Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 586 (RAJ)

Radha Kishan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-20

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2006
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the condition of the order of restoration of the mining lease dated 011.2004 passed by the State Government to the extent of charging the deed rent of the intervening period from cancellation of the lease deed to the restoration of the same. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the lease deed of the petitioner was cancelled on 25.05.1999 and subsequently an order was passed by the Central Government in his revision petition and the same was ultimately restored to him on 011.2004 but in the last para of the order, a condition was mentioned that the restoration is subject to the payment of deed rent of the intervening period. 3. The respondent has filed reply and submitted that the deed rent of the intervening period can be made a condition for restoration. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 02.04.1999 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4647/1998, Jai Singh Shekhawat vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein this Court has held that the respondents have no authority to charge the deed rent of the intervening period as the lease holder was out of the physical possession of the lease against which a D.B. CivilSpecial Appeal was filed by the State and the same was dismissed on 01.09.1999. Thereafter, SLP was filed by the State and that too was dismissed on 16.03.2000. The relevant portion of the Single Bench order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 04.08.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3 is modified to the extent that no deed rent shall be claimed by the respondents for the period when the petitioner was not in actual physical possession of the mines during intervening period i.e., from 01.03.1994 till handing over actual physical possession of the mines.” 5. The respondent has not disputed the aforesaid position of law. The case of the petitioner is covered by the said Judgment s. 6. I, therefore, allow the present writ petition and set aside the condition of the restoration of payment of deed rent of the intervening period mentioned in the order dated 011.2004 (Annexure-3). There shall be no order as to costs.