JUDGMENT 1. - By the writ petition No. 5018/94 filed on 19.10.94 by Uttam Chand the petitioner seeks directions to quash the orders dated 29.1.92 (Annex. 1) dated 7.3.94 (Annex. 3) and the order dated 27.9.94 (Annex. 5) and prays that the respondents may be directed to grant mining lease of plot No. 31 in Nai Parwati. Another writ petition bearing No. 4989/94 has been filed on 18.10.1994 by Vivek Saxena whereby the petitioner seeks directions to quash the order dated 7.3.94 (Annex. 3) passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 27.9.94 (Annex. 6) of the State Government. It has also been prayed that the report of two Patwaries under the Assistance of Mining Engineer proves to be false may also be quashed. 2. The dispute between the parties is arising out of the allotment of common plot No. 31 so as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties both the writ petitions have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. It is alleged that for grant of mining lease in respect of departmentally delineated plot No. 31 situated in village Nai Parwati Tehsil Amet District Rajsamand for minor marbles, the petitioner-Uttam Chand applied first on 30.8.91 and respondent No. 4 Akshay Kumar applied on 23.11.1991. Thereafter Vivek Saxena also applied for grant of mining lease in the said plot alleging to be situated in Khasara No. 2803 on 4.5.1992. The application of Uttam Chand and Akshay Kumar were rejected vide order dated 29.1.1992 observing that they have failed to submit the document relating to land in compliance with the notice dated 30.8.1991. Thereafter, Akshay Kumar respondent No. 4 filed appeal No. 116/92 on 14.6.92 and petitioner Uttam Chand filed appeal No. 178/92 on 7.7.1992 before the Addl. Director. Vivek Saxena respondent No. 5 (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4989/94) was impleaded as party in appeal No. 116/92 and filed his reply and on the application of Vivek Saxena he was granted conditional sanction on 20.6.1992 subject to the decision of appeal of Akshay Kumar. The Addl. Director (Admn.) Mining and Geology Department, Udaipur vide his common order dated 7.3.194 rejected the appeal of the petitioner-Uttam Chand and set aside the conditional Sanction granted to Vivek Saxena and allowed the application of Akshay Kumar respondent No. 4. The Addl. Director (Admn.) Mining and Geology Department, Udaipur vide his common order dated 7.3.194 rejected the appeal of the petitioner-Uttam Chand and set aside the conditional Sanction granted to Vivek Saxena and allowed the application of Akshay Kumar respondent No. 4. Thereafter, petitioner-Vivek Saxena filed revision application No. 112/94 and so also petitioner-Uttam Chand filed appeal No. 128/94 before the Dy. Secretary which were decided by the common order dated 27.9.94. Being aggrieved with this order, Uttam Chand and Vivek Saxena filed the aforesaid two writ petitions. 4. Reply to writ petitions have been filed by Akshay Kumar non-petitioner No. 4 and the Mining Department. Rejoinder has also been filed. 5. Mr. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner-Uttam Chand submits that the petitioner being the first applicant filed application on 30.8.91 is entitled to get the said mining lease on the delineated plot under Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986. He has submitted that the respondent No. 2 while condoning the delay has erred in dismissing both the appeals on merit on 7.3.1994 on the same ground. He has also submitted that the Dy. Secretary has erred in observing that the petitioner has not filed separate appeals and thus came to the wrong conclusion whereas both the appeals were filed against the common order. He has relied on Kusum Ansal v. Commissioner, I.T. (190 ITR 24) Union of India v. Income Tax Officer (164 ITR 600) , K.C. Khosla & Co. v. Dy. Commissioner ( AIR 1966 SC 1216 ) and Hindustan Aluminium Cop. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1992 SC 1521). 6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Vivek Saxena has submitted that the disputed plot falls in Khasara No. 2803 which is owned by the private persons and according to the various Government circulars for obtaining mining lease in respect of land owned by private persons it is necessary to obtain No Objection Certificate for allotment of disputed land being, private land, and therefore, Vivek Saxena is entitled to have mining lease in his favour. He has submitted that the other two claimants Uttam Chand and Akshay Kumar have no case as both of them are-not entitled for allotment of disputed land being the land of private persons and rather both of them did not produce requisite documents regarding the land in compliance of the various circulars. He has submitted that the other two claimants Uttam Chand and Akshay Kumar have no case as both of them are-not entitled for allotment of disputed land being the land of private persons and rather both of them did not produce requisite documents regarding the land in compliance of the various circulars. The Additional Director has illegally accepted the appeal of Akshay Kumar so also the State Government has not appreciated the controversy in right perspective. 