Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2487 (RAJ)

Uttam Chand Gangwal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-16

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-The writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 03.06.2004 on the contention made by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that at the time of granting lease in favour of the petitioner, the mining area was not within forest area and the land in question has been transferred and entered in the name of Forest Department by the Tehsildar. Therefore, no mining activity is permissible unless the permission of Government of India is obtained. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue in the revision petition has not been considered as the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition and held that the land in question was never declared forest land. 3. Against the Judgment passed by this Court dated 03.06.2004, the petitioner preferred DB Special Appeal No. 355/2004. The Division Bench vide its order dated 31.05.2004 disposed of the appeal with the liberty to the appellant to move review petition before Single Judge and place the Judgment of Revenue Board dated 31.05.2004 on record and after considering the Judgment dated 31.05.2004 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 4. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties. The Board of Revenue has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 31.07.2003 and order dated 31.03.2003 passed by the District Collector, Ajmer and cancelled the mutation No. 475 opened on 12.06.2003 with regard to the land measuring 261 acre. 5. It is not disputed that the entry made in Forest Department was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and same has been challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner and thereafter before the Board of Revenue. 6. But as per the direction issued by Honble the Supreme Court in the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1997 (2) SCC 267 , the State of Rajasthan has constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. D.C. Sood Principle Chief Conservator of Forests. As per Honble the Supreme Court, the principal laid down are uniformally applicable for conservation of forest irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification of the land. 7. D.C. Sood Principle Chief Conservator of Forests. As per Honble the Supreme Court, the principal laid down are uniformally applicable for conservation of forest irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification of the land. 7. So far the Judgment passed by the Board of Revenue dated 31.08.2004 is concerned the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this Judgment is challenged by the State in the Writ Petition No. 6578/2004 which is still pending before this Court. Considering the Judgment rendered by the Board of Revenue by which the revision of the petitioner was allowed and mutation in favour of the forest department has been canceled even though the petitioner have to move before the Union of India for seeking permission for operating mining activity in view of the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court (Supra), and without seeking permission from the Union of India the petitioner cannot operate the mining activities. 8. I find no fault in the Judgment dated 03.06.2004 passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3323/2003 and as such there is no merit in the review petition. 9. Consequently, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.