Jumadeen vs State Of Raj. And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8769 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 476/2013

L.R.'s of Jummadeen:-

1/1 Smt. Raisa W/o Jummadeen, aged about 70 years, 1/2 Abdul Khalik S/o Jummadeen, aged about 50 years, 1/3 Abdul Hafeez S/o Jummadeen, aged about 48 years, 1/4 Mukhtiyar Ahmed S/o Jummadeen, aged about 46 years, 1/5 Mohd. Aslam S/o Jummadeen, aged about 44 years, 1/6 Abdul Kayum S/o Jummadeen, aged about 42 years, 1/7 Abdul Rahman S/o Jummadeen, aged about 35 years, 1/8 Noshad Ahmed S/o Jummadeen, aged about 34 years, 1/9 Irshad Ahmed S/o Jummadeen, aged about 33 years, 1/10 Mosis Raza S/o Jummadeen, aged about 21 years, 1/11 Shahnaz D/o Jummadeen, aged about 27 years, All are residents of Gulzarpura, Makrana. 1/12 Smt. Sahina Begum D/o Jummadeen, W/o Mohd. Yusuf, aged about 49 years, R/o Peer Ki Dargah, Makrana. 1/13 Smt. Nazma d/o Jummadeen, w/o Iptikarudeen, R/o Godawas, Makrana.

1/14 Smt. Tahira Begum D/o Jummadeen, W/o Asrat Ali, R/o Sadar Bazar, Makrana.

----Appellants Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary (Mines), Department of Mining, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur.

3. The Mining Engineer, Makrana, District Nagaur.

4. Sawai S/o Shri Faizudeen through Legal Representatives:- 4/1 Hazara W/o Late Shri Sawai.

4/2 L.R.s of Mukhatar S/o Late Shri Sawai. 4/2/1 Hamsira W/o Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman, r/o Makrana 4/2/2 Mohd. Akram S/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/3 Tahir S/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/4 Munni D/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/5 Nasrin D/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/6 Khairun D/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/7 Mehroon D/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/8 Nazda D/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o Makrana.

4/2/9 Sohel S/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman R/o

(2 of 6) [SAW-476/2013]

Makrana.

4/2/10 Simran d/o Late Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman r/o Makrana.

L.R. No. 4/2/9 and 4/2/10 are minor through their natural guardian mother Hamsira. W/o Mukhatar Ahmed, by caste Musalman r/o Makrana, District Nagaur. 4/3 Sahadate @ Khalik s/o Late Shri Sawai. All b/c Musalman, r/o Guljarpura, Makrana, District Nagaur, 4/4 Rashida d/o Late Shri Sawai w/o Shri Qayyum, b/c Bhati Musalman, r/o Near Railway Station, Makrana, District Nagaur.

4/5 Bismillah d/o Late Shri Sawai w/o Shri Iqbal, b/c Gesawat, r/o Tiba Mohalla, Makrana, District Nagaur, 4/6 Khurshida d/o Late Shri Sawai w/o Shri Abdul Qayyum through her legal representatives: 4/6/1 Faiyaz s/o shri Abudul Qayyum 4/6/2 Nazama d/o shri Abudul Qayyum 4/6/3 Riyaz Ahmed s/o shri Abudul Qayyum 4/6/4 Nagma d/o shri Abdul Qayyum 4/6/5 Nasreen d/o shri Abdul Qayyum 4/6/6 Madin s/o Shri Abdul Qayyum All legal representatives of Smt. Khurshida, minors through their natural guardian Shri Abdul Qayyum s/o Nawab Ali, B/c Gesawat Musalman, R/o Ward No. 24, Makrana, District Nagaur.

5. Abdul Aziz s/o Shri Chhotuji,

6. Mohd. Salim S/o Shri Chhotuji,

7. Mohd. Sadique s/o Shri Chhotuji,

8. Smt. Jubeda w/o Late Shri Chhotuji,

9. Legal representatives of Late sh. Rajjak s/o Shri Faiz Mohd. 9/1 Gulam Rasool s/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/2 Raju @ Jakir s/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/3 Mohd. Yusuf s/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/4 Smt. Raisa w/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/5 Haseena d/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/6 Sanno d/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/7 Saida d/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/8 Paro d/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/9 Rehana d/o Late sh. Rajjak, 9/10 Heena d/o Late Sh. Rajjak, minor through their natural guardian mother Smt. Raisa w/o Late Shri Rajjak, All b/c Gesawat, r/o Makrana, District Nagaur.

