A division judge bench of the Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe of Uttarakhand HC has held that the perusal of Clause 6(a) of Uttarakhand Secondary Minerals Policy, 2015 does not show that 100% of land owners of the village have to give their consent for grant of mining lease in the village.
Facts:
The writ-petitioners/appellants are the residents of village Devli, Tehsil Kanda, District Bageshwar. They assailed the mining lease granted by the respondent-authorities in favour of respondent no.5. The petition was contested by the respondents. The State Government in its counter affidavit stated that NOC have been granted by the villagers together, who hold more than 60% of the land. It was, however, argued that since a substantial number of villagers, who had 39% of the land holding, were still objecting to grant of the mining lease in favour of respondent no.5, it may not be feasible for respondent no.5 to carry on mining activity. The appellants had preferred the review application which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 31.12.2020. The appellants sought to contend that for grant of mining lease, the consent of 100% land owners of the village has to be obtained.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that there is no basis for this submission of the appellants. No documents has been placed before the Court, which states that consent of land owners to the extent of 100% was required at any point of time before grant of mining lease. As far as, Uttarakhand Secondary Minerals Policy, 2015 provides in Clause 6(a) concerns, the perusal of the said clause does not show that 100% of land owners of the village have to give their consent for grant of mining lease in the village. Obviously, in respect of land owners who do not grant their consent, mining activity cannot be undertaken from their lands, and their land also cannot be used for grant of right of way. This fact has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order itself and respondents had already tendered further conditions passed by learned single judge.
Decision:
The review appeal was dismissed in absence of having any merit to interfere and the mining lease granted in favour of respondent no.5 shall abide by the conditions imposed by the Secretary (Mining) in its order dated 01.11.2021.
Case: Naresh Chandra Bhatt and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others
Citation: Special Appeal No.154 of 2021
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and R.C. Khulbe
Dated: 18.10.2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments