JUDGMENT 1. 1. This civil first appeal by plaintiff appellants arises out of the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing their suit for damages. 2. Plaintiff Raghunath Singh filed a suit for damages. During pendency of suit Raghunath Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record and amended cause title was also filed. 3. On 3.7.1967, late Raghunath Singh filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as damages against the defendants, namely, the State of Rajasthan and the Mining Engineer on account of premature cancellation of mining lease. As per the averments made in the plaint, mining lease for excavation of lime stone under the Mining Mineral and Concession Rules, 1955 was granted to plaintiff Raghunath Singh under the order dated 10.11.1959 passed by the Mining Engineer, defendant No.2. This lease was granted for an area measuring 200' x 100' for a period of 5 years in village Ballupra, Tehsil ' against judgment & decree dt 18.10.90 passed by Shri Bihari Lal Gupta, ADJ No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 53/67 (110/74). Neemkathana District Sikar. The lease was registered on 16.1.1960 for a period of 5 years, but the same was cancelled by the defendant No.2 vide his order dated 10.4.1961. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.4.1961 cancelling the lease, the appellants filed an appeal on 17.4.1961 before the Director, Mines on the ground that order dated 10.4.61 was illegal and based on extraneous consideration. The Director Mines dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.6.1961. Further appeal filed by the appellant before the State Governmen. was also dismissed vide order dated 2.1.1962. The mining lease was cancelled on account of excavation of mining operations outside the area sanctioned to the plaintiff appellants. It was averred n the plaint that neither any mining activities were done illegally nor proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the plaintiff before termination of lease. was also dismissed vide order dated 2.1.1962. The mining lease was cancelled on account of excavation of mining operations outside the area sanctioned to the plaintiff appellants. It was averred n the plaint that neither any mining activities were done illegally nor proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the plaintiff before termination of lease. In sub-para (b) of para 7 of the plaint, it has been averred that under the provisions of Section of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act as well as under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 as well as those of 1957 (Acts No. 53 of 1948 and 57 of 1957), and the rules framed thereunder, any unauthorised and illegal working of any area by any person could have been proved either before the Collector or before a First Class Magistrate and the person found thus working in an unauthorized and illegal manner could have been held liable for the price of the mineral taken out as well as could have even been sentenced by the criminal Court if found guilty. But no such proceeding were taken against the plaintiff even though he had clearly challenged the Minining Authorities that he had not done any un-authorised working of any area and that whatever work was done within his own leased area about which he has submitted correct returns before the Department. 5. It was averred that on account of wrongful termination of lease, the plaintiff was deprived to work the mines from 12.4.1961, the day on which he received the order of termination of lease. The plaintiff averred that the lease was cancelled much prior to the expiry of initial period of 5 years. According to him a period of 3 & 1/2 years was still to go and that he was also entitled to two renewals of a period of 5 years each. On account of wrongful termination of lime stone lease the plaintiff assessed damages to the tune of Rs. 96,000/-. According, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs. 96000/- as damages. 6. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, inter-alia, stating that plaintiff appellant was found working illegally outside the leased area and also submitted wrong returns. 96,000/-. According, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs. 96000/- as damages. 6. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, inter-alia, stating that plaintiff appellant was found working illegally outside the leased area and also submitted wrong returns. The reports of Mines Foreman, Sikar, Ist Class Magistrate, Neem-ka-thana and Tehsildar, Neem-ka-thana as also the inquiry made by the Mining Engineer go to prove that the plaintiff committed breach of agreement. The plaintiff was served with a notice of 30 days, but he failed to give correct facts and could not offer satisfactory explanation and that being so, the mining lease was terminated w.e.f. 4.4.61 and the termination order was communicated to the plaintiff vide endorsement dated 10.4.1961. The appeals preferred by the plaintiff were also rightly rejected. It was pleaded that an inquiry was conducted by the Mining Engineer, which was supported by the Tehsildar and Ist Class Magistrate Neem-ka-thana and thereafter inquiry papers were forwarded by the Collector, Sikar. The Mining Engineer, after taking into consideration all the papers relating to the inquiry made by the Judicial Magistrate as also the inquiry conducted by himself came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had worked outside his area and submitted wrong and false returns. It was stated that plaintiff was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. 7. In additional pleas the defendants have stated as under : (1) That the lease deed dated 16.12.1959 is not according to law. It has been signed by the Assistant Mining Engineer who was never directed or authorised by the Governor of Rajasthan to sign the contract on his behalf and on behalf of the State Govt. as such the contract is not in conformity with Article 299 of the Constitution of India and is void. (2) That lease has not been registered according to law; the lessors signature or execution was not admitted before the Sub Registrar, Neem. ka. Thana. As such it cannot operate as a registered document. (3) If an statutory authority functions under the Statute, the State Govt. cannot be held responsible for tortious act of the employee or member of that authority acting under the provisions of the Act. It is therefore, prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 15 issues. The parties led evidence. cannot be held responsible for tortious act of the employee or member of that authority acting under the provisions of the Act. It is therefore, prayed that the suit may be dismissed with costs. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 15 issues. The parties led evidence. The plaintiff in support of his case examined 4 witnesses, while the defendants examined 11 witnesses. On consideration of evidence and after hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit vide judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. 