JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, said to have acquired one-half of the khatedari rights in the land comprised in Araji Nos. 78 and 79 at village Raghunathpura, seeks to question the notification dated 01.04.1991 (Annex.4) as issued by the State Government under Rule 65 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1986') making provisions for grant of mining lease/quarry licence for mineral sandstone in khatedari land; and seeks the reliefs that the quarry licence issued to the respondent No.4 be quashed and the official respondents be directed to restrain the private respondent No.4 from excavating the minerals from his khatedari land. 2. The petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that in relation to the khatedari land, permission to excavate the mineral cannot be granted without the consent of the khatedar and has stated the cause and basis of his filing of this petition in the manner that he has purchased one-half of the aforesaid land in Araji Nos. 78 and 79 under the registered sale deed dated 10.10.2005 (Annex.1) and has become a khatedar of the said land that has been mutated in his name. The petitioner has averred that before such sale, his vendor Devi Lal had given a consent letter in favour of Prakash Chand Jain (respondent No.4 herein) for the purpose of allotment of quarry licence but now, he has purchased the said land and has become exclusive khatedar thereof; and he has not given any such consent letter in favour of the respondent No.4. The petitioner submits that despite his having not given any consent, the respondent No.4 was illegally exploiting the aforesaid area with the collusion of the respondent Department as he has allegedly got the quarry licence on the basis of the alleged consent of Devi Lal. The petitioner has further averred that the consent of Devi Lal was not voluntary and was obtained by fraud and in that relation Devi Lal had lodged a first information report against Prakash Chand Jain. 3. The petitioner has further stated that himself and so also his predecessor Devi Lal made a number of representations and has annexed the copies of such representations as Annexures 2 and 3. 3. The petitioner has further stated that himself and so also his predecessor Devi Lal made a number of representations and has annexed the copies of such representations as Annexures 2 and 3. The petitioner has stated the grievance that despite such representations, the respondents have neither cancelled the quarry licence nor restrained the respondent No.4 from excavating the mineral from the land in question. 4. The petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is being permitted to continue with the mining operations in the area in question in the garb of the notification dated 01.04.1991; and contends that the said notification is per se illegal and beyond the scope of Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986 wherein the Government can only relax any of the provisions of the said Rules of 1986 for the reasons to be recorded in writing but cannot prescribe different procedure for allotment of mines. The petitioner submits that Rule 65-A as inserted to the Rules of 1986 giving the powers to the State Government to prescribe a different procedure came into force only with effect from 23.04.1992 and prior to that, no such powers existed in the State Government so as to prescribe a different procedure. Hence, according to the petitioner, the notification dated 01.04.1991 remains beyond the scope of powers of the State Government and is liable to be quashed. 5. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3, in the reply to the writ petition have, inter alia, pointed out that Devi Lal, the then khatedar of the land in question, had given no objection certificate on a non-judicial stamp paper in favour of the respondent No.4 in the year 1998 and on that basis, the quarry licence was granted to the respondent No.4. The respondents have pointed out that from the year 1998 to the year 2004, Devi Lal did not raise any objection against the mining operations conducted by Prakash Chand Jain and it was only in the year 2004 that an objection was raised by him; and thereupon, FIR No. 171/2004 was lodged by the Department at Police Station, Bijoliyan on 18.09.2004 and the case was pending in the Court. The respondents have pointed out that the petitioner has proceeded to purchase the land in question only on 10.10.2005 whereas the quarry licence was issued in favour of the respondent No.4 way back on 23.10.1998 and, in fact, the Department came to know about acquiring of the khatedari rights by the petitioner only after filing of the present writ petition. The respondents have also raised the objection that the petitioner has not impleaded the said Shri Devi Lal a party to this writ petition. 