Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 566 (RAJ)

Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-17

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-An application is preferred by the Counsel for the petitioner to substitute Smt. Bhanwari Devi widow of late Sh. Jugal Kishore, Sh. Naval Kishore, Sh. Brij Kishore and Sh. Kamal Kishore all sons of late Sh. Jugal Kishore; Smt. Kanta and Smt. Chandra Kanta both daughters of late Sh. Jugal Kishore as petitioners due to death of original petitioner Sh. Jugal Kishore. 2. The application is allowed. The persons named above are substituted as petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/6. An amended cause title has already been filed. Same be taken on record. 3. The writ petition being listed for hearing heard today itself . 4. A mining lease was granted to the petitioner for excavating Asbestos in the mining area situated at Village Sansariya, Tehsil-Deogarh, Distt. Udaipur on 14.03.1975. A lease agreement in consequent thereto was executed on 08.05.1975. The petitioner on 211.1987 submitted an application before the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Rajsamand for surrendering partial lease area i.e., to the extent of 294.1 Hectare on the ground that such area stood barren or was not economical to work. The application submitted by the petitioner on 211.1987 for partial surrender of the mining area granted under mining lease was accepted by the Government of Rajasthan w.e.f. 211.1988 i.e., after a year from the date of submission of the application for surrendering area in part. The Government of Rajasthan while accepting the application for part surrender under the order dated 111.1988 averred that the surrender from the date of submission of the application was not accepted as the petitioner failed to deposit required land tax. 5. By the instant petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to acceptance of his partial surrender w.e.f. 211.1988 and also against the charge of dead rent pertaining to the period commencing from 211.1987 to 211.1988. 5. By the instant petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to acceptance of his partial surrender w.e.f. 211.1988 and also against the charge of dead rent pertaining to the period commencing from 211.1987 to 211.1988. While giving challenge as above it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that under proviso (2) to Rule 29 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 provides that where a lessee applies for surrender of the whole or a part of lease hold area on the ground that such area is barren or the deposits of mineral have since exhausted or deposited to such an extent that it is no longer economical to work in such area, the State Government shall permit the lessee, from the date of receipt of the application, to surrender the area subject to satisfaction of the conditions referred in Clauses (a), (b) & (c) to proviso (2) to Rule 29 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. According to Counsel for the petitioner the conditions above were satisfied and, therefore, the application for partial surrender was required to be accepted from the date of its submission i.e., 211.1987. Per contra it is stated on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner failed to pay the land tax and, therefore, in view of Condition (b) to proviso (2) to Rule 29 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 the petitioner was not entitled for surrendering the land on the date of submission of the application. 6. Heard Counsel for the parties. 7. It is the position admitted that some land tax was due against the petitioner, however, the Condition (b) to proviso (2) to Rule 29 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 pertains to the dues payable to the Government under the lease up to the date of application. The land tax because of non-payment of that the application of the petitioner was not accepted from the date of submission is not an amount payable to the Government under the lease. As such it cannot be a reason for not accepting the application submitted by the petitioner for part surrender of the mining area held under the mining lease. The land tax because of non-payment of that the application of the petitioner was not accepted from the date of submission is not an amount payable to the Government under the lease. As such it cannot be a reason for not accepting the application submitted by the petitioner for part surrender of the mining area held under the mining lease. The respondents in view of proviso (2) of Rule 29 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 were under obligation to accept the application submitted by the petitioner for partial surrender of the mining area on the date of submission of the application i.e., 211.1987. The acceptance of the application at a delayed stage by a year i.e., w.e.f. 211.1988 is, therefore, erroneous. The petitioners application for part surrender is required to be accepted w.e.f. 211.1987 and the petitioner cannot be held liable to satisfy any demand with regard to mining area surrendered by him after 211.1987. 8. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The application submitted by the petitioner for partial surrender of mining area is ordered to be treated accepted on 211.1987. The respondents shall determine the dead rent required to be recovered from the petitioner accordingly. 9. No order as to cost.