Rajasthan High Court
Om Prakash Singh Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 548/2020
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2744/2011
Om Prakash Singh Son of Shri Brajendra Singh, aged about 60
years, resident of 17-Ka-3, Jyoti Nagar, Near New Vidhan Sabha,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner-Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Secretary to The Govt, Mines (Group-2)
Department, Govt of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt of
Rajasthan, Udaipur.
4. Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology,
Bharatpur.
5. Smt Harmaya, Wife of Late Shri Brijendra Singh, Resident
of Brijendra Bhawan Rupbas, District Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate
through Video Conferencing assisted
by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa
Advocate through Video
Conferencing.
For Respondents : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma Senior
Advocate through Video
Conferencing.
Mr. Rajesh Maharshi Additional
Advocate General through Video
Conferencing.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
06/01/2022
(2 of 3) [SAW-548/2020]
Heard on prayer for grant of leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is son of the deceased Brijendra Singh, who was granted
mining lease and who, during his life time, has applied for
extension which was granted, but illegally cancelled by the
department. He would submit that the mother namely, Smt.
Harmaya Bai, writ petitioner filed writ petition challenging the
order of cancellation without impleading the son. According to
him, the applicant being the son of the deceased was entitled to
the benefit of the order as passed by the learned Single Judge
with a clear declaration that he along with his mother is entitled to
enjoy the lease as leaseholder.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
would submit that the issue raised in the writ petition was with
regard to correctness and validity of the order of cancellation of
extension and not with regard to the rights of the parties interse
regarding succession on the strength of applicant being legal heir
of the deceased. It is further brought to the notice of this Court
that the deceased has executed a will in favour of Smt. Harmaya
Bai which related to right of mining on the strength of the mining
lease enjoyed by the executant of the will. The will was challenged
by the applicant by filing a suit, which was dismissed. Therefore,
the applicant has no semblance of right.
Learned counsel for the applicant, adding further, would
submit that later on, the will was sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory for examination and it has been found to be forged.
Without commenting upon the rights, which the
applicant may have in case he is aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Court in the matter of dispute relating
(3 of 3) [SAW-548/2020]
to will executed by the deceased, Brijendra Singh in favour of his
wife Smt. Harmaya Bai, we are of the view that as long as long
Civil Court judgment stands against the applicant, the applicant
cannot be claimed to have any right in respect of the mining lease
which stood in the name of his father and was subsequently
extended and then cancelled. Without commenting upon the
remedy, which the applicant may take as regards his claim being
legal heir of the deceased, Brijendra Singh, leave cannot be
granted in the present case.
Applications are, therefore, rejected.
Appeal is also dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