10. Legal Representatives of Late Shri Nawab s/o Shri Faiz Mohd. 10/1 Mumtaz w/o Shri Mohd. Ayub Gehlot, d/o Late Shri Nawab, R/o Mewaliya Bad, Makrana, District Nagaur 10/2 L.R.'s of Shameena Bano w/o Sh. Salam Gesawat, D/o late Shri Nawab:-

10/2/1 Rukhsar d/o Abdul Salam, b/c Musalman R/o Nadi Chowk, Makrana.

10/2/2 Imran S/o Abdul Salam, R/o 2, Masjid Road, Makrana. 10/2/3 Mohammad Salim S/o Abdul Salam, R/o 2, Masjid Road,

(3 of 6) [SAW-476/2013]

Makrana.

10/2/4 Sherni D/o Abdul Salam, aged about 13 years, R/o 2, Masjid Road, Makrana. Minor through guardian father Abdul Salam.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Anirudh Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshiti Singhvi Mr. S.P. Sharma Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari MR. Aidan Choudhary Mr. D.L.R. Vyas

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

05/04/2021

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Challenge in the present special appeal has been made to

the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 1620/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge was

pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the present appellant

seeking to challenge the order dated 12.01.2010 under Annexure

17.

Shorn of unnecessary facts, it is suffice to note herein that

there appears to be a dispute between the present appellant and

the private respondent regarding grant of a query lease. It

appears that the matter came before this Court earlier and

ultimately, in S.A.W. No. 1054/2008, the Division Bench of this

Court vide order dated 06.04.2009, was pleased to direct as

follows:-

"We have been taken through various documents filed by the respective parties.

(4 of 6) [SAW-476/2013]

After having given our anxious consideration to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that in any case the Director of Mines and Geology was not sitting as an appellate authority over the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.3.2008. Whether it was necessary or not, but it was obligatory on his part to have given an opportunity of hearing to the parties and further to have afforded opportunity of filing documents as they may have been advised to do so. The impugned order clearly shows that these two basic directions, which are contained in the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, have not been adhered to.

In the light of this, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 2.4.2008 cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.3.2008, opportunity of hearing would be afforded to the parties by the Director, Mines and Geology in letter and spirit and only thereafter, reasoned order would be passed.

We have also been given to understand that under misconception of law, the appellant has been restrained from operating the mines, which was allotted to him in the year 1989. We are of the opinion that unless respondents are able to obtain succession certificate in their favour, it was neither desirable nor proper to stop the appellant from carrying on mining activities, which he was carrying on since 1989. The appellant, therefore, would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Director, Mines and Geology in this regard also."

It appears that subsequent to the Division Bench's directions,

the parties approached the Director of Mines and Geology and,

therefore, the impugned order dated 12.01.2010 (Annexure 17)

was passed by the Director of Mines and Geology. The said order

(5 of 6) [SAW-476/2013]

dated 12.01.2010, was the subject matter of challenge before the

learned Single Judge.

At this point of time, it is essential to take note of the fact

that a civil suit was filed by the private respondent and the same

was numbered as 79/2014 which came to be disposed of by a

compromise decree dated 09.09.2020. It is submitted on behalf of

the appellants herein that once the decree has been passed based

on the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned

order dated 12.01.2010 under Annexure 17 passed by the

Director of Mines and Geology should be set aside with a further

direction to the Director of Mines and Geology to decide the

matter afresh taking into consideration the decree passed by the

civil court.

Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the legal

representatives of respondent No.10 submits that the compromise

entered into between the parties in the civil court was under

certain fraud and, therefore the same is required to be quashed

and for this purpose the legal representative of respondent No.10

(daughter), has already filed a civil suit No. 26/2021 seeking to

challenge the compromise decree entered into between the

parties.

Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the State

submits that the alleged compromise dated 09.09.2020 was

arrived at between the parties and it does not bind the State.

Considering the present scenario and the situation,

particularly keeping in view the fact that the civil suit originally

filed for declaration by the private respondent came to be decreed

by order dated 09.09.2020, we are of the considered view that the

impugned order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology

(6 of 6) [SAW-476/2013]

under Annexure 17 dated 12.01.2010 deserves to be quashed and

set aside.

Accordingly we do so.

In view of the fact that the dispute has now been settled in

the civil suit between the parties, of course, subject to the

subsequent suit filed by the legal representatives of respondent

No.10, we allow the present appeal to the limited extent and it

shall be open to the Director of Mines and Geology to reconsider

the situation in view of the compromise decree and the earlier

directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order

dated 06.04.2009. The appellant is directed to produce a copy of

this order before the Director of Mines and Geology based on

which the Director of Mines and Geology shall be free to initiate

action in accordance with law and take a decision thereon

preferably, within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

In view of the disposal of the special appeal, all other

applications stand disposed of.

Nothing stated hereinabove shall, in any manner, prejudice

the right of the legal representatives of respondent No.10 in the

suit said to have been filed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

25-Praveen/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)