Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2426 (RAJ)

Prabhu v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-09

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 Appellate Authority, Bhilwara dated 6.7.1996. (2). Briefly, the facts as per the appellant are that on the report of Tehsildar, Bijauliya District Bhilwara, case was registered by learned Addl. Collector, Bhilwara for illegal mining of land bearing khasra Nos. 17, 52 and 39. That the Tehsildar requested for imposing penalty for illegal mining on the said khasra Nos. Learned Addl. Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 71,300/- vide his order dated 21.2.91. Aggrieved by this order, the appeal was preferred before the learned R.A.A. Learned R.A.A. rejected the appeal by his order dated 6.7.96. This is second appeal against the order of R.A.A. (3). Arguing in support of the appeal, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant is that both the orders of learned Addl. Collector and learned R.A.A. are against rules and against justice. That learned R.A.A. did not pay attention to this fact that no legal procedure was adopted by learned Addl. Collector in imposing the penalty. There is no sufficient reason for imposing the penalty and the provisions of section 89(7) have been ignored. That both the orders of the lower courts were passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. (4). Refuting the arguments of the appellant, the contention of the Govt. Advocate is that it is not correct on the part of the appellant to say that proper opportunity has not been given to him, rather the opportunities given to him are more than 70 in the lower courts. Even after such a long time of getting opportunities, the appellant could not produce any proof in his favour that he indulged in mining on the basis of some license or lease of the State Govt. Illegal mining has to be penalized and he has been penalized properly by the learned Addl. Collector. He also argued that there are rules that no one can indulge in mining without proper lease or license from the Govt. as per the rules provided and the appellant has brought no proof before any court to support his act of illegal mining. The area where mining has been done, has been properly measured and penalty was imposed as per the measurement @ Rs. as per the rules provided and the appellant has brought no proof before any court to support his act of illegal mining. The area where mining has been done, has been properly measured and penalty was imposed as per the measurement @ Rs. 50/- per metric ton which is as per the prescribed norms of the Government. As such, the penalty levied by Addl. Collector is correct and appeal has been rightly rejected by learned R.A.A. (5). Having heard both the parties, the core issues in this matter which need discussion for decision of this appeal are as under:- A) That lease and license are needed for mining and the appellant has failed to produce any lease or license to prove that his act was legal. B) The contention that the appellant has not been heard at levels is grossly incorrect because at the level of Addl. Collector and Tehsildar, more than 75 opportunities have been given. B) The contention that the appellant has not been heard at levels is grossly incorrect because at the level of Addl. Collector and Tehsildar, more than 75 opportunities have been given. In this reference, it will be relevant to reproduce the operative part of the decision of R.A.A. :- ^^geus mHk;i{kksa ds vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl dks lquus ds ipkr~ v|ksikUr v/;;u fd;kA vfrfjDr rglhynkj fctksfy;k us vihykFkhZ@foi{kh dks iVokjh gydk dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 90&, ,oa 91 jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e ds rgr uksfVl nsdj dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dhA vfrfjDr rglhynkj fctksfy;k ds U;k;kky; esa vihykFkhZ foi{kh ckotwn lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgsaA ;g dk;Zokgh fnukad 23-5-84 ls izkjEHk gqbZ fnukad 28-1-87 ls rd 58 ekSds fn;s x;s fdUrq vihykFkhZ foi{kh mifLFkr ugha gq,A fnukad 28-1-87 dks nks rjQk dk;Zokgh djus dh izkFkZuk djus ij nks rjQk dk;Zokgh ds vknsk fn;s x;sA lk{; lcwr ,oa nLrkost isk djus dk volj pkgk tks fn;s x;s blds ckn ikap volj ds ipkr~ Hkh dksbZ lk{; vihykFkhZ foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha gksus ij rFkk ckotwn lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgus ij ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tkdj miyC/k lk{; ,oa nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij vfrfjDr rglhynkj fctksfy;k us vihykFkhZ foi{kh dks [kkrsnkj dh vkjkth esa voS/k [kuu djus dk vkjksih fl) gksus ij /kkjk 89¼7½ jkt- Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e ds rgr dk;Zokgh dj kkfLr vf/kjksi.k gsrq ekeyk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dks fof/kor uksfVl fn;k ftldh rkehy mlds Lo;a }kjk nh xbZ gSA vihykFkhZ foi{kh ckotwn lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgus ij mlds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dj kkfLr vf/kjksi.k ds vknsk ikfjr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ foi{kh dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh tkudkjh dks le; ij djuk pkfg;s FkkA udys izkfIr gsrq vkosnu fnukad 5-2-94 dks yxkuk rFkk udy izkfIr dh fnukad 20-5-94 udy ij vafdr gksus ls vihykFkhZ izkFkhZ ds foyEc ls vihy izLrqr djus ds dkj.k ln~Hkkfod ,oa ;Fkksfpr gS vr% vihy vihykFkhZ dh vUnj fe;kn ekus tkus gsrq vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vihy dks vUnj fe;kn ekuk tkrk gSA vfrfjDr rglhynkj fctksfy;k dh i=koyh esa iVokjh fjiksVZ 7-8-85 ds lkFk layXu eksdk ipkZ fnukad 6-8-05 ds vuqlkj xzke [kMhiqj dh vkjkth tks fd ek/kw firk Hkksyw ds uke ij ntZ gS blesa vihykFkhZ ek/kw ,oa ukjk;.k izHkw foi{khx.k }kjk 48 QhV yEck] 28 QhV pkSM+k ,oa 3 QhV xgjk voS/k [kuu fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 29-12-86 dks iVokjh gYdk }kjk iqu% ekSdk ns[kk x;k gSA ekSds ij mifLFkr ?khlk Hkhy xokg ds gLrk{kj ekSdk ipkZ ij fy;s x;sA fnukad 29-12-86 dks iVokjh gYdk }kjk iqu% ekSdk ns[kk x;k rks ik;k x;k fd vkjkth la[;k 17] 52 ,oa 39 esa ekSds ij vihykFkhZ foi{kh us 162 QhV yEck] 132 QhV pkSM+k ,oa 3 QhV xgjk voS/k [kuu dj fy;k gSA vkjkth la[;k 39 fcykuke ljdkj gS rFkk vU; vkjkth la[;k 17 o 52 ek/kw firk Hkksyw xwtj ,oa ukjk;.k firk Nksxk xwtj ds uke ij jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa vafdr gSA orZeku esa [kuu dk;Z cUn iM+k gS bl ekSds ipkZ esa vafdr fd;kA tehu ds [kkrsnkjksa izHkwyky dks vfrfjDr rglhynkj fctksfy;k us uksfVl /kkjk 90&, ,oa 91 esa fn;s fdUrq izHkwyky ckotwn lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgs vkSj nks rjQk dk;Zokgh gsrq ukjk;.k dh vksj ls mifLFkr ,MoksdsV us nks rjQ dk;Zokgh pkgh gSA nks rjQk dk;Zokgh ds vknsk fnukad 10-9-87 dks iqup; fn;s x;s fdUrq izHkwyky dh vksj ls dksbZ izfrfuf/k] ,MoksdsV ;k os Lo;a mifLFkr ugha gq, vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vfrfjDr rglhynkj us ,drjQk dk;Zokgh djrs gq, 162 x 132 x 3 = dqy 21384 ?kuQhV {ks=Qy ij vukf/kd`r [kuu djus dk nks"kh ik;s tkus ij 15 ?kuQhV ij ,d Vu dh bdkbZ fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, 1426 Vu iRFkj voS/k [kuu dk nks"kh ekudj 50@& izfrVu dh nj ls 71300@& dh kkfLr vf/kjksi.k djus gsrq ekeyk vfrfjDr dysDVj HkhyokM+k ds U;k;ky; esa izsf"kr fd;kA vfrfjDr dysDVj HkhyokM+k us vihykFkhZ dks uksfVl fn;k fdUrq ckotwn lwpuk ds og vuqifLFkr jgk vr% ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh djrs gq, i=koyh esa miyC/k iVokjh ds ipkZ ekSdk fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ foi{kh dks voS/k [kuu ekudj kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh gSA blds fjcVy esa u rks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa vkSj u gh bl U;k;ky; esa dksbZ lk{; nLrkost ;k kgknr gh isk dh ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g ekuk tk lds fd mlus fookfnr vkjkth esa voS/k [kuu ugha fd;k gksA vfrfjDr rglhynkj fctksfy;k us djhc 62 ekSds i=koyh esa fn;s rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us djhc 15 ekSds fn;s fdUrq mlus viuh vksj ls rks tokc isk fd;k vkSj u gh fdlh izdkj lk{; nLrkost ;k kgknr gh izLrqr dh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us iw.kZ lquokbZ dk volj nsdj voS/k [kuu djuk ik;k tkus ij kkfLr vf/kjksi.k ds vknsk ikfjr fd;s gS ftlesa ge fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi mfpr ugha le>rs gSA fygktk mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihy vihykFkhZ dh vLohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ka e; fu.Zk; izfr ds ykSVkbZ tkosa** SSd/- ¼vkj-vkj- ckaxM+½ Hkw-izcU/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh] HkhyokM+k From the bare perusal of the decision of the learned R.A.A., it is evident that the appellant has no case and his appeal has been rightly rejected by learned R.A.A. and the decision of learned R.A.A. is legally correct and properly concluded. (6). In view of the conclusions above, I find that there is no merit in this appeal and this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pronounced.