RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. ROADSIDE LAND CONTROL OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner applied for the grant of a licence for running a brick -kiln on plot No. 268, village Shakerpur on the Hapur Garh Road, under the provisions of the UP Roadside Land Control Act, 1945. By the impugned order the Roadside Land Control Officer, Meerut, has rejected the application. He held that mango orchards were situate within one mile on the east and west of the proposed brick -kiln.

(2.) THE Petitioner has alleged that he had made an application in the requisite form only Under Section 12 of the Act. No application was made Under Sections 5 or 6. Section 5 provides for a licence for erecting or reelecting any building or making and extending any excavations etc. Section 6 gives the details of a licence for that purpose. Under Section 12, a licence is necessary for using land within the controlled area for the purpose of charcoal -kiln, brick -field or brick -kiln. In my opinion, when the land was sought to be used for the purpose of a brick -kiln, the application for a licence therefor would be Under Section 12 simplicitor. Sections 5 or 6 would not be attracted to such an application. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for the documents to be filed along with an application for a licence Under Section 5, to make or extend an excavation or laying out means of access to a road. Rule 5 would not be applicable to an application for a licence for brick kiln, for which specific provision has been made by Rule 9. Rule 9 provides the particulars which an Applicant must furnish to the Collector. The furnishing of an extract from the revenue records required by Rule 5 is not one of the requirements of Rule 9. The Roadside Land Control Officer was in error in holding that the Petitioner was liable to comply with Rule 5 and had failed to do so. His application could not be refused on that ground.

(3.) THE amended G.O. was also issued under the Coal Control Order, 1959 and not under the Roadside Land Control Act. Its applicability would be on the same footing as that of the earlier order. The Roadside Land Control Officer was not entitled to look upon these G.O's. as instructions from the Govt, binding on him in proceedings under the Roadside Land Control Act. Of course, it would be, in my opinion, open to that officer to see whether the erection of a brick -kiln on the purposed site damaged any existing orchards etc. That would be, in my opinion, a relevant circumstance, but that is something entirely different from asking an Applicant for a licence to establish that he has complied with and not contravened the G.O's. issued under the Coal Control Order.