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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
LAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE MINES DEPARTMENT ORS – Respondent
CW 9082/2011



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

BENCH

JUDGMENT

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9082/2011

(Lal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

Date of Order :

13.03.2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner.

Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl. G.C. for the respondents-State.

This petition has been filed against the order

dated 11.05.2011, passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines),

Mines Dept., Jaipur whereby the revision filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 20.05.2009, passed by

the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur has been dismissed.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner had

applied for a mining lease of masonry stone in the area ad

measuring 100 X 100 sq. meters near village Chinawara,

Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur on 17.01.2008 which was

registered as M.L. No.33/2008. The petitioner filed this

application with all required documents like site map,

Jamabandi etc. The case of the petitioner is that after a

period of one year and five months from filing of the

application, vide order dated 20.05.2009 the Supt. Mining

Engineer, Bharatpur, without providing an opportunity of

hearing, rejected the petitioner's application inter alia on

the ground that the applied area for granting mining lease

2

was against the rehabilitation of the leaseholder of Kama-

Deeg area under delineated plots. Aggrieved of the order

dated 20.05.2009, the petitioner filed a revision before the

Deputy Secretary (Mines) Mines Dept., Jaipur. A reply to

the revision was filed by the Supt. Mining Engineer,

respondent No.3. After hearing both the parties, vide order

dated 11.05.2011, the Dy. Secretary (Mines) dismissed the

petitioner's revision with the same finding as given by the

Supt. Mining Engineer and upheld the order dated

20.05.2009. Aggrieved of the order dated 11.05.2011, the

petitioner has approached this Court.

Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.G.C. for the State points

out that the State Government keeping in view the religious

importance of Brij area in Tehsil Kama and Deeg, in public

interest decided to close down 202 mining leases situated in

the hills of Tehsil Deeg and Kama under the order dated

06.02.2008 as the said area was directed to be set apart

under the Land Revenue Act as forest area.

The

Government thereafter on due deliberations decided to

rehabilitate 202 mining lease owners by grant of delineated

plots for mining in village Gangora, Chinawara, Libasana,

Bijasana, Chhpara etc. of Bharatpur District and in this

regard the Superintending Engineer (Head Quarters)

forwarded the detailed proposals to the Principal Secretary,

3

Department of Mines and Petroleum, Government of

Rajasthan vide letter dated 24.9.2008. In this letter, as per

the proposals made by the Superintending Mining

Engineer, Bharatpur the Government was requested to

relax rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession

Rules, 1986 (for short, the MMCR, 1986). Counsel for the

State further points out that the State Government after

considering the aforesaid proposals, vide letter dated 3rd

October, 2008 in the exercise of its powers under Rule 63 of

the MMCR, 1986 granted relaxation in rule 7 of the said

Rules. It was stated in the said letter that out of 202 mining

leases closed down in Tehsil Kama and Deeg, 13 mining

lease owners had already been rehabilitated in Tehsil

Pahadi by allotting mines through a lottery and for the

rehabilitation of remaining 189 mining lease owners, 190

plots on one hectare each had been prepared in Tehsil

Pahadi on Government Sawaichak land. The Government,

therefore, accorded sanction for allotment of these one

hectare plots to the displaced mining lessees in the area

falling within the Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama Path in Tehsil

Deeg and Kama.

Counsel for the State further submits that on

scrutiny of the petitioner's application by the

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