Allahabad High Court
MANGERAMversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court declined to grant mandamus or direct compensation, directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate for survey, assessment, and possible compensation, and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner filed a second writ petition alleging continued illegal mining on his agricultural land at Nali and Chak Marg, claiming damage to crops and seeking a mandamus to stop the mining and compensation for losses. The court noted that the earlier petition had been consigned after the State issued notices and was now aware of the offending party, having moved to recover a penalty. The court held that the matter of restoration and compensation falls within the administrative jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the District Magistrate, who must assess the damage and decide on compensation within four weeks, providing reasons if denied. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the court should issue a mandamus directing the State to stop the illegal mining.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for damage caused by illegal mining.
- Whether the petition should be referred to the District Magistrate for assessment and relief.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- illegal mining
- writ petition
- mandamus
- compensation
- restoration
- district magistrate
- minor minerals
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28700 of 2026
Mangeram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Petitioner had moved this Court once again complaining illegal mining
in the land of Nali and Chakmarg. Paragraph 1 from order dated 24th
August, 2026, made on moving of the writ petition, is reproduced below.
"1. Mr. Mohitosh Singh, learned advocate holding the brief appears on
behalf of petitioner and submits, his client made complaints dated 19th
November, 2025 and 7th February, 2026 in respect of illegal mining in
the land of Nali and Chak Marg. Earlier too his client had complained
and followed up by filing Writ-C no.5685 of 2024. Said writ petition was
disposed of as consigned by co-ordinate Bench upon recording
submission made on behalf of State. Paragraph 3 from the consignment
order dated 1st March, 2024 is reproduced below.
"3. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received, states
that twice notices had been issued to the person against whom the
petitioner alleges illegal mining. These notices are dated 2.11.2023 and
23.12.2023 and that the matter is proceeding in accordance with law."
The illegal mining is continuing, which is why his client is again before
the Court."
Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel
appears for State.
2. Counter and rejoinder have come in. We are in possession of fact that
WRIC No. 28700 of 2026
2
illegality has been discovered by State, inasmuch as State has moved for
recovery of penalty. Mr. Singh submits, his client suffered damage to his
agricultural land and crops. There be direction for restoration and
compensation.
3. Prayer (II) and (III) are reproduced below.
"II. Issue a Writ order direction in the nature of the mandamus
commanding the respondent to stop the illegal mining carry out by the
opposite party.
III. Issue a Writ order direction to compensate the petitioner for the loss
incurred due to illegal mining carry out by the opposite party."
Petitioner's first writ petition was directed to be consigned. As aforesaid,
this is his second writ petition. State has taken steps to obtain recovery of
penalty. Petitioner is entitled to relief per his prayer (III). We relegate the
claim to respondent no.2 (the District Magistrate). Said respondent will
cause survey and assess damage and loss suffered by petitioner. It is for
State, in charge of the administration, to deal with the claim for
restoration and compensation. Petitioner's persistent complaints have led
State to discover the person who has caused the wrong doing. State has
the power under the statutory provisions as well as Uttar Pradesh Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021.
4. Petitioner will make representation to respondent no.2 along with
certified copy of this order. Said respondent, within four weeks of the
communication, to inform petitioner of decision taken on his claim.
Within four weeks following, there be restoration and payment of
compensation, if so decided. Otherwise reasons to be stated.
5. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
September 29, 2026
Mohini
Digitally signed by :-
MOHINI RAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…