JUDGMENT

M.N. Bhandari, J. - By this writ petition, a prayer is made for cancellation of mining lease dated 28.9.2010 to the extent of the agriculture land belonging to the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel submits that in a land belonging to the petitioners, a mining lease was granted in favour of private company without a consent thus were not permitted to excavate the mineral. The official respondents even granted first and second renewal but respondent company was not permitted excavation of mineral. The third renewal was granted with consent of the petitioners and for which an order was passed under section 89 of the Act of 1956 but it was on certain conditions. The fourth renewal of lease was granted without consent of the petitioners though required thus it is illegal. The land should accordingly vest in favour of the petitioners.

3. It is submitted that even while passing the order under section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ''the Act of 1956''), section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ''the Act of 1955'') was ignored. The petitioners are Scheduled Tribes thus land belonging to them could not have been sold or gifted to a general caste or a company. The grant of mining lease and perpetual renewals would deprive the petitioners from khatedari rights in the land thus to be treated to be a sale in violation of section 42 of the Act of 1955.

4. It is further submitted that even while passing the order under section 89 of the Act of 1956, a condition was imposed regarding employment of one of the family member of the petitioners, however, after giving appointment to one of the family members as Helper, terminated his services later on thus even violation of the order passed by the Collector under section 89 of the Act of 1956 has been made.

5. It is lastly contended that section 89 of the Act of 1956 applies to the land of river. The land belonging to private khatedar cannot be subjected to section 89 of the Act of 1956 thus, for that reasons also, grant of fourth renewal of lease without taking consent of the petitioners becomes illegal thus relief prayed in the writ petition may be granted.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners has made a reference of the circular dated 30.9.2010 to support his argument. As per the said circular, consent before renewal needs to be taken. It is further submitted that the circular referred by the State Government has no application as it was issued subsequent to the renewal of the mining lease.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that the order passed under section 89 of the Act of 1956 is not under challenge thus any argument regarding said order cannot be raised. It is more so when the order was passed after taking care of section 42 of the Act of 1955. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, then could have challenged it but, without challenge, rather, after taking compensation and employment, order aforesaid has been questioned.

8. It is further submitted that two family members were given employment by the respondent company, however, after some time, they left the job at their own. Their services were not terminated. If their services would have been terminated then they were expected to send a notice to the company or would have approached the Collector for violation of his order under section 89 of the Act of 1956.

9. It is lastly contended that for every renewal, consent is not required, rather, once consent is recorded for grant of lease, it remains for renewal of the mining lease. The clarification to this effect was made in the subsequent circular. So far as circular referred by the petitioners is concerned, it has no application for grant of mining lease or for renewal, rather, it is applicable when, after grant of mining lease, excavation of the mineral is to be made. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of relief prayed in the writ petition. It is also submitted