Allahabad High Court
M/S RUDRABALI TRADERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the demarcation was established and, absent a specific factual dispute, the writ petition must be dismissed.
Summary
M/s Rudrabali Traders filed a writ petition alleging that a mining lease granted to respondent No.5 (Vindhya Construction) overlapped its own lease due to altered geo‑coordinates, and sought a certiorari to quash the lease and obtain related records. The State of U.P. countered, submitting that an e‑tender was held, respondent No.5 was the highest bidder, and a demarcation exercise on 01‑07‑2026 was conducted in the presence of all lease‑holders, including the petitioner’s representative, with GPS coordinates recorded. The petitioner rebutted, claiming the demarcation was invalid because it did not follow the three‑point method required for legal land surveys. The court observed that the petitioner had not raised a specific factual dispute about the demarcation and that the demarcation report was signed by the petitioner’s representative, thereby establishing the demarcation. Consequently, the court found no ground to interfere with the lease and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the demarcation of the mining lease area conducted by the authority is legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the Letter of Intent/mining lease issued to respondent No.5.
- Whether the court should direct the production of records relating to the mining lease.
Subjects
- mining lease
- demarcation
- writ petition
- certiorari
- geo‑coordinates
- land survey
- three‑point method
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28979 of 2026
M/S Rudrabali Traders
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kumar Shivam, Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Himanshu Srivastava, Madan
Lal Srivastava
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. The writ petition was moved on 11th August,2026. Paragraph 1 of order
made that day is reproduced below.
"1. Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, learned advocate appears for petitioner.
Prayer (i) is reproduced below;
(i) Issue a suitable, writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari
calling for the records of the letter of Intent/ Mining Lease issued to the
respondent No.5 with respect to Plot No. 997M area 4.451 hectare situate
at Village Sindhora, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur and the Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to quash the same.
Drawing attention to Google map (page 49) he submits, the red patch
identified by yellow pins is his client's mining leas hold, to run for 15
years. There was adjoining lessee, whose lease was surrendered. The
geo-coordinates were changed and now private respondent no.5 has been
granted mining lease such that almost entirety of his client's mining lease
hold has been subsumed by fresh grant. He seeks interference, interim at
this stage."
The Court had required State to answer on the change of geo-coordinates
and google map disclosed at page 49.
2. Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate, Additional Advocate General
appears for State. He submits, counter dated 24
WRIC No. 28979 of 2026
2
th August,2026 has been filed. Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned
Advocate appears for respondent no.5 (incoming mining lease holder).
3. Mr. Saran relies on paragraphs 7 to 10 of the counter. It is sufficient for
us to reproduce below paragraph-7 from it.
"7. That in relation to the said vacant area, e-tender cum e-auction was
again invited through Notification No. 400/Mineral/E-Tender cum E-
Auction/E.P/2026 dated 11.05.2026, in respect to the area of land of
Arazi No. 997 Min, area 4.451 hectare of village Sindhora Situated in
Tehsil Sadar, district Mirzapur mentioned at Srl. No.3 of the said
Notification, M/s Vindhya Construction and 12 others participated in the
tender process Online through their ID and Password, in which
respondent No.5 was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs. 609/- per Cubic
Meter, hence a Letter of Intent was issued in his favour on 27.06.2026. By
submitting an application M/s Vindhya Construction, made a request for
demarcation/ boundary of the Mining area. In this respect information
regarding fixing of date of 01.07.2026 for demarcation/ boundary binding
was given to M/s Vindhya Construction through office letter
no.1121/MMC-30/Mineral/2026-27 dated 29.06.2026 and simultaneously
letters were sent to the adjacent lease holders (1) M/s Mastergenie
Services, (2) Smt. Usha Devi (3) Smt. Sandhya Singh (4) M/s CS Infra
Construction, (5) M/s Bolbam Brick Kiln (6) M/s Rudrabali Traders,
Proprietor Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh. Demarcation of the mining lease
area approved in favour of M/s Vindhya Construction was done on
01.07.2026 in presence of the mining lease holder and his
representative. The representative of the petitioner, Mr. Brijesh Singh
Mobile no. 8009717312, representative of respondent no.5 M/s Vindhya
Construction, Mr. Dheeraj Singh and others were present and signed
the demarcation report and accordingly the demarcation process was
completed in their presence. In demarcation report the GPS Geo-
coordinates of the Boundary Pillars demarcated on the spot and the
boundary of the demarcated area have been mentioned. All the lease
holders and representatives present, including the representative of the
petitioner, Mr. Brijesh Singh, have agreed and signed the demarcation
report. For kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of
Demarcation Report dated 01.07.2026 is being filed herewith and is
WRIC No. 28979 of 2026
3
marked as ANNEXURE NO. C.A.1 to this Counter Affidavit. The GPS
Geo-coordinates and boundaries of the boundary pillars demarcated on
the spot are as follows:-
क्र० सं० सीमा स्तम्भ अक्षांश देशांतर
1 A 2505'27.75"N 82048'41.47"E
2 B 2505'27.62"N 82048'46.43"E
3 C 2505'23.92"N 82048'53.39"E
4 D 2505'21.93"N 82048'53.73"E
5 E 2505'23.51"N 82048'39.31"E
The Boundary of demarcated area:
North-Remaining portion of Arazi. No. 997 Min of M/s Master Jenny,
Smt. Usha Devi
South-Mining lease approved in Arazi No. 997 M. to Mrs. Sandhya Singh
and Mr. Bol Bam Brick Kiln
East- Remaining portion of Arazi No. 997 M.
West- Mining lease granted in Arazi No. 997 Min. to M/s CS
Infraconstruction "
(Emphasis Supplied)
Petitioner filed rejoinder dated 2nd September, 2026. Paragraph 7 in the
counter was dealt with in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder, reproduced below.
"5. That the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit
are incorrect in the manner they have been stated, hence denied and in
reply thereto, it is submitted that the demarcation exercise in reference to
the notice dated 29.06.2026 was not conducted in accordance with law as
can be evident from the fact that the three-points method with respect to
the land survey and boundary demarcation was not restored to at the end
of the answering respondents which is a foundational legal and technical
WRIC No. 28979 of 2026
4
requirement used to accurately establish or verify the property
boundaries and thus, the demarcation report which is enclosed as CA-1
to the counter affidavit, is not liable to be relied upon in the instant case.
It is further submitted that the Court of law has consistently ruled that
any demarcation conducted without fixing three permanent points is
invalid and unsustainable in law. Even otherwise, the demarcation report
as enclosed with the counter affidavit is mere suggestive in nature which
is not liable to be termed as a decision with regard to the controversy in
hand"
4. Respondent no.5 has also filed counter and petitioner, rejoinder thereto
but it is not necessary for us to peruse them as the writ petition can be
disposed of on the above.
5. Petitioner not dealing with specific case of demarcation and
participation of petitioner's representative, including his signature on the
demarcation report is sufficient for us to say that fact of demarcation of
mining lease area of private respondent no.6 stands established.
Petitioner's answer in the rejoinder is disputed by argument that the
demarcation was not properly done. For the purpose there must be
demonstration of the dispute on facts, which will will not go into.
6. Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, submits, there be liberty granted to his client
to approach the authority with the grievance. His submission is recorded.
7. In view of the aforesaid no further order need be made. The writ
petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
September 29, 2026
Nadeem
Digitally signed by :-
NADEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…