Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 638 (RAJ)

Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-13

ALOK SHARMA

body2012
Judgment : This petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2011, passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines), Mines Dept., Jaipur whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.05.2009, passed by the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur has been dismissed. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for a mining lease of masonry stone in the area ad measuring 200 X 50 sq. meters near village Chinawara, Tehsil Pahadi, District Bharatpur on 23.01.2008 which was registered as M.L. No.54/2008. The petitioner filed this application with all required documents like site map, Jamabandi etc. The case of the petitioner is that after a period of one year and five months from filing of the application, vide order dated 20.05.2009 the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur, without providing an opportunity of hearing, rejected the petitioner's application inter alia on the ground that the applied area for granting mining lease was against the rehabilitation of the leaseholder of Kama-Deeg area under delineated plots. Aggrieved of the order dated 20.05.2009, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Secretary (Mines) Mines Dept., Jaipur. A reply to the revision was filed by the Supt. Mining Engineer, respondent No.3. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 11.05.2011, the Dy. Secretary (Mines) dismissed the petitioner's revision with the same finding as given by the Supt. Mining Engineer and upheld the order dated 20.05.2009. Aggrieved of the order dated 11.05.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court. On notice being served on the Mining Department, a reply has come to be filed. It has been submitted that while the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease was under process, M.L. No.54/2008 was checked and examined by the draftman on 24.10.2008 and it was found that applied area of the petitioner was overlapping M.L. Nos.412/2002 and 479/2002. It is submitted that again according to the draftman's report dated 01.05.2009, Senior Geologist, Alwar vide his letter dated 08.10.2008 sent the maps of delineated plots to the Executive Mining Engineer, Bharatpur, which was received on 15.01.2009 and it was found that the present applied area of the petitioner bearing M.L. No.54/2008 was overlapping the delineated plots. Therefore, a proposal for rejection of the petitioner's application was sent to the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur on 14.05.2009 and thereafter the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur vide its order dated 20.05.2009 rejected the petitioner' application. Mr. Therefore, a proposal for rejection of the petitioner's application was sent to the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur on 14.05.2009 and thereafter the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur vide its order dated 20.05.2009 rejected the petitioner' application. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.G.C. for the State points out that the State Government keeping in view the religious importance of Brij area in Tehsil Kama and Deeg, in public interest decided to close down 202 mining leases situated in the hills of Tehsil Deeg and Kama under the order dated 06.02.2008 as the said area was directed to be set apart under the Land Revenue Act as forest area. The Government thereafter on due deliberations decided to rehabilitate 202 mining lease owners by grant of delineated plots for mining in village Gangora, Chinawara, Libasana, Bijasana, Chhpara etc. of Bharatpur District and in this regard the Superintending Engineer (Head Quarters) forwarded the detailed proposals to the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Petroleum, Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 24.9.2008. In this letter, as per the proposals made by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Bharatpur the Government was requested to relax rule 7 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, the MMCR, 1986). Counsel for the State further points out that the State Government after considering the aforesaid proposals, vide letter dated 3rd October, 2008 in the exercise of its powers under Rule 63 of the MMCR, 1986 granted relaxation in rule 7 of the said Rules. It was stated in the said letter that out of 202 mining leases closed down in Tehsil Kama and Deeg, 13 mining lease owners had already been rehabilitated in Tehsil Pahadi by allotting mines through a lottery and for the rehabilitation of remaining 189 mining lease owners, 190 plots on one hectare each had been prepared in Tehsil Pahadi on Government Sawaichak land. The Government, therefore, accorded sanction for allotment of these one hectare plots to the displaced mining lessees in the area falling within the Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama Path in Tehsil Deeg and Kama. The Government, therefore, accorded sanction for allotment of these one hectare plots to the displaced mining lessees in the area falling within the Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama Path in Tehsil Deeg and Kama. Counsel for the State further submits that on scrutiny of the petitioner's application by the Map Section in the Office of the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur it transpired that the applied area by the petitioner was overlapping M.L. Nos.412/2002 and 479/2002 and in these facts the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur vide letter dated 14.05.2009 forwarded the proposals to the Superintending Mining Engineer, Bharatpur for rejecting of the application of the petitioner in terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the MMCR 1986. In pursuance to the letter dated 14.05.2009, the Superintending Mining Engineer after considering the proposals forwarded by the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur and other relevant material rejected the mining lease application of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8 of the MMCR 1986 by passing a reasoned and speaking order dated 20.05.2009. Counsel for the respondents would submit that against the order dated 20.05.2009 the remedy available to the petitioner was an appeal under Rule 43 of the MMCR 1986 and thereafter, a revision petition if warranted under Rule 47 of the MMCR, 1986 and this Court ought not to interfere with the order of rejection of the mining lease application of the petitioner in the light of the averments made in the reply and reiterated in the course of submissions as also on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner as also the respondents. It appears from the facts on record that in view of the policy decision of the State Government for the rehabilitation of 189 mining lease holders whose mines falling in villages Deeg and Kama within Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama Path were cancelled and Rule 7 of the MMCR, 1986 was relaxed and the Mining Department was allowed to overlook the pending prior applications in terms of the aforesaid policy decision, the petitioner has no case of violation of the provisions of the MMCR 1986. It was on record of the Department that after adjusting for the plots delineated for rehabilitation of the mining lessees for Brij Chorasi Kos Parikrama area, the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease for masonry stone could not be accommodated in the vacant land left and in terms of Rule 11 of the MMCR, 1986 being less than one hectare could not have been allotted as a mining lease to the petitioner. Consequently, there is no error which vitiates the order dated 20.05.2009, passed by the Supt. Mining Engineer, Bharatpur and the order dated 11.05.2011, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed as such. Stay application also stands dismissed.