officer and his order shall be final. The rule leaves it to the parties to fix the amount of compensation by agreement at the first instance. In case no agreement is arrived at between the parties, a forum has been provided under the Rules. The District Officer has been made the final authority to determine the amount of compensation. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to invoke this forum" by moving before the District Officer an application for awarding compensation in their favour. In the end the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order passed by the District Officer is perverse, based on irrelevant material and the amount of compensation awarded is arbitrary.;