The land in question cannot be deemed to be categorized as 'pasture land' merely because the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for developing pasturage on the land, in the absence of any order of the competent authority setting apart the land for pasturage.

JUDGMENT

Sangeet Lodha, J. - By way of this writ petition (PIL), the petitioners are seeking directions to the Secretary/Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, not to sanction mining lease in khasra nos. 976 and 977 of village Roop Pura, District Bhilwara. Further directions are sought to the District Collector, Bhilwara not to issue NOC for grant of mining lease and to reserve land of khasra nos.976 and 977 for pasturage.

2. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioners is that livelihood of 150 families residing in village Roop Pura is dependent on agriculture and cattle breeding. It is submitted that the land comprising khasra no. 976 and 977 has been developed as pasturage by the villagers. That apart, two small ponds (nadis) and one anicut are also located in the said land. According to the petitioners, Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Gyangarh adopted a resolution in its meeting held on 10.10.12 to develop the land comprising khasra nos.976 and 977 alongwith some other lands as pasturage under the MANREGA Scheme. Admittedly, in the revenue record, the said lands are recorded as bilanam Government land. The grievance of the petitioners is that Director, Mines and Geology has issued an advertisement dated 30.7.19 for e-auction of plots for excavation of mineral Granite, which form part of the land comprising khasra no.976 and 977 used as pasturage, not available for allotment.

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the plots delineated for grant of mining lease for mineral Granite do not form part of pasture land or nadi. It is submitted that the land in question has been recorded in the revenue record as 'Bilanam Gair Kabil Kast' and the nature of the land is mentioned as 'Gair Mumkin Magri'. It is submitted that khasra nos.976 and 977 are big chunk of land and the petitioners have not been able to show that the plots in respect whereof e-auction proceeding has been initiated were ever developed as Charagah or there is existence of any nadi or anicut upon the land. It is averred that the Geologist has undertaken survey of the land and have given its report regarding availability of mineral Granite and therefore, post delineation e-auction notice was issued after seeking requisite sanction. According to the respondents, as per the circular dated 17.1.02 and 7.2.02, the land over which mineral are found cannot be utilised or allotted for any other purpose. It is further submitted that e-auction was conducted and successful bidders have already been declared for 12 plots except plot no.110 and pursuant thereto, except for plot no.111 and 112, the successful bidders have already deposited 40% premium amount as first installment and 'Letters of Intent' have already been issued qua three plots on 29.8.19.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Gyangarh, the pasturage has already been developed in the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that despite the representation being made on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to the District Collector, Bhilwara, no steps have been taken to set apart the land as pasture land. It is submitted that the contour and the boundary strengthening the work of nadi has been done by the Gram Panchayat under the MANREGA Scheme. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting held on 22.7.18 and 27.8.18, even the report has been submitted to the Tehsildar and SDO to remove the encroachment made by two unscrupulous persons on the land in question. Learned counsel urged that keeping in view the fact that the disputed land has already been put to use as pasturage, the same deserves to be recorded in the revenue record as 'pasture land'.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners have not specified as to