JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated November 17, 1997 of learned Single Judge whereby the circular dated November 15, 1995 in regard to grant and renewal of mining lease over khatedari and private lands issued by the State Government was quashed. 3. Contextual facts depict that one Rameshwar Bajaj was granted a mining lease of mineral limestone and Marble near village Mohanpura, Jodhpura, Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur for the area measuring 415.03 hectares by the state Government on September 14, 1981 for a period of ten years. The lease came to be transferred in favour of the respondent company (for short `company') vide order dated February 19, 1986 and a supplementary deed was executed on February 24, 1896 and registered on February 28, 1986. 4. The Company applied for grant of first renewal of mining lease on August 31, 1994. The Assistant Mining Engineer Kotputli issued letter dated August 31, 1994 pointing out following deficiencies : (i) No dues certificate from Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer was to be filed; (ii) Since it was a private limited company, hence no dues certificate in relation to every member of the company was to be filed; (iii) Applied area had not been shown on Khasra map and had not been surveyed; (iv) Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi of applied area had not been submitted; and (v) Applied area fall within private khatedari land and no objection certificate (affidavits) had not been submitted. The defects were to be rectified within 45 days, failing which application was to be rejected under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short `1986 Rules'). 5. The case of company in writ petition was that although it rectified some defects, it could not submit no dues certificate of all members of the company; Khasra map specifying the lease area was not produced and `No objection' certificate of khatedar could not be produced. The Company submitted affidavit on December 26, 1994 giving undertaking that private khatedari land falling in lease area would be exploited only after obtaining consent/No-objection certificate of private khatedar According to company, Director of Mines and Geology Udaipur vide letter dated July 3, 1995 recommended to State Government for grant of first renewal of the mining lease, but the State Government declined to renew the lease. The company, filed civil suit for declaration and injunction before learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said court vide order dated February 5, 1995 restrained State Government from creating any obstruction in peaceful and smooth mining operations by the company and not to dispossess it from the lease area and not to allot the mines to any other person. The company filed writ petition thereafter on the ground that even though recommendation had been made by Director of Mines and Geology, the State Government was not granting renewal in view of circular dated November 15, 1995 according to which no mining lease of renewal thereof would be granted in private khatedari land unless No-objection certificate was obtained from the concerned khatedar. 6. The circular dated November 15, 1995 annexed to the writ petition reads as under: "GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN MINES DEPARTMENT No.F14(20) Mines/Gr.II/95 Dated November 15, 1995 The Director, Mines & Geology Department, Govt. of Rajasthan UDAIPUR Sub. : Grant and renewal of mining leases over khatedari and other private lands under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 do not specifically provide that where the land does not belong to the State Government, mining lease would be granted only to the owner of such land or to the person who obtains and produces consent of the land owner. The State Government after considering the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as contained in Rule 22(3)(h) and after due deliberations has declined that in the case of minor minerals, every application for grant of renewal of a mining lease shall be accompanied by a statement in writing that the applicant has, where the land is not owned by him, obtained surface rights over the area or has obtained the consent of the owner for starting mining operations provided that no such statement shall be necessary where the land is owned by the Government. Provided also that no further consent would be required in the case of renewal where consent has already been obtained during grant of lease. Copies of this circular may please be sent to all the subordinate officers for compliance. Sd/- (Dinesh Kumar) Spl. Secretary, Mines & Energy" 7. Provided also that no further consent would be required in the case of renewal where consent has already been obtained during grant of lease. Copies of this circular may please be sent to all the subordinate officers for compliance. Sd/- (Dinesh Kumar) Spl. Secretary, Mines & Energy" 7. Learned Single Judge treated the circular as administrative instructions and observed thus : (Para 27) "27 The circular dated 15.11.95 (Ann.4) is only administrative instruction, even no rule or section has been referred under which the department has power to impose a condition which is contrary to Rules, 1960. When Rule does not require the no objection certificate prior to entry into the area of khatedari land, how the petitioner can be compelled to obtain no objection certificate from the concerned khatedars, on the basis of administrative circular. No provision in the Act can be made contrary to the frame work of Constitution. No Rule can be made contrary to the scheme and object of the Act, under which the Rules are framed. No circular can be issued contrary to the provisions of Rules and Act, under which, the circular has been issued. As stated above, under the proviso second of Rule 22(3)(h), No Objection Certificate is, required after execution of lease deed but before entering into the land of owner/khatedar. In the circular dated 15.11.95 (Ann.4) the condition has been imposed that before execution of lease deed or renewal of lease deed, the No Objection Certificate should be obtained by the lease holder, that is contrary to the provisions of Rule. Therefore, the circular dated 15.11.95 (Ann.4) is not a supplement to Rule 22 (3)(h) of the Rules, 1960. It is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Hence deserves to be quashed." 