The statutory remedy of appeal does not operate as an absolute bar, and extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the material available on record.

2. These appeals take exception to the Judgment-cum-Final Order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court whereby, Writ Petition No.4315/2020 preferred by the appellant-petitioner Doli Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji through its village representative Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kharadi, Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran, District Pali and Writ Petition No.5395/2020 preferred by two devotees of the temple namely Shri Panney Singh and Shri Umaid Singh, were dismissed.

3. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the writ petitions aforesaid for assailing the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, Pali under the purported exercise of powers under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Revenue Act’) whereby, the application preferred by respondent No.5 Ram Gopal Cement Company Pvt. Ltd. to use 114 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land in various Khasras of Village Sinla, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali recorded in the name of Doli Banam Mandir Shri Mahadev Ji for subsidiary/ ancillary purposes viz. mining. The District Collector also directed the respondent No.5 to deposit compensation to the tune of Rs.2,63,55,679/- (Two Crore Sixty Three Lac Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Nine Rupees) to the Devasthan Department within a period of one month so that the temple could be facilitated to purchase fresh chunk of land on account of disturbance of its land owing to the mining activities permitted to the respondent No.5.

4. The writ petitions were preferred primarily on two grounds (1) that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, and (2) that the temple, either through the Panchayat or through its Devotees, was not given opportunity of hearing and hence, the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the District Collector suffered from gross violation of principles of natural justice and was also in contravention of the requirement of Section 89(3) of the Land Revenue Act.

For the sake of ready reference, Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act is reproduced herein below:

“89. Right of minerals, mines, quarries and fisheries- 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, [xxx] 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, workmen's dwellings and machinery, the staking of minerals and deposit 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 assinged 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, subject to such conditions and reservations as he may prescribe; delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned: Provided that no such delegation shall be made until notice has been duly served on all persons having rights in the land effected and their objection have been heard and considered.

(4) If, in the exercise of the right herein referred to over any land, the rights of any persons are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the State Government or its assignee shall pay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount of such co