Mehboob Khan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4591 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015111] (1 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9713/2022

Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Bhugan Ram Ji, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Math Ka Pass, Kuchera Marg, Roopathal Nagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8011/2022 Hanuman Firoda S/o Jana Ram Firoda, Aged About 32 Years, Near Sant Eslam School, Firoda House, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines Ange Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9166/2022

[2023/RJJD/015111] (2 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

Hanuman Firoda S/o Jana Ram Firoda, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Near Sant Eslam School, Firoda House, Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9721/2022 Deepa Ram S/o Shri Hema Ram Ji, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 81, Telkiya Ka Bas, Barangav, Nagaur District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12041/2022 Rameshwar Lal Jat S/o Maniram Ji Jat, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of - Village Khera Narnoliya, Tehsil Jayal, District - Nagaur.

----Petitioner

[2023/RJJD/015111] (3 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12063/2022 Buddha Ram S/o Shri Harlal Ji Jat, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Sogawas, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14828/2022

Mehboob Khan S/o Shri Dau Khan, Aged About 38 Years, Village Fagli, Tehsil And District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of

[2023/RJJD/015111] (4 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10917/2022

M/s Gayatri Minerals, Through Prop. Shri Saitan Ram S/o Shri Gana Ram Ji Jat, Age About 49 Years, R/o Village Khera Narnoliya, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Superintending Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer.

5. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Nagaur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Arvind Vyas
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, AGC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

15/05/2023

[2023/RJJD/015111] (5 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the

reliefs, which, for the brevity and convenience, are being taken

from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9166/2022,

as all orders impugned herein are having the common language,

whereby the mining leases of the petitioners have been cancelled,

on count of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease-deed

and the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Rules, 2017:

1.1. The prayer clauses read as under:

"i. The impugned order dated 31.05.2022 (Annex.19) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. The respondent department may kindly be direct to conduct a fresh site inspection in presence of the petitioner;

iii. The impugned order dated 17.05.2022 (Annex.18) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

iv.The impugned letter dated 08.03.2022 (Annex.15) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

v. The demand notice dated 2.3.2022 (Annex.13) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to make refund of the amount so deposited by the humble petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum;

vi. The Drone Survey report dated 10.12.2021 (Annex.9) and the site inspection reports dated 30.12.2021 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside; vii. The respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering with the mining work of the humble petitioner;

viii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and

[2023/RJJD/015111] (6 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. At the outset, this Court notices that the thrust of the

respondents, while making the cancellation of the leases of the

petitioners, is as follows :-

"All khatedari leases located within 5 kms. from the river bank as well as leases violation of the lease condition including the misuse of e-ravannas are detected are terminated forthwith and the State Government shall not issue fresh khatedari leases except for palaeo deposits in the district of Bikaner without the approval of this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a bare

reading of the impugned orders, a common factor, as emerges

from the impugned orders of cancelling the leases of the

petitioners, is that all Khatedari leases are located within 5 kms.

of the river bank, as also the terms and condition of the lease-

deed and provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Rules, 2017

were being violated, coupled with misuse of e-ravannas. He

further submits that an exception has been carved out for palaeo

deposits in District Bikaner, whereas the present stretch is part of

the same palaeo deposits and are in continuity with the other

similarly situated palaeo deposits in District of Bikaner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since

it is not in dispute that the leases in question are not located

within 5 kms. of the river bank, therefore, the rest of the issue be

remanded back to the department, so that they can take a fresh

decision after making due application of mind afresh, strictly in

accordance with law.

[2023/RJJD/015111] (7 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the

aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, has

referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society

through its President Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(Interlocutory Application No.29984/2021 in Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No.10587/2019); relevant paras 8-A and 13,

as relied upon, read as under :-

"8-A. All the Khatedari leases located within 5 kms from the river bank as well as leases where violation of the lease conditions including misuse of e-ravannas are detected are terminated forthwith and the State Government shall not issue fresh Khatedari leases except for Palaeo deposits in the District of Binaker without the approval of this Hon'ble Court.

