Prachi vs The State of M.P

Petitioner has filed this writ petition and challenges the constitutional validity of Section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and it is said that the aforesaid provision is inconsistent to and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Minerals Concession Rules 1960 and therefore, the provisions of Section 247, particularly sub section 4 and 5 be declared as ultra vires.

Facts of the case goes to show that petitioners are owners of land situated in Patwari Circle 5, Khasra No. 317/1, 317/2, 317/3, 373/2 and 373/3 situated in village Jagthar, Tahsil Patharia, District Damoh. Respondent No. 3 M/s. Dimond Cement has established a cement factory in the area in question and they have obtained mining lease for the area. It seems that they have planned to construct a conveyor for the purpose of lifting the minerals from its sources and through rope way and cable it is to be transported to the manufacturing area. It is the grievance of the petitioners is that for the said purpose the Collector has granted permission to enter the land belonging to the petitioner under Section 247(4) and (5) of the Code and as permission is granted for the purpose of mining activity, it is said that the right of the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act is taken away. That apart, it is tried to be emphasized that the provisions of Section 247(4) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code is contrary to law governing grant of mining lease for which it is only the Central Government which is competent to enact a law. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently tried to argue that the provision of Section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code be cleared as Ultra Vires as it infringes into the right which is vested with the Central Government for the purpose of legislating in the field of mines and minerals.

We find that when proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 247 and order was passed by the Collector in the matter on 28.1.2012, petitioner challenged the order passed in a proceeding held under Section 247(4) and (5) of the Land Revenue Code by filing a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 2804/2012. The Writ Court found that against an order passed by the Collector, statutory appeal, second appeal and revisions are available under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and therefore, dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available. After the writ petition was dismissed a Writ Appeal was filed being W.A. No. 484/2012 and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that the petitioner has a right of appeal under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The judgment relied upon in the case of Shyam Bihari Singh and Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, was also considered by the Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal.

Now in this petition it is stated that the action taken by the Collector under Section 247 is not proper, the writ appeal No. 484/2012 is pending and challenging the constitutional validity of Section 247, this writ petition is filed.

As far as pendency of Writ Appeal No. 484/2012 is concerned, the said writ appeal is already decided by the Division Bench on 5.5.2014 and therefore, the only question now is as to whether Section 247 of M.P. Land Revenue Code is inconsistent to any of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Minerals Concession Rules 1960? Section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code contemplates a provision whereby it is held that for all minerals available in an area, the right and title to the minerals vested with the State Government until and unless expressly provided for by any other provision and it is the State Government which will have the power to give enjoyment right for such minerals. Sub section 4 of Section 247 contemplates that if by virtue of the powers vested under Section 247, right over the mineral available in a land is given to any other person and therefore, right of the Bhumi Swami or any other person to use of the land is infringed by such occupation for mining or disturbance to the surface of such land, then the person concerned shall be entitled for compensation and amount of compensation shall be decided by the authority contemplated under sub section 4 in accordance to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Further sub section 5 of Section 247 contemplates that no assignee of the Government shall enter or occupy the surface of the land without previous sanction of the Collector and until compensation has been determined and tendered to the person whose rights are infringed. Except for making a bald allegation nothing permissible in law is brought on record to say how Section 247 of M.P. Land Revenue Code is ultra vires of the constitution or any other law made by the Central Government. No ground or legal principle is canvassed before us to say as to how and in what manner provisions of Section 247 are ultra vires to the constitution or to any other statutory enactment, rules or regulation. Except for making bald and vague assertions in support of the aforesaid contention made in the writ petition, no legal ground is canvassed. We have gone through the provisions and we find no substance in the arguments advanced to say that provision of Section 247 are ultra vires.

There being no merit in the writ petition, is wholly misconceived is therefore, dismissed.