7. Mr. Mehta has submitted that Vivek Saxena who was third applicant in time is not entitled as the land pertains to Government as the same is recorded as ' fcykuk; ljdkj ' which is clear from the material on record and finding arrived at by the authorities. He has also submitted that Vivek Saxena was made a party in appeal of Akshay Kumar and on his consent the matter was sent back for finding out the position of the land and accordingly it has come on record that the land is Government land, which is a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed, and the report called by the High Court is not helpful particularly when in the report there is a clear mention that the disputed land is not situated in Khasra no. 2803 and further the other Khasara number mentioned in the report has nothing to do with the disputed plot. He has also submitted that the filing of N.O.C. from private land owner is not of any help when the land in dispute is a Government land. He has further submitted that the lease was granted conditionally in favour of Vivek Saxcna against which he filed no appeal, and the conditional grant was rightly revoked as soon as the appeal of Akshay Kumar was allowed. He has further submitted that the land in dispute is entered in the name of Government and on that basis the applications were invited and question of the Khatedari and Non khatedari does not arise and if the owner of land has any right he can avail the remedy for compensation. He has submitted that lease deed has already been executed on 28.10.94 and the petitioner started excavating marble but stopped working by the order of this Court dated 1.11.1994. So far as Uttam Chand's case is concerned, Mr. He has submitted that lease deed has already been executed on 28.10.94 and the petitioner started excavating marble but stopped working by the order of this Court dated 1.11.1994. So far as Uttam Chand's case is concerned, Mr. Mehta has submitted that though Uttam Chand filed application prior to Akshay Kumar and application of both of them were rejected on the ground that the documents were not attached but the distinction feature is that Uttam Chand was asked to file the documents in support of his application but failed to do so, on the other hand Mr. Akshay Kumar was never asked to file any document so without giving an opportunity of hearing his application could not be dismissed particularly when the land is a Government land. Mr. Mehta has urged that the order was communicated to Akshay Kumar on 14.2.1992 only and on the basis of that knowledge he filed appeal within 90 days on 15.5.92 in time but for abundant caution application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed and this fact was rightly taken into consideration by the authorities below while considering the merits between these two applicants, and it has been rightly observed that without filing the application for condonation of delay, delay could not he condoned. He has further urged that the Government can relax any condition under Rule 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and identical Rule 59 of the Rules of 1965 has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. He has lastly urged that tinder the circumstances it should be deemed to have been relaxed by the authorities below. He has prayed that both these writ petitions may be dismissed and placed reliance on Kanhaiyalal v. State (1977 RLW 277) , Champalal v. State, (RLW 1974-330) and Nand Kishore Saraf v. State ( AIR 1965 SC 1992 ). 8. Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the Mining Department has contended that the Additional Director as well as the State Government has arrived at a concurrent finding of fact regarding the Khasra No. 859/668/43 which is entered in the revenue record as Sawai Chak Bilanam Sarkar Banjar and the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the authorities below cannot be disturbed in the writ jurisdiction. He has submitted that the lease was granted in favour of Vivek Saxena subject to the decision of appeal of Akshay Kumar and when the appeal of Akshay Kumar was allowed, his lease has been rightly cancelled. He has also submitted that the petitioner Uttam Chand is also not entitled for any relief as he filed the appeal after delay for which explanation furnished by the petitioner was not accepted and the State Government has rightly rejected his claim and apart from that he filed joint appeal against the order of Additional Director, which is not maintainable in any case. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made at Bar and also carefully perused the case law cited by the learned counsel for the parties as also the relevant provisions of law. Two points emerges for determination in these matters are that whether the land in dispute is Government land and out of three applicants who is entitled for grant of lease. 10. First of all, I proceed to examine the case of the petitioner Vivek Saxena since in case he succeeds in establishing his claim that the plot No. 31 in dispute is a private land for which he alleged to have obtained No Objection Certificate of the owners of the land, then the other two claimants viz. Uttam Chand and Akshay Kumar will have no case. In this connection, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Vivek Saxena, has referred to a report which was called by this Court wherein according to him it has been reported that a part of disputed plot no. 31 falls in Khasara no. 2803. It is no doubt true that this Court on the request of the counsel for the petitioner called for report but that is not of any help since a perusal of the record alongwith the finding arrived at by the authorities below shows that it does not come within the Khasara No. 2803 as alleged by Mr. Joshi but in Arazi No. 856/669/43. The Additional