Honble BALIA, J.–This case has a very chequered history.

(2). It concerned recovery proceedings commenced somewhere in 1965 against respondent No.4 Dau Dayal Mohta by the Mining Engineer of the State of Rajasthan. In response to Notification dated 29.03.1950 by submitting a tender for grant of mining rights in respect of mica in Udaipur and Bhilwara districts said Dau Dayal had submitted his tenders. In the said proceedings, respondent No.4 was put in possession of Block No. 3 in part `A as a result of sanctioning of the mining lease in favour of the applicant on terms contained in the order of sanction. Thereafter, he had submitted another application for grant of mining lease for an area 3 square miles on 4.6.52 which was allowed vide communication dated 10.9.57. In respect of demand on account of royalty payable under the two grants, some dispute was there about the liability to pay dead rent under the first grant. This led to filing of a writ petition No. 1197 of 1983 for the following reliefs:

(1) an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of the dead rent from the petitioner in respect of Block No. 3 of the mining area covered by Notification dated 6.2.51.

(2) the respondents be restrained from proceeding against the petitioners immovable property at Bikaner for the recovery of the said dead rent under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

(3). This petition came to be allowed on 4.11.1993 holding that the existing demand against the said Dau Dayal cannot be sustained. The respondents in the said petition were restrained from claiming the amount as due against Dau Dayal (petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition) in respect of Block No. 3 Part `A in mica mineral track at Bhilwara as arrears of dead rent or other accounts in pursuance of demand dated August 4, 1965. However, it was left open to the competent authority to re-determine the amount that was payable by the petitioner to the department in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made in that judgment. That judgment, it is informed by learned counsel for the parties, was appealed against by the State and made subject matter of Special Appeal No. 657 of 1996 which was dismissed on 5.3.1997. Update, in this regard has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide his application dated 15.12.98 by placing on record the communication from the Mining Engineer, Bhilwara to Mining Engineer, Bikaner that in pursuance of decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1197/83 dated 4.11.93. On 13.8.98, a fresh demand for Rs. 96,448 has been raised. Since under the amnesty scheme dated 31.03.1996 on deposit of the amount within time after raising of the demand interest is to be waived, the entire amount has been deposited on 25.5.98 and there is no due against the said respondent No. 4 Dau Dayal now. He also informed to withdraw attachment against said Dau Dayal. These facts are not in dispute that since 4.11.93 until raising of the demand dated 13.8.98, no executable demand existed against the said Dau Dayal which could be subjected to recovery proceedings at all and that after 13.8.98 when the demand was raised afresh, he has been fully met within time and no amount is outstanding in respect of the aforesaid mining grants, recovery of which could be made against properties of Dau Dayal.

(4). The other facet of the dispute which is relevant for the present purposes is that in pursuance of demand raised in 1965 recovery proceedings have been commenced against the allottee of aforesaid mining grant, respondent No. 4 by attaching one property situated in Bikaner which is referred to as house in question. On the attachment of the said house by the recovery officer, an objection has been raised before the SDO, Bikaner on behalf of the present petitioner and others that since the said Dau Dayal against whom the demand has been raised (hereinafter referred to as `the debtor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document