High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Mines & Minerals & Others - WRIT - C No. 58546 of 2005  RD-AH 3881 (3 October 2005)
Court No. 1
1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53819 of 2005
Hari Mohan Rai vs. State of UP and others
2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58546 of 2005
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs. State of UP and others.
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J
Hon'ble RK Rastogi, J.
1. The Collector Varanasi advertised on 2.11.2004, inviting applications for grant of mining lease of different areas. The last date for applications was 14.12.2004. Different persons applied for grant of mining lease for different areas. In these two writ petitions the court is concerned with three areas namely, Ramchandipur (area 30 acres), Mokalpur Khand-3 (area 25 acres), and Kamauli Khan-I (area 30 acres). Sri Nandlal, Sri Aruna Singh, and Sri Rajesh Kumar have been recommended for grant of lease for these areas. The Geologist (Varanasi) also submitted a report on 23.12.2004 regarding dead rent for different areas including the disputed areas.
2. The proposed allottees for Ramchandipur and Mokalpur Khand-3 filed applications questioning the dead rent and another report was sought for. The Geologist (Allahabad) submitted his report on 23.4.2005 regarding these areas. In this report dead rent for Ramchandipur and and Mokalpur Khand-3 was reduced. The Collector sought direction from the State government on 7.6.2005 as to which out of the two reports be accepted. The State Government sent a letter dated 14.6.2005 asking for recalculating the dead rent. A joint committee consisting of Surveyor, Chief Mining Officer and Geologist, Head Office Lucknow, was constituted and they submitted their report on 24.6.2005 recommending that the report of Geologist (Allahabad) be accepted. Subsequently The Director (Geology & Mining) further increased this amount. It is at this stage that the WP No. 53819 of 2005 was filed challenging the valuation of dead rent for Ramchandipur and Mokalpur Khand on the ground that the valuation is too low. During pendency of this writ petition another WP No. 58546 of 2005 was filed challenging grant of mining lease for Kamaulipur Khand.
3. We have heard Sri Vijay Sinha, counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 53819 of 2005 challenging the grant of lease for Ramchandipur and Mokalpur Khand area; Sri GC Singh, counsel for Nand Lal, & Aruna Singh who are proposed allottees for Ramchandipur and Mokalpur Khand-3 and counsel for petitioner in WP No. 58546 of 2005 (challenging the grant of lease for Kamauli Khand area); Sri SP Singh counsel for Rajesh Kumar the proposed allottee for Kamauli Khand area; and Standing Counsel for state of UP and State officials.
4 A chart showing the name of the areas, name of the proposed allottees, and the amount of dead rent recommended by Geologist (Varanasi), Geologist (Allahabad) and Director (Geology & Mining) is reproduced below:
Name of Area
Name of proposed Alottee
Amount fixed by Geologist (Varanasi)
Amount fixed by Geologist (Allahabad )
Amount recommended by the Director
Mokalpur Khand-3, 25 acres
5. The standing counsel has filed a supplementary counter affidavit in WP No. 53819 of 2005. It is stated therein that matter of valuation of dead rent regarding Ramchandipur and Mokalpur Khand-3 is still pending before the State Government. The State Government has not taken any decision. It is only after decision of the State government that the valuation will be finalised.
6. In WP No. 53819 of 2005, the valuation regarding Ramchandipur and Mokalpur Khand is challenged. This is already engaging attention of the State government. It has not been finally decided by the State government. In view of this, the WP No. 53819 of 2005 is dismissed at this stage. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh writ petition, if the need be, after decision is taken by the State Government.
7. In WP No. 58546 of 2005 the lease for Kamauli Khand has been approved. The valuation of the dead rent as recommended by the Geologist (Varanasi) has not been changed. This order can be challenged in appeal. This writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
8. With these observations both the writ petitions are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of WP No. 58546 of 2005.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.