Honble KAURANI, C.—The facts in brief, are that the Additional Tehsildar, Bijoliya found Chunni Lal and Nathu Lal excavating mineral from the Government land without any permission from the Collector or any other authority. As the excavation of mineral was made from the government land as such proceedings were instituted under Section 89(7) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the LR Act) and penalty was imposed. Against the above noted order, the aggrieved party went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara who rejected the appeals. The second appeals ere filed before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which were allowed and the order of both the courts below were set-aside.

2. Being aggrieved of the above noted order of the Board of Revenue, the State Government filed writ petition No.3504/98 and 3498/98. The Honble High Court disposed of the writ petitions observing that the review petition may be filed before the Board of Revenue as a result of which the two review petitions LR/46/99/Bhilwara and LR/51/99 Bhilwara came up for decision before the Single Bench of the Board of Revenue.

3. The learned Government Advocate argued that proceedings can be taken under Section 89(7) of the LR Act in respect of excavation of mineral from government land. he further submitted that the The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession rules, 1986 (hereinafter refer as the MMC Rules) are applicable relating to unauthorised excavation fo mineral in general whereas section 89(7) of LR Act applies to unauthorised excavation of mineral from government land. He also drew the attention of the Court to the words "without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be liable on the order in writing of the Collector to pay a penalty" appearing in Section 89(7) of L.R. Act and submitted that regarding government land additional provision has been made and action could be taken under Section 89(7) of LR Act as such the review should be accepted.

4. The learned counsel for the non-applicant during the course of arguments submitted that the decision of Chunni Lals case reported in 1998 RRD 124 is based on the division of the Honble Rajasthan High Court delivered in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan 1996 DNJ(II) Raj 631 wherein the High Court has placed reliance on the judgment reported in AIR 1970 SC 1436. In fact the review deserves to be dismissed. Learned Government Advocate has misread the judgment of High Court delivered in writ petition No.432/2000, 438/ 2000 and 441/2000.

5. Honble Single Member of the Board of Revenue held that a large number of cases have been decided by various Benches of the Board of Revenue list of which has been marked as Annexure-A. Most of the judgments are inconsistent to each other as such it would be in the interest of justice to place the review petitions before the Larger Bench. Thus, these review petitions have come up for decision before us.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government urged that the decision delivered in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan 1996 DNJ (ii) Raj 630 is distinguishable on facts. The dispute in the case of Ramesh Kumar was regarding construction of a building on the area covered by mining lease for mineral masonary stones near Village Bada Bagh Distt. Jaisalmer as it was in the leased area as a result of which it ceased to be agriculture land and the Honble High Court rightly quashed the proceedings taken by the Tehsildar under Section 91 and 89 of the LR Act. But in the instant case the position in otherwise, unauthorised excavation of mineral was made in government agricultural land regarding which action could be taken only by revenue authorities and the review petitions deserves to be allowed. the learned Government Advocate further submitted that there were two judgments of the Honble High Court delivered in (1) Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Rajast

Click Here to Read the rest of this document