Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 284 (RAJ)

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2001-02-16

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 20.8.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar, in appeal No. 59/88, whereby the order dated 17.2.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Jaipur on the app)cation filed u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC was reversed on the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan. 2. The plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit with a prayer to restrain the respondents from creating hindrances in the excavation of minerals on the part of 80% of the mining lease, which according to the petitioner was situated in Hindaun Forest Area. It was further prayed to restrain the respondents from charging dead rent for the period for which the mine was closed by the order of the State Government. 3. As per the allegations, the plaintiff was granted a mining lease No. 181/87 for marble in the area of 100 x 100 Sq. mtrs. situated in village Khoh, Teshi Rajgarh, district Alwar for a period of 10 years. The petitioner started excavating the said mine. Even though the petitioner was doing the mining work, the State Government stopped the mining as per the order dated 1.5.1993, which order is said to have been based on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Tarun Bharat Sangh, Ahoar v. Union of India decided on 29.7.1997, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that in the area of Sariska Tiger Reserve which is spread over an area of 866 sq. kms., no mining activity or any other prejudicial activities will be permitted without the prior permission of the Central Government. The trial Court vide its order dated 17.2.1998 had passed the restrain order against the State Government by accepting the application u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC and allowed the petitioner to continue excavating on 80% of the lease area, with a further direction that from the date of closing of the mining in 1993 till the excavation starts again, the dead rent was not to be recovered for the reason that the mine remained closed. 4. 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC and allowed the petitioner to continue excavating on 80% of the lease area, with a further direction that from the date of closing of the mining in 1993 till the excavation starts again, the dead rent was not to be recovered for the reason that the mine remained closed. 4. It is not denied that under the notification 20% of the area under mining already fall in the protected forest area and, therefore, the counsel or the petitioner submits that so far as remaining 80% of the lease area is concerned, he should be allowed to do the mining operations. The First Appellate Court after going through the number of authorities relating to the protected area, reserved area and Sariska Tiger Reserved area, had set aside the order of the trial Court. Reliance is placed on judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 JT 115 Tarun Bhagat's case (supra) and also on the judgment of this Court in M/s. Krishna Minerals v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1512/99 : 2000(1) DNJ (Raj.) 191 and other similarly connected matters decided on 7.10.1999, wherein, this Court in the similar circumstances, relying on Taran Bharat Sangh's case has held that no temporary injunction ought to have been granted in respect of mining operations that were set at halt in pursuance of the Supreme Court's order in 1993. The facts in Krishna Minerals's case and the facts of the present case are identical. 5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan to the effect that even though 20% area under lease was initially a protected forest area, but the remaining 80% area is a tiger reserved area, which according to the Supreme Court's judgment has to be considered as good as protected area and no mining operations are allowed to be done. I do agree with the reasons given by the First Appellate Court and decline to interfere in the revision petition. 6. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. I do agree with the reasons given by the First Appellate Court and decline to interfere in the revision petition. 6. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. However, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that mining operations have since been stopped and in the circumstances, if the mining operations remained stopped either by the State Government because of the Court's order or finding it to be falling in the protected or reserved area, the State Government cannot charge the rent for such mine for the period when the State Government had asked the petitioner to close the mine and for the period the mine stood closed. The interim injunction in this regard shall be maintained that the rent for the period when mining operations stood closed because of the order of the State Government be not charged under the rules.Revision Partly Allowed. *******