6. The respondent No. 4 has filed a separate reply with the submissions that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the material facts in this writ petition about his having filed a suit for perpetual injunction in relation to the same dispute and having moved an application for temporary injunction (Annexs. R/1 & R/2). It has been pointed out that on 24.11.2005, the answering respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijoliyan wherein an order for maintaining status quo was passed and only thereafter did the petitioner file the aforesaid suit on 13.12.2005. It has further been pointed out that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandalgarh, by the order dated 25.07.2006 (Annex.R/5), dismissed the application for temporary injunction as moved by the petitioner. It is submitted that such facts having been concealed, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. By way of additional affidavit, it has also been pointed out that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 25.07.2006 came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara by the order dated 03.10.2007 (Annex. R/6); and that the suit filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 05.02.2008 (Annex. R/7). The answering respondent has further pointed out that his quarry licence was illegally cancelled by the Government under the order dated 22.04.2008 (Annex. R/8) and against the said order, he has filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 5041/2008 (at Jaipur Bench of this Court) that is pending consideration and therein, this Court has stayed the operation and effect of the order dated 22.04.2008. 7. R/8) and against the said order, he has filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 5041/2008 (at Jaipur Bench of this Court) that is pending consideration and therein, this Court has stayed the operation and effect of the order dated 22.04.2008. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned notification dated 01.04.1991 remains beyond the scope of powers of the State Government and could not have been issued under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986; and that any act done in pursuance thereof cannot be countenanced. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the so-called consent from Devi Lal was obtained without his free will and the same cannot be considered to be a consent binding on the khatedar nor any quarry licence could be issued on its basis. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner having purchased the land under a registered sale deed and having been recorded as khatedar thereof, no mining lease or quarry licence could be granted in, nor any stranger could be allowed to excavate the mineral from, the land in question without the consent of petitioner; and, for the petitioner having not given any such consent, permission to excavate as given to the respondent No. 4 remains entirely illegal. Though not stated specifically so in the writ petition, the learned counsel argues that when the said notification dated 01.04.1991 remains beyond the scope of the Rules and beyond the powers conferred on the State Government, any quarry licence issued thereunder remains bad in law and cannot be permitted to be operated because of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Uparmal Paryavaran Samiti's case, CWP No. 1814/1991 whereby and where for, the State Government cannot grant mineral excavation rights for any area ad-measuring less than 5 hectares. 8. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition, being fundamentally bereft of substance and being rather an oblique litigation taken up while concealing material facts, deserves to be dismissed with costs. 9. The petitioner has suggested in the writ petition that he is the khatedar of the part of the land in question and, therefore, no mining activity could be carried out in the said land without his consent. 9. The petitioner has suggested in the writ petition that he is the khatedar of the part of the land in question and, therefore, no mining activity could be carried out in the said land without his consent. Some cryptic and cursory suggestions have been made by the petitioner that the consent of his predecessor Devi Lal was not voluntary and in that relation Devi Lal has lodged a first information report. However, the petitioner has chosen to avoid the fact that such consent for conducting mining operations in the area in question was given by his predecessor Devi Lal way back in the year 1998; and the Department has specifically pointed out that during the entire period from the year 1998 until the year 2004, Devi Lal never raised any objection against such mining operations. It is but apparent that only after petitioner's entry into the scene that allegations cropped up with the suggestions as if Devi Lal had not extended the consent voluntarily. 