Director also called a report on the consent of the parties including the petitioner-Vivek Saxena which was prepared by the Mining Engineer and Patwaries in the presence of the parties whereby it is revealed that the disputed plot belongs to Government and the same is entered in the revenue record as Araji.No. 859/668/43 Bilnam Sarkar land. The Additional Director also called a report on the consent of the parties including the petitioner-Vivek Saxena which was prepared by the Mining Engineer and Patwaries in the presence of the parties whereby it is revealed that the disputed plot belongs to Government and the same is entered in the revenue record as Araji.No. 859/668/43 Bilnam Sarkar land. Both the Authorities below have also arrived at a concurrent finding of fact regarding the position of the land which in my opinion, cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction as this Court cannot sit as a court of appeal to appreciate the documents produced by the petitioner at this stage. In view of this, the petitioner cannot take any advantage out of the report called by this Court particularly when the same does not show conclusively rather it appears to be hypothetical, pertaining to Araji No. 668/43 only in part. 11. Mr. Joshi has also referred to the alleged reply (Annex. 10) of the Government filed in the appeal of Akshay Kumar before the Additional Director to show that Akshay Kumar was served with the notice on 30.1.1992. This document Anx. 10 which is filed in rejoinder only by Vivek Saxena, is also not of any help to the petitioner as a perusal of the typed copy of the document does not disclose in which case it is filed. In the alleged document neither there is any title nor it is a certified copy of the alleged reply. That apart to substantiate, the petitioner never raised such contention nor requested to call for the record of the Department before the authorities below. The petitioner has also not produced any document before this Court to support his case. Therefore, now on this basis no presumption can be drawn as contended by the petitioner that the Government has admitted it to be a private land and notice was issued to Akshay Kumar particularly when there is a specific denial in reply to the writ petition filed by the State that it is a private land. Moreso, this point was not argued before the authorities belo1. Mr. Joshi has also referred to documents Anx. 8 and 11 which show that without N.O.C. the application will not he entertained. Moreso, this point was not argued before the authorities belo1. Mr. Joshi has also referred to documents Anx. 8 and 11 which show that without N.O.C. the application will not he entertained. In this regard, suffice it to say that the petitioner-Vivek Saxena has failed to establish that the land in dispute is owned by private persons presently and, therefore, when the land in dispute is not owned by private persons the question of allotment to him does not arise and filing of N.O.C. will not give any right and the alleged disputed land cannot be allotted to him being Government land. Thus, the said documents are not relevant. On the contrary counsel for the respondent Akshay Kumar argued that Uttam Chand and Vivek Saxena are in hand and glove with each other which is clear from the conduct of the petitioner as Vivek Saxena after dismissal of his suit filed revision without impleading Akshay Kumar as a party, waited till the report is received and only became party in Akshay Kumar's appeal and not filed appeal against the conditional grant. He drew my attention to the fact that appeal of Uttam Chand was filed through Rohit Kumar, counsel who was also counsel for Vivek Saxena who was made party in appeal filed by Akshay and he was fully aware when the matter was sent back about the conditional allotment but he did not appear in appeal no. 116/92 until 4.3.1991 when the report was to be submitted and he kept mum during this period. According to Mr. Mehta, when this fact was brought to the notice of another counsel who appeared on 4.3.94 and requested to hear both the appeals together. Though he has stressed much but in my opinion, it would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into these allegations. Be that as it may. 12. Since, the claim of Vivek Saxena fails, I take up the claim of Uttam Chand vis-a-vis Akshay Kumar Soni. Admittedly, out of these two applicants, Uttam Chand was number one in point of time, so far as submitting of application is concerned and Akshay Kumar submitted his application for granting mining lease of plot no. 31 later on. Rule 7 deals with preference and it clearly provides that one who files application at an early date will be given preference. 31 later on. Rule 7 deals with preference and it clearly provides that one who files application at an early date will be given preference. Had the Department found the application of the petitioner.