Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANGEETA SHARMA, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Prem Devi, D/o Late Radheshyam Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of the cases and pivotal writ petitions. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. prayers and reliefs sought in the writ petitions. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. details regarding previous orders and appeals. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. legal status of the mining lease and conditions. (Para 12 , 15 , 20) |
| 5. court's rejection of abuse of process and affirming legitimate claims. (Para 19 , 26) |
| 6. final decision and order by the court. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, CJ.
1. It would be apposite to note the checkered history relating to the aforesaid three cases, two of them, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4195/2025 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15114/2016 were filed at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur before the Single Bench, while one writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14519/2022: Smt. Prem Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. came to be decided at the Bench at Jaipur against which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.59/2023 was filed and was pending at Bench at Jaipur. At the time when D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4195/2025 was filed at Jodhpur, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15114/2016 was already pending before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.
2. To understand the controversy, it would be,
The court upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
The court ruled that claims over estate lands must be substantiated by evidence of continuous occupation before a specified date, and mining leases granted during disputes are valid.
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
The issuance of a mining lease without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing violates principles of natural justice.
The State Government's order revising the commencement date of renewal of the mining lease was illegal, absurd, and a colourable exercise of power by the State violating the Petitioners' rights under....
The court ruled that ownership disputes over land must be resolved in civil courts, not through administrative processes, emphasizing the illegality of the quarry lease granted without proper verific....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
