Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is a valid provision that allows the State Government to acquire land for mining purposes, subject to providing a hearing and objection procedure to affected landowners.

N. K. JAIN, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It has been prayed that the impugned order Anx. 2 may kindly be quashed and the respondents No. 2 may be restrained from proceeding in the matter.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he is holding Barani land measuring about 85 bighas at village Gangrana, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. In support of his case he has also produced Jamabandi from Samvat Year 2037 to 2040 (Anx. 1 ). It has been alleged that a notice (Anx. 2) was received by him issued by the respondent No. 2 under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the petitioner to produce his claim for quantum of compensation as a mining lease has been given to M/s. Manglam Cement Limited in respect of the land in question. Hence, this writ petition.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition is pending since 21-3-1984. This Court while admitting the petition on 23-3-1984 stayed proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta, in connection with notice Annx. 2. An application was filed by M/s. Manglam Cement Limited on 11-7-1984 for impleading it as a party-respondent in the petition, which was allowed on 19-9-1984. In pursuance of the notice, reply has been filed by the respondent-State on 1-8-1984 praying that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE matter has come up before us. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

( 5 ) MR. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that unless the land is not acquired according to the provisions of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, it is not open for the respondents to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. He has also contended in the alternative that the provisions of Section 89 of the Act are discriminatory and arbitrary as they do not make any provision for hearing a person before divesting him of his property as such Section 89 of the Act is violative of Arts. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioners have submitted that the State Government is competent to take over the land for excavation of minerals. They submitted that full

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. They further submitted that the power under Section 89 of the Act has not been exercised arbitrarily.

( 7 ) WE have given our utmost consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the relevant provisions of law.

( 8 ) FIRST of all we proceed to examine the challenge made to the validity of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. For proper appreciation of the controversy, it would be just to read Section 89, which reads as under :-"89. Right to minerals, mines, quarries and fisheries- (1) The right to all minerals, mines and quarries and to all fisheries, navigation and irrigation in and from a river shall vest in the State Government and the State Government shall have all powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right. (2) The right to all mines and quarries includes the right of access to land for the purpose of mining and quarrying and the right to occupy such other land as may be necessary for purposes subsidiary thereto, including the erection of offices, workmens dwellings and machinery, the staking of minerals and deposits of refuse, the construction of roads, railways or tram lines and any other purposes which the State Government may declare to be subsidiary to mining and quarrying. (3) If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries and if for the proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) should be exercised by such person, the Collector may by an order in writing