Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 6.4.2009 while disposing of the DBSAW No. 1054/2008- Jumadeen vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. of the present petitioner only had directed as under:- "After having given our anxious consideration to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that in any case the Director of Mines and Geology was not sitting as an appellate authority over the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.3.2008. Whether it is was necessary or not, but it was obligatory on his part to have given an opportunity of hearing to the parties and further to have afforded opportunity of filing documents as they may have been advised to do so. The impugned order clearly shows that these two basic directions, which are contained in the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, have not been adhered to. In the light of this, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 2.4.2008 cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.3.2008, opportunity of hearing would be afforded to the parties by the Director, Mines and Geology in letter and spirit and only thereafter, reasoned order would be passed. We have also been given to understand that under misconception of law, the appellant has been restrained from operating the mines, which was allotted to him in the year 1989. We are of the opinion that unless respondents are able to obtain succession certificate in their favour, it was neither desirable nor proper to stop the appellant from carrying on mining activities, which he was carrying on since 1989. The appellant, therefore, would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Director, Mines and Geology in this regard also. As a result thereof, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is also quashed and set aside. The matter, as directed in the earlier order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, stands remitted to the Director, Mines and Geology for consideration in the light of earlier order passed by this Court. As a result thereof, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is also quashed and set aside. The matter, as directed in the earlier order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, stands remitted to the Director, Mines and Geology for consideration in the light of earlier order passed by this Court. However, the Director Mines and Geology is expected to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case parties will also not seek any undue adjournment in the matter. Since the parties are here, we direct that they would appear before the Director, Mines and Geology on 13.4.2009 to further participate in the matter. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this appeal stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs." 3. Since the parties are here, we direct that they would appear before the Director, Mines and Geology on 13.4.2009 to further participate in the matter. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this appeal stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs." 3. In pursuance of the said order of the Division Bench, the Director, Mines, Udaipur passed the impugned order again on 12.1.2010 in the following terms after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and to produce the relevant documents including the succession certificate in respect of Mining Lease flowing from "Bapi-Patta", which was otherwise prohibited under Section 64 of the MMCR Rules, 1986:- ^^Mh-ch- flfoy Lis'ky vihy la- 1054@08 tqEeknhu iq= Jh ve:íhu xSlkor cuke jktLFkku jkT; o vU; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 6-4-2009 dh ikyuk esa Jh 'kgknr iq= LoxhZ; Jh lokbZ xSlkor o Jh tqEeknhu iq= Jh ve:nhu Lo;a dks ,oa ,u-ds- vf/koDrk Jh dsnkj lksyadh ,oa Jh Mh-Mh- Fkkuoh dks fnukad 6-11-2009 dks O;fDr'k% lquk x;kA [kku la- 59] 250 x 48 oxZQhV dh Jh rS;c iq= Jh bZlkd] dqrqcíhu iq= gkth eksgEen QSt eksgEen iq= mLeku o pkan] ethn] Qrq] xsank iq=x.k ve:íhu ds uke ntZ FkhA mDr ckih [kku dk 75 x 48 oxZQhV dk {ks= foLrkj lfgr 75x240 oxZQhV dk fu;eu gsrq vkosnu i= Jh tqEeknhu o vCnqy jtkd us fnukad 11-1-1989 dks dk;kZy; lgk;d [kfu vfHk;Urk] edjkuk esa izLrqr fd;kA ftldh ekSdk fjiksVZ fnukad 14-1-1989 dks cukbZ tkdj lgk;d [kfu vfHk;Urk] edjkuk us fnukad 2-3-1989 ls 75 x 240 oxZQhV dh Lohd`fr Jh vCnqy jtkd o tqEeknhu ds i{k esa la;qDr :i ls tkjh dj Dokjh ykbZlsal tkjh fd;k x;kA Jh lokbZ iq= Jh QStwnhu us bu vkosndksa ds fo:) ,rjkt ntZ djk;kA mDr Dokjh ykbZlsal dk tc vkoaVu fd;k x;k ml le; jktLFkku viz/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;e 1986 izHkko esa vkus ls ,e-,e-lh-vkj- 1986 ds fu;e 64 ds vuqlkj ckih jkbZVl dks l{ke U;k;ky; ds vuqefr ds fcuk oS|rk ugha nh xbZ gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa fnukad 2-3-1989 dks dkyk ukMk jsUt esa [kku la-59 ch dk Dokjh ykbZlsal fu;fer dj ykbZlsal tkjh fd;k x;k og oS| ugha dgk ldrk gS] D;ksafd l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ds fu.kZ; fd ikyuk esa funs'kd [kku ,oa HkwfoKku foHkkx }kjk fnukad 2-4-2008 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj [kfu vfHk;Urk] edjkuk dks funsZ'k fn;s fd tc rd mDr fookfnr {ks= ds laca/k esa fdlh ,d vFkok nksuksa i{kdkjksa }kjk l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.k i= izLrqr ugha dj fn;k tkrk gS rc rd mDr fookfnr {ks= esa [kuu dk;Z iw.kZr;k can j[kk tkosA mDr vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds yxHkx N% ekg O;rhr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh fdlh Hkh O;fDr }kjk vHkh rd l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA mDr izdj.kksa esa nksuksa i{kdkjksa ,oa fo}ku vfHkoDrk dks lquus ds i'pkr~ eSa ;g fu"d"kZ dj igqapk fd fnukad 2-3-1989 dks lgk;d [kfu vfHk;Urk] edjkuk }kjk dkyk ukMk jsUt esa Dokjh uEcj 59 ch dk Dokjh ykbZlsal tks tkjh fd;k x;k gS og fu;ekuqlkj ugha FkkA vr% tc rd l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.k i= izkIr ugha gks tkrk rc rd fdlh Hkh O;fDr }kjk Dokjh ykbZlsal {ks= esa [kuu dk;Z djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS rc rd funs'kd [kku }kjk tkjh vkns'k fnukad 2-4-2008 ds vuqlkj [kku la[;k 59 ch ij dCtk jkT; ljdkj dk jgsxkA sd/- [kku ,oa HkwfoKku foHkkx] jktLFkku mn;iqj** 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 12.1.2010 of Director Mines & Geology, Udaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, submitted that the Director, Mines, Udaipur has passed the impugned order again on 12.1.2010 contrary to the directions of the Division bench, in which it was directed that unless the respondents are able to obtain the succession certificate in their favour, it was neither desirable nor proper to stop the petitioner from carrying the mining activities, which he was carrying on since 1989. The appellant, therefore, would be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Director Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur in this regard in the penultimate para, the Division Bench observed that, "However, the Director Mines and Geology is expected to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case parties will also not seek any undue adjournment in the matter. Since the parties are here, we direct that they would appear before the Director, Mines and Geology on 13.4.2009 to further participate in the matter." 5. The petitioner in the present case claimed that since the mine in question, namely, Mine No. 59B measuring 75' x 240', situated in Makrana, was regularized initially in his favour vide order Annex. 1 dated 2.3.1989 on the basis of "Bapi-Patta"; therefore, the learned Director, Mines in the impugned order dated 12.1.2010 was not entitled to say that unless the parties obtain the succession certificate from the competent court, with respect to said "Bapi" rights, the Mine in question 59B will remain in possession of the State Government. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order again falls foul with the order of the Division Bench and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh and Mr. DLR Vyas submitted that the suit for succession has already been filed, namely, Suit No. 29/08-Sawai vs. Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Makrana and the same is pending adjudication before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parbatsar, District Nagaur in which the present petitioner is also the defendant. Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh and Mr. DLR Vyas submitted that the suit for succession has already been filed, namely, Suit No. 29/08-Sawai vs. Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Makrana and the same is pending adjudication before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parbatsar, District Nagaur in which the present petitioner is also the defendant. They further submitted that in fact in the said suit, the petitioner, Jumadeen S/o Amrudeen has raised an objection that civil suit is not maintainable, which application is said to have been rejected by the learned trial court. 7. Mr. R.K. Soni, learned Govt. Counsel appearing for the Mining Department supported the impugned order of Director of Mines & Geology and submitted that Rule 64 of the MMCR, 1986 clearly requires that the Govt. shall not recognize any "Bapi-Patta" and the Proprietary rights in any land unless such rights are declared by a competent court and appropriate succession certificate is issued by such competent civil court, since such succession rights can be determined only by the competent civil court. 8. In view of aforesaid clear position of law, the learned Director, Mines & Geology, Udaipur appears to be perfectly justified in holding that unless the succession certificate from a competent civil court is produced, no regularization in favour of present petitioner even under order Annex. 1 could be held to be valid and in absence of production of succession certificate, production by either of the parties, the quarry license for Mine No. 59B cannot be regularized and, therefore, the said license granted in pursuance of order Annex. 