Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Bhai Patel vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:811) on 7 January, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:811]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18885/2024
Babu Bhai Patel S/o Jay Singh Das, Aged About 79 Years, B-55,
Riico Housing Colony, Abu Road District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. The Joint Secretary (Mines), Department Of Mines And
Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology,
Directorate, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Department Of
Mines And Geology, Jodhpur Circle, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The Mining Engineer Sirohi, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Sirohi- Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar
Mr. Shrey Kapour
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG assisted
by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
07/01/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the demand
notice dated 21.10.2024 issued by the Office of the Mining
Engineer, Sirohi, whereby recovery order has been passed against
the petitioner for excavating the mines in violation of the
provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has not been served with any notice before conducting the survey
of the area in which the petitioner has been granted the lease for
mining. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
[2025:RJ-JD:811] (2 of 2) [CW-18885/2024]
judgment of this Court rendered in D.B. Special Appeal
No.398/2001 (M/s. Mewar Marbles Ltd. Vs. Government of
Rajasthan) decided on 09.01.2002. He further submits that the
order impugned (Annex.1) has been passed in violation of the law
laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. He, therefore, prays
that the order impugned may be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that
although the petitioner was served with a notice when the land of
the petitioner was physically surveyed. However, while
undertaking the survey through the drone, the notice was not
issued to the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General
further submits that the respondent-State may be given liberty to
re-survey the area in question under the lease of the petitioner
after giving him a proper notice.
5. I have considered the submissions made before this Court
and have gone through the relevant record of the case.
6. Since no notice was given to the petitioner before
undertaking the survey through drone and the order of recovery
has been passed by the respondents, as such, the action of the
respondents is in violation of the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court. In the case of Mewar Marbles (supra).
7. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ
petition is allowed and the demand notice dated 21.10.2024
(Annex.1) is quashed and set aside. The State Government is
given liberty to undertake fresh survey through physical
mode/drone after giving notice to the petitioner and thereafter if
any recovery is due to the petitioner, the same be made in
accordance with law.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
41-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