8. Therefore, the circular dated 15.11.95 (Ann.4) is not a supplement to Rule 22 (3)(h) of the Rules, 1960. It is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Hence deserves to be quashed." 8. In our opinion the above observations of learned Single Judge are against the Circular dated November 15, 1995 which is a supplement to Rule 22(3)(h) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short `1960 Rules'), which reads thus : "22.(3) Every application for the grant of renewal of a mining lease shall be accompanied by - (h) a statement in writing that the applicant has, where the land is not owned by him, obtained surface rights over the area or has obtained the consent of the owner for starting mining operations; Provided that no such statement shall be necessary where the land is owned by the Government; Provided further that the consent of the owner for starting mining operations in the area or part thereof may be furnished after execution of the lease deed but before entry into the said area : Provided also that no further consent would be required in the case of renewal where consent has already been obtained during grant of the lease." (Emphasis supplied) 9. Evidently second proviso appended to rule 22(3)(h) provides that the consent of the owner for starting mining operations in the area or part thereof may be furnished after execution of the lease deed but before entry into the said area. Circular November 15, 1995 also provides that every application for grant of renewal of a mining lease shall be accompanied by a statement in writing that the applicant has, where the land is not owned by him, obtained surface rights over the area or has obtained the consent of the owner for starting mining operations. 10. Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short `1956 Act') provides for compensation to the persons whose rights are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of land containing minerals. Section 89 reads as under : "89. Rights to minerals, mines, quarries and fisheries : (1) The right to all minerals, mines and quarries and to all fisheries, navigation and irrigation in and from, a river shall vest in the State Government and the State Government shall have all powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right. Section 89 reads as under : "89. Rights to minerals, mines, quarries and fisheries : (1) The right to all minerals, mines and quarries and to all fisheries, navigation and irrigation in and from, a river shall vest in the State Government and the State Government shall have all powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right. (2) The right to all mines and quarries includes the right to access to land for the purpose of mining and quarrying and the right to occupy such other land as may be necessary for purposes subsidiary thereto, including the erection of offices, workmen's dwellings and machinery, the staking of minerals and deposit of refuse, the construction of roads, railways or tram lines, and any other purposes which the State Government may declare to be subsidiary to mining and quarrying. (3) If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries, and if for the proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) should be exercised by such person, the Collector may, by an order in writing, subject to such conditions and reservations as he may prescribe; delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned : Provided that no such delegation shall be made until notice has been duly served on all persons having rights in the land effected and their objections have been heard and considered. (4) If, in the exercise of the right herein referred to over any land, the rights of any persons are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the State Government or its assignee shall pay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount of such compensation shall be calculated by the Collector, or, if his award is not accepted, by the Civil Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act XXIV of 1953). (5) No assignee of the State Government shall enter on or occupy the surface of any land without the previous sanction of the Collector, unless the compensation has been determined and tendered to the person whose rights are infringed. (5) No assignee of the State Government shall enter on or occupy the surface of any land without the previous sanction of the Collector, unless the compensation has been determined and tendered to the person whose rights are infringed. (6) If any assignee of the State Government fails to pay compensation as provided in sub-section (4), the Collector may recover such compensation from him on behalf of the person entitled to it, as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes minerals from any mine or quarry, the right to which vests in an has not been assigned by the State Government, shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be liable, on the order in writing of the Collector to pay a penalty not exceeding a sum calculated at the rate of fifty rupees per ton, or a fraction thereof, of the minerals so extracted or removed : Provided that if the sum so calculated is less than one thousand rupees, the penalty may be such larger not exceeding one thousand rupees as the Collector may impose. Explanation. In this section, `minerals' include any sand or clay which the State Government may declare to have a commercial value or to be required for any public purpose." 11. Since the second proviso appended to Rule 22(3)(h) of 1960 Rules as well mandate of Section 89 of 1956 Act have not been properly construed by the learned Single Judge the impugned order deserves to be set aside. We uphold the validity of circular dated November 15, 1995. 12. For these reasons, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order of learned Single Judge stands set aside without any order as to costs.Appeals Allowed. *******