SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 156

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, CJ, SANGEETA SHARMA, J.
Smt. Prem Devi, D/o Late Radheshyam Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan- Respondent 
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 59 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14519 of 2022, . D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4195 of 2025, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15114 of 2016 
Decided On : 13-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Balram Sharma As Power Of Attorney Holder, Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit
For the Respondent: Mr. Bharat Vyas, Asg Assisted By Mr. Devesh Yadav, Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari, Mr. Vigyan Shah Aag Assisted By Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Aag Assisted By Mr. Hardik Singh, Aaag Ms. Mansi Sharma, Mr. Shubendu Pilania, Mr. Samee Khan, Aaag Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit Assisted By Mr. Naval Kishore Mali Through Vc, Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali Through Vc Mr. Mahaveer Vishnoi, Aag Through Vc Assisted By Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, Aaag

The court upheld that parties lacking legitimate claims or authority cannot disrupt lawful mining operations, affirming pre-existing rights granted under legislated provisions.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 136 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 10(A)(2)(c) - Writ petitions addressing claims on land ownership and mining rights - The petitioner sought to challenge various orders regarding land and mining leases following a lengthy dispute involving objections from the State's reallocation of land to the Forest Department and conflicting claims by multiple parties. (Paras 1-5, 9-10)

(B) Abuse of Process - The court found that the actions initiated by the appellant were frivolous and lacked legitimate standing, constituting an abuse of legal process intended to disrupt lawful mining operations. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 26)

(C) Finding of Locus Standi - The court determined that the petitioner had no valid claim or authority to represent interests in the disputed land due to lack of participation in relevant proceedings. (Paras 4, 9)

(D) Competing Interests - The court acknowledged the rights of Ojaswi Marbles and Granites Pvt. Ltd., affirming their entitlement to operate under existing leases originally granted prior to the cut-off date identified in legislation. (Paras 23-24)

Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the appeal is affirmed, imposing a cost on the appellant for abusing the legal process. The court ensures the operations of the mining company are not unduly hindered due to unfounded claims. (Paras 27)

Issues: The primary issues involved were entitlement and legitimacy of land claims, procedural participation in determinations, and the impact of relevant legislative provisions on existing agreements regarding mining operations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the claims by the appellant were unfounded, lacking sufficient legal authority, and that pre-existing judicial directives regarding land rights were not fulfilled, culminating in dismissal of the appeal.

Result: The D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 59/2023 dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by the appellant. The connected writ petitions are allowed.

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, therefore, necessary to note the prayers made in the three writ petitions which are as under:

In the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14519/2022: Smt. Prem Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (now before D.B. in appeal):

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your Lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and call for the entire record of the case from the authorities concerned and further be pleased to;

a) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2015;

b) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2016;

c) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, quash and aside the impugned order dated set 18.10.2021;

d) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, quash and set aside the subsequent proceedings thereto with regard to lands in question situated in village Ramalyas, Tehsil Neem ka Thana, District Sikar:

e) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, declare the Khatedari of the land admeasuring 7/1 admeasuring 2.72 hectare, khasra no.8/1 admeasuring 1.77 hectare, khasra no.304 admeasuring 3.65 hectare, 305/5 admeasuring 53.84 hectare, khasra no.306/1 admeasuring 22.57 hectare, khasra no.307 admeasuring 18.39 hectare, khasra no.308 admeasuring 27.86 hectare, khasra no.309 admeasuring 12.05 hectare khasra no.360 admeasuring 23.59 hectare, total 166.14 hectare situated in village Ramalyas, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in absolute ownership, rights, title & possession in the name of initially seven Allottess and their legal heirs including the petitioner and further the land be entered in revenue record in their names as registered before passing of the impugned order dated 18.10.2021;

f) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4195/2025: Geetanjali Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and ors. (now before the Division Bench.):

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and:-

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to modify the impugned condition iv of the sanction order dated 04.10.2023 (Annex-1) and the condition No.5 of the allotment order dated 31.07.2024 (Annex-2) to the extent that the petitioner will establish the Iron ore beneficiation and steel plant within a period of 2 years from the date of allotment order or the date of disposal of the writ petition being SBCWP No.15114/2016 (Ojaswi Marbles & Granites Pvt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top