9. Felling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, plaintiff appellants have filed the present appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 11. On perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that Issues No.1 and 2 have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. So far as decision on Issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff appellants is concerned, the trial court has come to a definite finding that the patta has not been cancelled on the ground that Assistant Engineer was not competent to sign it, but it has been cancelled on the ground that the appellants have violated the terms and conditions contained therein. The defendants themselves have produced the Patta in evidence and the plaintiffs have admitted the same. Had the Assistant Engineer been not competent to sign the Patta, the defendants must not have accorded permission to the plaintiffs to start the work. The defendants have accorded permission only on the basis of the Patta and therefore, it would be presumed under Section of the Evidence Act that Assistant Engineer was competent to sign the Patta the trial court has rightly held that defendants cannot now be permitted to raise any objection in respect of the Patta. So far as Issue No.2, whether the alleged lease has not been registered as per law is concerned, the defendants, themselves have relied upon the terms of the Patta and therefore, the defendants cannot be permitted to raise any objection in respect to the documents which have been produced in evidence by them. The defendants have not adduced any evidence to show Sub Registrar has registered the said Patta without holding proper inquiry. The defendants have not adduced any evidence to show Sub Registrar has registered the said Patta without holding proper inquiry. After registration the patta remained with the defendants, but the defendants did not chose it proper to take appropriate steps. In my view, the learned trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that defendants now cannot question the registration. 12. Issues No. 3 to 8 which go to the root of the matter have been decided in favour of the defendants and against the appellants and in my opinion, rightly so. The appeals preferred by the plaintiff appellants have been dismissed by the competent authorities. It is evident that plaintiffs have not raised any allegation of mala fides against the appellate authorities. Unless it is alleged that the appellate orders/judgments suffer from malice, the civil courts cannot interfere with the same. The question whether opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant or not has also been dealt with by the appellate authorities. It has come in evidence that the plaintiffs carried out mining operations outside the leased area. Plaintiff Reghunath Singh in his cross examination has accepted that the Mining Engineer had issued him a notice dated 17.12.60 in this respect. He has also admitted the inquiry having been conducted on a complaint in respect of taking out stones from the area other than the leased area and in respect of transportation. The plaintiff participated in the inquiry held against him and has adduced evidence in the inquiry and therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have been violated. 13. The defence witnesses, namely DW 2 Chand Mal Jain, DW3 Ramjilal, DW4 Manohar Singh, DW8 Kundan Lai, DW 10 Anirudh Rai and DW11 Sunder Lal Mehirshi have proved that plaintiff was carrying mining activities outside the leased rea. These witnesses have further proved that site was inspected in the presence of plaintiff. DW 3 Ramjilal who, at the relevant time was posted as 1st Class Magistrate in Neem-ka-thana has on receipt of Ex.A/2 he had conducted inquiry and had sent the Tehsildar for measurement. The Tehsildar inspected the site and got done the measurement in the presence of Patwari and Kanoongo and on the basis of measurement it was found that the plaintiff carried out mining activities beyond the leased area and a report Ex.A/3 to that effect was also prepared. The Tehsildar inspected the site and got done the measurement in the presence of Patwari and Kanoongo and on the basis of measurement it was found that the plaintiff carried out mining activities beyond the leased area and a report Ex.A/3 to that effect was also prepared. The plaintiff has not been able to prove that any of the defence witness had ill-will or grudge against the plaintiff so as to make false statement against him. Not only the person making complaint against the plaintiff, but the Government officers/officials including the officers of Revenue Department have deposed that plaintiff has worked outside the leased area. 14. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, in my considered view has rightly come to a finding that that plaintiff not only did mining activities outside the sanctioned area, but also excavated lime stone in excess and submitted false royalty settlement statement and therefore, the order cancelling the Patta cannot at all be said to be illegal. 15. So far as claim of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- is concerned, the plaintiff has assessed and claimed compensation of Rs. 96,000/- after having calculated loss of income for the work which he would have carried out for next 13 years. The lease was granted to the plaintiff for a period of five years and it was for for the defendants whether to renew the lease or not. The plaintiff had no legal and vested right for renewal of lease for a further period of 10 years. The trial court has rightly held that plaintiff is not entitled to claim any compensation, inasmuch as the plaintiff has not been able to prove the income from the mine in question. 16. It may also be stated that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. The contract came to an end on 10.4.1961, whereas the suit was filed in July, 1967 i.e. after a period of more than 6 years. The trial court has rightly held the suit being barred by limitation. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in (1) Baldev Ram Mirdha Memorial Society v. State of Rajasthan and others 1994 (1) RLR 687 = 1995 (3) W.L.C. 541) and decision of Division Bench of this Court in (2) Had Shanker v. State of Rajasthan 1961 RLW 672. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in (1) Baldev Ram Mirdha Memorial Society v. State of Rajasthan and others 1994 (1) RLR 687 = 1995 (3) W.L.C. 541) and decision of Division Bench of this Court in (2) Had Shanker v. State of Rajasthan 1961 RLW 672. 18. I have carefully gone through the case laws cited at the bar and I am of the considered view that the cases referred to above are of no help to the appellants because the facts involved in the above two cases cited at the bar are different than those involved, in the instant case. Further, as already stated hereinabove, in the instant case the plaintiff appellants were afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard and the lease granted to the plaintiff was cancelled on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions contained therein. 19. For the reasons aforesaid I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******