CA No.891 of 2010 CP No.580 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION In the matter of: The Sutna Stone & Lime Co.LTD.(In Liqn.) And Sarveshwari Mining (P) LTD.Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta Before: The Hon’ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 24th January 2014 Appearance: Mr.Ahin Chowdhury, Sr.Advocate Mr.Subrata Dutta, Advocate Ms.Kuheli Sinha, Advocate Mr.S.Sinha, Advocate for Sarveshwari Mining Mr.Ravi Kapur, Advocate Mr.Aditya Kanodia, Advocate for District Magistrate, Sutna MRS.Ruma Sikdar, Advocate for Official Liquidator The Court: The original report filed by the Collector and District Magistrate, District – Sutna, Madhya Pradesh dated 13th December 2013 is considered in Court.
Mr.Kapur, learned advocate for the Collector and District Magistrate has today tendered an additional report in Hindi.
Let this report be translated in English by the Department of this Court and circulated by Mr.Kanodia to Mr.Ahin Chowdhury’s Advocate-on-Record and the Official Liquidator by 14th February 2014, in the same way as the original report.
MRS.Sikdar appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that security guards posted at the site reported illegal mining and wanted to file an FIR with the police.
But the same was not accepted by the police.
This happened on several occasions, it is submitted.
Mr.Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the purchaser endorsed this submission and maintained his view that illegal mining was continuing in the area.
However, the Collector and the District Magistrate has stated in the said original report that there was no illegal mining.
Such report is based on information received from the Superintendent of Police and from the mining officer.
On the prayer of Mr.Chowdhury, I direct the Collector and District Magistrate, Sutna and the mining officer to file separate affidavits in this Court with regard to mining activities.
The District Magistrate himself should visit the site and satisfy himself before filing the affidavit.
Furthermore, I note the view expressed by the Collector and District Magistrate in the report dated 13th December 2013 and Mr.Kapur that 10% of the land, which could not be handed over to the purchaser, comprises of several villages with hundreds of occupants residing for 50-60 years with voter identity cards/ration cards etc.Furthermore, there is a school and mosque in the area.
Evicting these persons might lead to a law and order problem.
A humanitarian view ought to be taken by formulating a scheme for the rehabilitation of these persons.
Considering the above views of the Collector and District Magistrate, I direct him to include in the above affidavit proposals or a scheme for rehabilitating or confining these unauthorised occupants to a limited area and handing over the rest to the purchaser.
The Collector and District Magistrate has to take an initiative and active role in the matter because the record says that these occupants are rank trespassers and to be evicted from the area.
Two or three persons had come forward to challenge the orders of the Court, to this effect, which challenge has been dismissed up to the Appeal Court level.
All the more reason why the Collector and District Magistrate should take a proactive role in the formulation of a scheme for rehabilitation of these persons.
Such affidavit should be filed by 19th February 2014 with copies circulated to the appearing parties.
List this application as “For Order” on 21st February 2014.
The Collector and District Magistrate, concerned mining officer and all parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) R.
Bose AR(CR)