10. It is further noticed from the representation (Annex. 3) as made by the petitioner to the Mining Engineer that he was aware of the position that Devi Lal had extended the consent in favour of the respondent No.4 and alleged that Devi Lal extended such consent with the understanding that he would work in his khatedari land. Interestingly, the petitioner admitted himself having purchased the land for mining purposes only; and alleged having the excavation rights on the land in question in place of Devi Lal. The petitioner then suggested that no-objection as issued by the khatedar was not perpetual in nature nor would take away the rights of the khatedar. In the said representation, no such assertion had otherwise been made that Devi Lal did not extend the consent or that the same was suffering from want of free will. The complaint as made on behalf of Devi Lal (Annex. 2) to the Chief Minister seems to have been forwarded only in the month of January 2006. In a comprehensive view of the matter, it is beyond a shadow of doubt that only after the petitioner intruded into the scene by entering into a deal with the khatedar that objections came up against the consent extended by Devi Lal that had otherwise been acted upon without any dispute for about six years. 11. In a comprehensive view of the matter, it is beyond a shadow of doubt that only after the petitioner intruded into the scene by entering into a deal with the khatedar that objections came up against the consent extended by Devi Lal that had otherwise been acted upon without any dispute for about six years. 11. The significant part of the matter remains that in the sale deed as executed in favour of the petitioner (Annex. 1), it had specifically been stated that the land sought to be sold was situated within a sanctioned mining area. The relevant paragraph of the sale deed reads as under:- " 5- ;g fd fofdzr Hkwfe eky r'rh;] catM fdLe dh gSaA fofdzr Hkwfe Lohd'r [kuu {ks= esa gSaA bl fodz; ys[;i= esa iath;u ,oa eqnzkad [kpZ f}rh;i{k dzsrk us ogu fd;k gSA " (Underlining supplied for emphasis) 12. It is absolutely clear that at the time of entering into the sale transaction, the petitioner was precisely aware of the fact that he was purchasing the khatedari rights in a land wherein a quarry licence had already been granted and the land in question was falling in a sanctioned mining area. Once the petitioner has proceeded to purchase the land in question knowing fully well that the same was falling in a sanctioned mining area (and, as has been pointed by the official respondents, the sanction was made in favour of the respondent No.4 on the basis of the consent stated by the khatedar way back in the year 1998), the petitioner cannot be acceded any right beyond and above the rights of his predecessor; and rather, the petitioner remains bound by the dealings of his predecessor qua the land in question. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, that could be made only against his predecessor and could least be permitted to be voiced against the respondent No. 4. 13. The objection as raised by the respondents about Devi Lal having not been impleaded a party to this writ petition cannot be dubbed as irrelevant either. The petitioner has chosen to state in this writ petition that the consent was not given by Devi Lal voluntarily. Such averments specifically relate to and are directed towards his predecessor Devi Lal. 13. The objection as raised by the respondents about Devi Lal having not been impleaded a party to this writ petition cannot be dubbed as irrelevant either. The petitioner has chosen to state in this writ petition that the consent was not given by Devi Lal voluntarily. Such averments specifically relate to and are directed towards his predecessor Devi Lal. Apart from the position that such disputed questions of facts would not be gone into by this Court in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, in any case, it was required of the petitioner to have impleaded the said Devi Lal a party to this writ petition for the purpose of such averments. In the absence of Devi Lal, such averments of the petitioner could only be ignored and the petition turns out to be bereft of any basis. 14. Apart from the aforesaid, it is noticed that the petitioner has chosen to conceal the material facts that he had filed a civil suit against the private respondent and did move an application for temporary injunction. It is noticed from the documents placed on record by the respondent No. 4 that the application for temporary injunction, and so also the appeal, as filed by the petitioner were rejected by the concerned Courts. It is also noticed from the document Annexure-R/7 that the said suit as filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed on 05.02.2008 for his having failed to lead evidence. Without going into any other aspect relating to the said suit, it is but apparent that while filing this writ petition on 19.09.2006, the petitioner chose to conceal the material facts about his having filed the suit and about the application for temporary injunction as filed by him having been rejected on 25.07.2006. The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. 