Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9826) on 27 February, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JD:9826] (1 of 3) [CSA-217/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 217/2019
Roshan Lal S/o Mana, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Gurjar, R/o
Angalgaon, Tehsil Amet, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Rajsamand
(Rajasthan)
2. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur
3. Mines And Geology Department, Rajsamand, Through
Mining Engineer, Mining And Geology Department, Amet,
District Rajsamand.
4. Executive Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology
Department, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
27/02/2024
1. The plaintiff-appellant had filed civil suit no. 17/2016 against
the respondents claiming therein for declaration of right of the
plaintiff to have a mining lease from the respondents and further
prayer was for issuance of mandatory injunction against the
respondents to grant mining lease to the plaintiff-appellant, as the
plaintiff-appellant had already completed the formalities required
for, along with Application No. 2/2009.
2. The respondents appeared and contended that for the same
relief, a Civil Writ Petition No. 420/2006 was filed before the
[2024:RJ-JD:9826] (2 of 3) [CSA-217/2019]
Rajasthan High Court and on 22.02.20007, the writ Court directed
maintenance of status quo. Moreover, the respondents had called
for certain documents from the plaintiff-appellant, which was not
provided to them. As such, claim of the plaintiff-appellant was not
favourably considered.
3. Learned trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in this regard
against the plaintiff. While deciding the issue, the Court noticed
the minimum requirement of land for grant of mining lease was
also not fulfilled besides other requirements. The judgment and
decree of the trial Court dated 22.01.2018 was challenged before
the learned District Judge Rajasmand in Appeal No. 12/2018,
which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated
30.05.2019. Hence, this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant
was examined as party plaintiff, however, he was not cross-
examined. The respondents filed a written statement but did not
lead any evidence, therefore, only available material was in favour
of grant of a decree and both the Courts below have committed
error of record in appreciating evidence. Learned counsel further
contends that the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated
22.02.2007 in Civil Writ Petition No. 420/2006, directing
maintenance of status quo has been misquoted. Therefore, the
substantial questions of law to be considered in this appeal would
be whether the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
committed material perversity in dismissing the suit filed by the
plaintiff in absence of any cross-examination or any contrary
evidence on the record. The second question would be whether
the Courts below have committed error of record in concluding
[2024:RJ-JD:9826] (3 of 3) [CSA-217/2019]
that the plaintiff-appellant had not complied a notice dated
21.01.2013.
5. The law is well-settled that it is burden of the plaintiff to
prove his case to get a relief from the Court of law. No contest by
the defendants would not compel the Court to grant decree in
favour of the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff has proved his case.
Both the Courts below have concurrently agreed that the plaintiff
has failed to prove a case for grant of relief, therefore, there is no
substantial question of law involved in this appeal.
6. Accordingly, this second appeal stands dismissed as devoid
of any merit.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
7-sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