13. In spite of the order passed by this Court on 16.11.2017 that no river sand shall be permitted unless a scientific replenishment study is completed and EC is granted, 194 mining leases of Khatedari lands have been granted in the State of Rajasthan, with most of these lands being in close proximity of the river banks of the State. 114 Khatedari leases are within a distance of 100 metres or less from the river bank and only 23 Khatedari leases have been granted beyond a distance of 5 km from the river bank. The CEC has stated in its report that the agricultural lands do not have deposits of quality sand suitable for construction, being a mixture of sand, silt and clay.

The Khatedars have been exploiting the locational proximity to the river banks by excavating sand from the river bed, instead of restricting the mining to their leasehold areas, completely in violation of the mining

[2023/RJJD/015111] (8 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

plan. The quantity of sand is in excess of the permissible limit which is transported by being shown as having been mined in theKhatedari lands. The CEC has commented upon the involvement of sand mafia in the trade of sand illegally mined by the Khatedars as well as the involvement of authorities in the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the CEC has recommended the cancellation of all Khatedari leases located within 5 km from the river banks as well as those leases where violation of lease conditions including misuse of e-ravannas are detected. The CEC further recommended that no fresh Khatedari leases shall be granted, except for Palaeo deposits, without the approval of this Court. "

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforementioned judgment, on being

reported by CEC, has ordered cancellation of Khatedari leases

located within 5 kms. from the river bank, while also keeping into

due consideration the violation of terms and conditions of the

lease-deed and provision of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Rules, 2017

including the misuse of e-ravannas, which was detected.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents categorically submits

that the impugned orders and the report made by CEC as well as

observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforequoted

judgment have two consolidated components; (A) the Khatedari

leases are located within 5 kms. from the river bank & (B) the

leases were in violation of terms and conditions of the lease-deed

and provision of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Rules, 2017 including

misuse of e-ravannas detected for termination.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that

condition-A is not applicable in the present leases, because each

[2023/RJJD/015111] (9 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

of lease is not located within the 5 kms of the river bank, but is

located about 80 kms. away from the river bank.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that

report of CEC and judgment of Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare

Society (supra) rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as

impugned orders have to be read conjointly and thus, even when

the part non-compliance of the lease conditions is an issue, it is

sufficient to discontinue the leases of the petitioners.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that it is an

undisputed proposition that the leases in question are not within 5

kms. of the river bank and are at about a distance of 80 kms away

from the river bank. The mining department has confirmed this

fact, and thus, the issue which remains before this Court is that

whether the violation of lease conditions particularly the misuse of

e-ravannas would disentitle the petitioners to continue with the

mining lease. Since the core question of consideration before the

CEC and Hon'ble Apex Court as well as authority concerned

passing the impugned orders was whether the mining leases are

located 5 kms. from the river bank; thus, in the interest of justice,

it would be appropriate to direct the mining authority to

redetermine the issue while segregating the 5 kms. from the river

bank proposition, which is not applicable in the present set of

mining leases; therefore, while quashing and setting aside the

impugned orders of cancellation of mining leases of the

petitioners, the issue of continuance or discontinuance of mining

leases is remanded back to be redetermined by the respondents

within a period of three months from today, while considering that

[2023/RJJD/015111] (10 of 10) [CW-9713/2022]

the petitioners are not violating the principal objection of 5 kms.

of distance from the river bank, but are only violators of e-

ravannas and other lease conditions. Such order shall be passed

strictly in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners. However, until such orders are passed,

status-quo regarding the mining leases in question, as it exists

today, shall be maintained by all the parties.

11. This Court has kept into consideration the submissions made

by the petitioners that the palaeo deposits in the district of

Bikaner are similar and also that ordinarily, violation of e-ravannas

are depending upon the degree of violation having different

ramifications, which may be other than the cancellation. It is

made clear that the whole proceedings have not been set aside,

but only the impugned orders have been set aside to the limited

extent for the purpose of reconsideration while excluding the

condition of 5 kms. distance from the river bank after giving

proper opportunity of hearing and passing an order while

complying to the basic parameters of natural justice.

12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 11 to 16, 34 & C1-1-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)