15. Apart that the petitioner is found wanting in legal right so as to question the grant made in favour of the respondent No.4 and wanting in bona fides while filing this writ petition, even the submissions as sought to be made on his behalf in relation to the notification dated 01.04.1991 appear to be bereft of logic and substance. 15. Apart that the petitioner is found wanting in legal right so as to question the grant made in favour of the respondent No.4 and wanting in bona fides while filing this writ petition, even the submissions as sought to be made on his behalf in relation to the notification dated 01.04.1991 appear to be bereft of logic and substance. Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986 specifically permits the Government to relax any provision of the Rules for the reasons to be recorded; and having regard to the circumstances, when the Government has chosen to relax the Rules and to make provisions for grant of mining lease and quarry licence in khatedari land for the purpose of mineral sandstone, the exercise remains unexceptionable. By the said notification, the Government has provided thus: " viz/kku [kfu fj;k;r fu;e] 1986 ds fu;e 65 ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj }kjk orZeku fu;eksa esa f'kfFkyrk iznku dh tkrh gS ,oa lS.M LVksu ds [kuu iV~Vk ,oa Dokjh ykbZlsal] [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe esa Lohd'r djus lEcU/kh fuEu uhfr fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%& 1- [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe esa [kfut miyC/k gksus dh fLFkfr esa [kuu iV~Vksa dk vkoaVu [kkrsnkj vFkok [kkrsnkj ls lgefr izkIr vkosnd ds i{k esa fd;s tk ldsaxsA [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe esa tks [kuu iV~Vs Lohd'r fd;s tk;saxs mu ij fLFkj HkkVd fu/kkZfjr jkf'k dk pkj xquk ns; gksxkA viz/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;e 1986 ds fu;e 11 ( 2 ) ds vuqlkj ,d vkosnd ds i{k esa vf/kdre nks IykWaV rd Lohd'r djus dk izko/kku gS ijUrq tgka [kkrsnkj dk {ks= fu/kkZfjr nks IyksV~l dh lhek ls vf/kd gS ijUrq ,slh vf/kd lhek ls iw.kZ vkdkj dk IykV ugha cu ldrk ,sls vfrfjDr {ks= dks Hkh [kkrsnkj ds i{k esa vkoaVu fd;k tk ldsxk ftldk fLFkj HkkVd fu;eksa esa fu/kkZfjr jkf'k ls ikap xquk gksxkA IykaV dh fu/kkZfjr lkbZt esa Hkh f'kfFkyrk cjrh tk ldsxh tks [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe dh lhek ds vuqlkj gh de vFkok vf/kd dh tk ldsxhA ;g uhfr mu {ks=ksa esa ykxw gksxh ftu {ks=ksa esa [kku vkoaVu Dokjh ykbZlsal i}fr ls fd;k tkrk gS ijUrq ,sls {ks=ksa esa ;g uhfr dsoy catj] ckjuh ,oa vflafpr [kkrsnkjh {ks=ksa ij gh ykxw gksxhA 2- lgdkjh lfefr;ksa ,oa xzkenkuh lfefr;ksa dks Hkh mudh Lo;a dh Hkwfe esa [kfut ls.M LVksu ds [kuuiV~Vs vFkok Dokjh ykbZlsal mDr uhfr ds vuqlkj Lohd'r fd;s tk ldsaxsA " 16. Looking to the nature and purport of the said notification, reference to Rule 65-A of the Rules of 1986 appears to be unnecessary, rather inapt. Under Rule 65-A, the Government has been empowered, notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of 1986, to adopt any method or procedure different from that provided in the Rules for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development. Sphere of operation of Rule 65-A remains different; and it cannot be said that the notification dated 01.04.1991 could not have been issued under the powers of relaxation available with the State Government under Rule 65 of the Rules of 1986. 17. The submissions as sought to be made by the petitioner are rather incongruous where on one hand it is suggested that no grant could have been made for an area less than 5 hectares in measurement and when certain provisions have been made by the Government so as to permit grant of mining leases/quarry licences with adequate area with the consent of khatedars in relation to the khatedari land, the same are sought to be questioned. This writ petition could only be rejected as an unnecessary, rather frivolous litigation, bereft of any logic or substance. As noticed above, the petitioner has also been found wanting in bona fides in his conduct and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 18. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, this writ petition stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred only) payable to the respondent No. 4.Writ petition dismissed. *******