JAIN, J.—Both these petitions, namely, Nos. 1126/1972 and 1117/1972 raise common questions of law, and shall be disposed of by this common order.

2. The facts of the writ petition No. 1126/1972 are that the petitioner despatched 1115.4 metric tonnes of stone from the Railway Station, Tinwari, District Jodhpur. The mines department of the State Government found that the petitioner had excavated the said stone during the period from 26 2 66 to 3-12-69. It proceeded to issue a notice on 17-9-70 to the petitioner that the mineral was excavated without any lease, licence or permit and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs, 1951.26p. against royalty amount within a period of 7 days It was also said that on failure to so deposit the amount, recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1956 will be taken. In reply to the notice, the petitioner stated that he had purchased stone from the market at Jodhpur from where he brought it to Tinwari and then despatched. He was not therefore, liable to pay any royalty. The stone was Khanda for masonary and as per item No. l(b)(ii) of the Schedule I to the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the R.M.M.G. Rules) the royalty paya-ble at the rate of 0 30p per tonne was only of Rs 335 and not of Rs. 1951-26 as demanded by the department. But the Assistant Engineer (Recovery) issued a writ of demand on 29-5-72 under section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956, read with Rule 24 of the Land Revenue (Payments, Credits, Refunds and Retovery Rules, 1958, asking the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within 15 days of the receipt of this writ of demand. The petitioner has filed very of the price or royalty for the mineral taken out otherwise than in virtue of any grant. The word due occurring in the said sec. 25(2) merely means payable without any reference to any time. It enables recovery of any sum becoming payable prior to or after the commencement of the enactment. These provisions are retrospective in character and any rule such 55 and 64 of the R.M.M.C., Rules which though made before 13-9-72 and even if suffered from any defect of vires, stood fully validated by the protective cover retrospectively spread over them by the aforesaid amendments in the present Act. (Para 14) the present petition on 15-6-72 praying that the State be restrained from recovering any amount on account of royalty from the petitioner and that the notices issued in that behalf as aforesaid be also quashed.

3. The facts of the writ petition No. 1117/1972 are that the petitioner undertook two P.W.D. contracts for the construction of certain portions of Bika-ner-Lunkaransar and Lunkaransar-Kalu Roads. According to the P.W.D. Bills, the petitioner is alleged to have used Murram, Jhajra, Kankar, stone and gravel in these works. On Bikaner-Lunkaransar Road, he consumed 14,38,052 cft. of mineral upto 17-11-71. The royalty at Rs. 1.21 P. per 100 cft. payable thereon was Rs. 17,544.23 p On the Lunkaransar-Kalu Road, he consumed upto 12-10-71, mineral to the tune of 7,043-75 cum. and 20 358-92 cum. on which the royalty payable at the rate of 12p. per cum. was Rs. 2,958.37p. and Rs. 8,857,75 p. respectively. The total amount of royalty thus, payable was Rs. 29,053.35p. Notices directing payment of these amounts were issued on 29-11-71 and 1-12-71 requiring payment within 15 days. The petitioner contended that he did not excavate any material from Government mines. He purchased the mineral from various private parties after attestation by the concerned Tehsildar. He refused to pay the amount. The Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Jodhpur, then issued a writ of demand on 24 5 72. The petitioner has also filed the present petition on 7-6-72 praying for the quashing of the notices and for restraining the respondents from any recovery.

4. The State Government has taken the stand that under Rules 55, 64 and 65 of the R.M.M.C. Rules as amended on 13 1-72, the State Government has been e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document