1 dated 2.3.1989 was not in accordance with Rules, particularly Rule 64 and till such succession certificates is produced before the said Director, Mines & Geology or before the concerned Mining Engineer, the possession of such Mine No. 59B shall remain with the State Government. Rule 64 of the MMCR 1986 reads as under:- "64. Acquisition of Bapi and Proprietary Rights:- The Government shall not recognize any Bapi or proprietary right in or any land wherein such a right is claimed by any person over any mineral bearing land, quarry or mine unless declared so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Government may acquire such Bapi or proprietary rights so declared after payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force." 9. The Government may acquire such Bapi or proprietary rights so declared after payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with the provisions of law for the time being in force." 9. By an interim order of a coordinate bench of this Court dated 3.3.2010, it was directed that the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 12.1.2010 of Director, Mines shall remain stayed, however, the mining operation in the mining area ad measuring 45' x 240' sq. feet regarding which the contesting respondent is claiming `bapi' rights shall remain stayed. Therefore, obviously neither of the parties is carrying on mining operation in the said Mine No. 59B, nor they can be so allowed. 10. From the facts and legal position narrated above, it is clear that both the parties are expected to establish their respective civil rights to succeed to such "Bapi-Patta" rights of their predecessor before the competent Civil Court only, where Suit No. 29/08 is said to be still pending, and unless the proper succession certificate is issued in favour of either of the parties on the basis of relevant evidence, the parties cannot be permitted to undertake the mining operations on the Mine in question, and, therefore, the Director, Mines & Geology has rightly held that till such succession certificate is produced, the possession of the Quarry No. 59B shall remain with the State Government. No valid exception to the said order can be taken and, therefore, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner is found to be devoid of any force and the same deserves dismissal. The Division Bench of this Court never directed that the petitioner will be allowed to carry on the mining operation contrary to Rule 64 and without establishing his succession rights under the "Bapi-Patta", which was otherwise de-recognized under Rule 64 of the MMCR 1986. The highlighted portion of quoted order of Division Bench, very clearly says so, when it is said that appellant (Jumadeen) will be at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard. The highlighted portion of quoted order of Division Bench, very clearly says so, when it is said that appellant (Jumadeen) will be at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard. The observations of Division Bench that unless respondent are able to obtain succession certificate in their favour, it was neither desirable nor proper to stop the appellant from carrying on mining operations, which was carrying on since 1989, only the interim relief granted to the petitioner till the Director, Mines, again decides the case after giving the opportunity of hearing to the rival parties, as directed by Division Bench. The said observation of Division Bench, cannot be misconstrued to mean that only the respondent, namely, Sawai S/o Faizuddin or his LR's were required to comply with Rule 64 and obtain the succession certificate, whereas the petitioner/appellant Jumadeen S/o Amrudeen, had no such liability to obtain succession certificate as per the requirement of Rule 64 of MMCR 1986, even though both sides were claiming their respective rights from their predecessor or forefathers or that the petitioner, Jumadeen would continue the mining operations perennially in violation of Rule 64, even though he does not produce any succession certificate. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, at this stage also submitted that the private respondent No. 4/2, namely, Mukhtar S/o late Sawai, has since expired and, therefore, he has filed the application before this Court for bringing his legal representatives on record. 12. There is no need to pass any order on such application in the present writ petition, since the parties are already before the competent civil court for such succession certificate proceedings and appropriate application can be filed before the concerned trial court itself in civil suit No. 29/08 Sawai vs. Mining Engineer. 13. In view of above discussion, the writ petition of petitioner Jumadeen S/o Amrudeen is hereby dismissed. No costs. The interim order dated 3.3.2010 stands vacated. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and learned trial court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Parbatsar, District Nagaur forthwith.