JAIN, J.—This appeal by the defendant State arises out of the original Civil Suit No. 16/1962, instituted by the respondent Raghunath Singh, for the recovery of Rs. 70,151.32 as damages for breach of contract and which has been partly decreed by the Senior Civil Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, on 28-2-1966.

2. Briefly put, the plaintiff Raghunath Singhs case is that he was granted a minor mineral lease for lime-stone of the mines, known as Dawa and Seelva in Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, consisting of an area of 40 acres for a period of five years on an yearly dead rent of Rs. 6195/- on the terms and conditions given under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955. This mining lease was granted by the Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur. The sanction was conveyed to the plaintiff by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Bikaner, by his letter, dated 4-7-1957 (Ex. 26). The Deputy "Director (Administration) of Mines and Geology also communicated this fact, to him by his"letter, dated 5.7.1957 (Ex. 25). The plaintiff then deposited an amount of Rs. 1550/- by way ,of security with the Assistant Mining Engineer, Bikaner, on 8th August, 1957. He also completed the other formalities regarding demarcation etc. of the area in question. By letter, dated 9.10.1957 (Ex. 5), the plaintiff was also informed to commence his work., Plaintiff Raghunath Singh further deposited Rs. J 550/- on 28th October, 1957, as another part of the security deposit amount. He also paid a sum of Rs. 1550/- on the same date as the first quarterly instalment of the dead-rent. He was then asked to execute the indenture on a duly stamped paper. The plaintiff in response to that got prepared an indenture relating to the mining lease and submitted the same duly signed by him and accompanied by necessary stamp duty. This was done in the month of January, 1958. The said indenture and its copies, duly signed by the plaintiff, are on the record. They are marked Exs. D1/1, Dl/2 and D1/3. According to the plaintiff he engaged necessary staff and labour. He also constructed a, fair weather road for the purpose of working the mines. By his letter, dated 19-2-1958 (Ex. 10), the Assistant Mining Engineer acknowledged the receipt of the formal agreement, executed by the plaintiff and said that it had been sent to the competent authority for his signature.

3. On 21st February, 1958, the plaintiff was asked by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Bikaner, to appear before the Deputy Minister Mines at Jaipur, on 26th February, 1958, at his residence. It was stated, that one Anand Singh Kachhawa, representing M/s. Chemical Limes, Jodhpur, had some grievance against the grant of mining lease to him. The plaintiff appeared before the Dy. Minister, but he had to come back as the Dy. Minister had not heard the matter. He was again called on 13th March, 1958, but nothing substantial had come out. By telegram, dated 28-3-1958 (Ex. 24), the plaintiff was asked by the Assistant Mining Engineer to stop working the mines. This was followed by another letter, dated 4-4-1958 (Ex. 22). On a representation made by the plaintiff against that order, he was informed that the matter was under consideration. The plaintiff did not hear anything for about an year. On 17th February, 1959, he was informed by telegram (Ex. 30) that the lease of Dawa and Seelva lime-stone was cancelled. To the same effect letter, dated 19-2-1959 (Ex. 14) was addressed to the plaintiff by the Assistant Mining Engineer. The Assistant Mining Engineer, by another letter,dated 13-11-1959 (Ex.12), while reiterating the fact that the lease had been cancelled, called upon the plaintiff to deposit the dead-rent due, failing which the security deposit would be forfeited to that extent. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff served a notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the State Government and claimed a sum of Rs. 70151/5/3 as damages for breach of the contract. The particulars of this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document