Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2353 (RAJ)

Tejmal v. State of Raj.

2005-09-02

R.N.ARVIND

body2005
Arvind, Member— This appeal has been filed under section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short to be called the Act) against the order of learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellage Authority, Bhilwara dated 18.10.2002. (2) Briefly, the facts of this matter are as under:— That Tehsildar, Bijauliya presented a case u/s 89(7) of the Raj. Land Revenue Act, 1956 to Additional Collector, Bhilwara requesting that in land bearing khasra No. 757/572 illegal mining was done in which the appellant was also one of the defaulters. The mining was done without any license or lease and considering that matter, learned Addl. Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,12,500/- against the appellant. Aggrieved against this order, appellant went to the court of learned R.A.A., Bhilwara who by his order dated 18.10.2002, rejected the appeal. This is a second appeal against the order of learned R.A.A. dated 18.10.2002. (3) Arguing in support of the appeal, the contention of the learned advocate is that although the presence of the appellant has been recorded but he is not an educated person and he is a villager and he could not understand the matter properly and only waited for information from his advocate and he did not know that the order was passed against him. This order is improper and needs to be set aside. He also argued that the learned lower courts did not pay proper attention to this fact that on the basis of facts of this case, this penalty was not justified. He also argued that this could not be a case u/s. 89(7) of the Act. He also argued that the case was made out only on the report of Patwari and there are no proper grounds for penalty. It was also contended that there is no proper justificationfor penalty and the orders of both the lower courts are erroneous and improper and need to be set aside. (4) Arguing on behalf of the State, learned Govt. Advocate Shri J.P. Mathur argued that it has been well settled principle by the Larger Bench of the Board of Revenue that the actions taken by the lower courts are perfectly legal under the provisions of L.R. Act. The appellant has not been able to prove his denial and the reports received from the Tehsildar have not been challenged. Advocate Shri J.P. Mathur argued that it has been well settled principle by the Larger Bench of the Board of Revenue that the actions taken by the lower courts are perfectly legal under the provisions of L.R. Act. The appellant has not been able to prove his denial and the reports received from the Tehsildar have not been challenged. The appellant has not been able to present any valid lease neither before the learned Addl. Collector nor before the learned R.A.A. and the penalty levied for illegal mining is very well justified. He also argued that it was the minimum that penalty was levied otherwise the illegal mining goes undetected to a large extent. He also argued that the case was reproted by the Patwari but the case has been properly presented by the Tehsildar. The penalty has been calculated as per the mining done by the party hence the imposititon of penalty is fully justified. (5) Having heard the learned advocates on both sides and having perused the record available before me, I find that following are the core issues for decision in this case:— A) That opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant at both the levels i.e., at the level of the learned Addl. Collector and at the level of learned R.A.A. The contention that the appellant is a villager and is not an educated person is not corroborated by any averments which cn support this defence. The appellant neither belongs to a downtrodden class nor to tribal family and the plea of ignorance is not sufficient enough to be accepted. B) Illegal mining has taken place and it has nowhere been categorically denied that mining was not done by the appellant nor there is any evidence on the file of the lower courts that the appellant ws not responsible for illegal mining. The defence which is being taken is only either on technical ground or it is an effort to exploit the procedural lapses on the part of the machinery but in that respect also, there is no serious mistake made by the learned Addl. Collector in his decision by which penalty has been imposed. Hence, the appellant can get no benefit of any lapses in imposition of the penalty. C) Learned R.A.A. has in his conclusion agreed with the decision given by the learned Addl. Collector in his decision by which penalty has been imposed. Hence, the appellant can get no benefit of any lapses in imposition of the penalty. C) Learned R.A.A. has in his conclusion agreed with the decision given by the learned Addl. Collector and the lack of sufficient discussion on the part of learned R.A.A. is not sufficient enough to give any benefit to the appellant because the basic issue is that the penalty has been imposed by the learned Addl. Collector. This decision of learned Addl. Collector has been upheld by the learned R.A.A. D) Illegal mining has not been emphatically refuted in the averments and it has nowhere been proved as to under what license or lease, the appellant was authorised to enter into illegal mining. When it is clear from the decisions of the lower courts that illegal mining was done by the appellant, he cannot be exempted from the penalty. E) Sufficient reasons have not been brought before me which can prove that the calculation of the penalty is defective. The justification given by the learned Addl. Collector is sufficient enough in the nature & circumstances of this case because the penalty has been calculated on the basis of the weight of the stones procured through illegal mining. F) The appellant has failed to prove that the order of learned Addl. Collector in taking action under section 89(7) of Raj. Land Revenue Act, 1956 is beyond jurisdiction. (6) In view of the conclusions as stated above, I find no merits in this appeal and as such this appeal is rejected. In the circumstances of this case, I would like to impose no costs on the appellant. Pronouced.