IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.
Sangharsh Sewa Samiti, Bhilwara, Through Its President Chotu Lai Athariya S/o Shri Chhoga Lai Athariya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16072 of 2019
Decided on : 29-09-2021
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Sections 9 and sub-section (28) of 5 - Legal Service Authority Act - Section 22 B - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1997 - Section 30 - Damaged due to mining activities and blasting - Houses as compensation - Writ petition filed in nature Public Interest Litigation - Respondent authorities may be directed to cancel Patta issued to respondent for allotment hectare of Charagah land in villages - Respondents directed to reconstruct each and every house which is damaged due to mining activities and blasting by respondent No. 5 or pay actual cost of their houses as compensation to each and every owner of house whose houses have been damaged - Public places like Temples buildings and any other building or structures which have damaged due to illegal mining activities and blasting by respondent No. 5.(e) respondent authorities may be directed to constitute a committee for the evaluation of losses - Recommendation of committee actual cost of loss suffered by citizen may be allowed to them along with interest - Heavy penalty may be imposed on respondent No. 5 and respondents may be directed to recover all the losses - Respondent Limited for mining activities on lease for a period of 30 years, but no land in lieu of said land was allotted to these villages - 'No Objection Certificate' be issued in favour of respondent –
Finding of the Court:
District Collector Bhilwara issued NOC in respect of mining in Charagah land situated in aforesaid villages - Ministry of Environment and Forest issued Clearance Certificate in favour of the respondent No.5 vide letter and ultimately mining lease was sanctioned - Material placed on record reveals that mining lease was granted to respondent No.5 after following due process of law and since thereafter respondent No.5 is carrying on mining activities in pursuance of mining lease - Issuance of mining lease in year instant writ petition has been filed in year i.e. after a lapse of almost 9 years, whereas under Section 30 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1997, a person aggrieved by order granting mining lease can challenge same before appropriate authority of the Central Government - Respondent No.5 has established a fodder plot in village Samodi and is supplying green fodder therein for livelihood of cattles and livestocks in area - Respondent No.5 in support of this fact, has placed on record photographs of green - Fodder supply for cattles in Villages Pur, Samodi and Dariba for Financial - petitioner has suppressed said material facts in instant writ petition - Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective - Facts on record reveal that present petition is nothing but a colourable device to abuse process of law and cause hindrance to the respondent No.5 in carrying out its mining activities -
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of present writ petition filed in the nature Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(c) the respondents may further be directed to reconstruct each and every house which is damaged due to mining activities and blasting by the respondent No. 5 or pay the actual cost of their houses as compensation to the each and every owner of house whose houses have been damaged.
(d) the respondents may further be directed to repair the public places like Temples, Masjid, Roads, Govt./Semi Govt, buildings and any other building or structures which have damaged due to illegal mining activities and blasting by the respondent No. 5.(e) the respondent authorities may be directed to constitute a committee for the evaluation of the losses mentioned in para (d) and (e) above and according to the recommendation of committee the actual cost of loss suffered by the citizen may be allowed to them along with interest @18% per annum.
(f) heavy penalty may be imposed on the respondent No. 5 and respondents may be directed to recover all the losses as mentioned in para (c), (d) and (e) above from respondent No. 5 company.
(g) Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 allotted a land in Villages Pur Malola, Samodi, Dariba, Suras, which was reserved as 'Charagah' land in the revenue record, to respondent No.5- M/s Jindal Saw Limited for mining activities on lease for a period of 30 years, but no land in lieu of said land was allotted to these villages, which is contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955')- It was submitted that vide letter dated 06.08.2009 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent No. 1-State of Rajasthan, the District Collector, Bhilwara was informed that government sanction has been granted to respondent No.5 for mineral, iron and mining activities in the urban area of Bhilwara Nagar Parishad as well as concerned villages, therefore, 'No Objection Certificate' be issued in favour of respondent No.5. It was further submitted that respondent No.l thereafter issued a letter dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure-4) directing the District Collector, Bhilwara to grant 'NOC' to respondent No.5 in relation to Mining Patta No.631/2005 in village Samodi, Dariba, Pansal, Malola and Suras for undertaking mining activities, as per Rule 7(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. District Collector, Bhilwara was also directed to ensure compliance of government sanction dated 30.04.2010, vide which the Secretary, Revenue (Group-3) Department, Rajasthan, granted no objection to respondent No.5 for 334.4317 hectares of Gochar land comprising of land falling in Village Samodi, Dariba, Pansal Malola and Suras for mining activities. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure-5), respondent No.5 was granted mining patta under Rule 22(1) of the Mining Rules, 1960 for mining of gold, silver, led, zink, copper, iron, cobalt, nickle and associated minerals in village Dedwas Tehsil & District Bhilwara.
4. It was further submitted that the members of the petitioner- society have submitted a representation to the District Collector on 13.09.2018 with a request that the agreement dated 05.10.2011 regarding filling of two water tan
Ashok Kumar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Collector. Raipur & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 112
A person aggrieved by the order granting mining lease can challenge the same before the appropriate authority of the Central Government. The petitioner-Society did not avail the alternative efficacio....
The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.
Point of Law : Permission by State Government shall be granted only if applicant has surrendered equal area of khatedari land in favour of State Government in same village or nearby village within sa....
Mining activities must comply with environmental laws, ensuring safety and oversight, especially regarding operations near residential areas.
The court emphasized the limited scope of its jurisdiction in re-appraising factual findings and the need for evidence of legal inadmissibility or lack of support to challenge findings of fact.
Mining prohibited in geo-tectonic fragile zones like Himalayas without prior seismic/ecological feasibility study by expert committee; environmental compensation mandatory for violations; existing le....
The absence of evidence that the temple's land was part of the mining lease, the lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice in the proceedings, and the violation of the mandate of Section 89(....
The statutory remedy of appeal does not operate as an absolute bar, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional circumstances.
No mining allowed in geo-tectonic fragile zones without prior seismic/eco-viability study by experts; PAN India review mandated for existing operations to prevent landslides and ecological harm.
Mining prohibited in geo-tectonic fragile zones without prior seismic study by experts confirming ecological viability; environmental compensation mandatory for violations; existing leases subject to....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.