-Uttam Chand, complete in all respects and granted mining lease in his favour, there would not have been any controversy but the application was not complete in all respects. Since it is not the only requirement, as for allotment of mining lease for a particular plot one has to submit its revenue record alongwith the application ..........with other formalities, which is a condition precedent and since both these persons did not file revenue record, their applications were rejected. So, both the persons came on the same footing and it is to be seen who was ultimately eligible. Uttam Chand was asked to supply copy of the documents but he failed despite 15 days time granted to him. On the other hand, Akshay Kumar was never asked as there is no material on record before this Court showing that he was informed to complete the application and without there being any communication, the application of the non-petitioner Akshay Kumar was rejected. The non- petitioner Akshay Kumar has through-out come with a case that he was communicated about the rejection of the application on 14.2.1992. Uttam Chand preferred an appeal after a great delay alleging that since he suffered fracture, he could not prefer appeal in time, which according to him was condoned but despite that his appeal was rejected on the ground of delay.Undoubtedly when delay in filing any appeal/revision/petition is condoned, the same cannot be dismissed on that ground alone, but in this case admittedly the petitioner-Uttam Chand did not file any application for condonation of delay as per Rubs and further the authorities below have not found the medical certificate filed by him reliable. Therefore, he cannot take any advantage of the words written on memo of appeal Anx. Therefore, he cannot take any advantage of the words written on memo of appeal Anx. 6 `Delay condoned' dated 4.3.93, which is not in the form of proper order particularly when the same authority has dismissed the appeal ultimately on merits after hearing all concerned, on 7.3.94 taking the delay as one of the ground, whereas it has come on record that the appeal filed by Akshay Kumar was supported by an application for condonation of delay and for explaining the delay he cam out with a case that the order of rejection of application was communicated to him on 14.2.92 and counting the period from this day his appeal was in time which has not been rebutted by the petitioners. Though there was no specific argument in this regard but when the courts below have considered the case of both the applicants while considering this aspect of the matter and have given specific finding, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not proper for this Court to appreciate the same in the extra ordinary jurisdiction. The authorities below have come to the conclusion that Uttam Chand has not disclosed any reason and only on the basis of document furnished by Akshay Kumar claims entailment and wants priority which was not found to be reasonable explanation for filing the appeal by Uttam Chand on 7.7.92 against the order dated 29.1.92. In view of this, the conclusion so arrived at by the State Govt. can't be said to be erroneous or suffers from any illegality, so as to call for any interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 13. Mr. Shishodia has next contended that the authorities below have erred in dismissing his appeal on the ground that joint appeal is not maintainable as the controversy involved in the matter was the same and interdependent and further there was a common order and, therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to file separate appeals. 14. It is general principle of law that there should be separate appeals while challenging the orders passed in separate matters. It is needless to state in this regard that a common order can be passed while disposing of identical matters hut when the same common order is challenged every party is required to prefer separate revision/appeal against the adverse finding as the case may be. It is needless to state in this regard that a common order can be passed while disposing of identical matters hut when the same common order is challenged every party is required to prefer separate revision/appeal against the adverse finding as the case may be. In this regard there is no escape particularly when by the impugned order the. Additional Director while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-Uttam Chand granted mining lease in favour of Akshay Kumar in the separate appeal and which became final as the same was not challenged. Therefore, it was all the more necessary, for the petitioner to prefer separate appeals against the rejection of his first appeal as well as against the grant made in favour of Akshay Kumar so, the authorities below are right in their conclusion. That apart, the contentions which he has advanced before me have not been raised before the authorities below, therefore, they are not tenable. The authorities cited by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful as they do not pertain to this Act. 15. Mr. Joshi moved applications for taking some documents on record and also to call for some revenue record during the course of arguments, which have been opposed by the counsel for the respondents. To my mind, they are not helpful in the facts and circumstances of this case to the petitioners as discussed above. 16. No other point was pressed before me. 17. In view of what I have discussed above, both the petitioners are not entitled for grant of mining lease as the State is the only owner of minerals and mines and granting of mining lease is the discretion of the Mining Department of the State Government and has also power to relax any condition. Thus, the authorities concerned have not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned orders whereby mining lease has been granted in favour of the non-petitioner Akshay Kumar. 18. In the result, both these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. The ad-interim stay order dated 1.11.1994 stands discharged.Both writ petition dismissed. *******