JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 02.03.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue (Rajasthan), Ajmer, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents - Jagdish and Chandmal under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956') against the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bhilwara ('the RAA') dated 27.09.1995 was allowed and the judgment passed by the RAA as well as judgment dated 31.03.1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhilwara ('the Collector') have been set aside. 2. The Additional Tehsildar, Bijoliya ('the Tehsildar') prepared a Mauka Parcha dated 02.12.1985 regarding land comprised in Aaraji No. 109, 116/101 and indicated illegal mining; notice dated 03.01.1986 was issued to the respondents in this regard and despite service, when they did not appear, by order dated 13.01.1986, it was indicated by. the Tehsildar that the respondents had by way of illegal mining extracted 25,000 tonne minerals and forwarded the matter to the Collector under Section 89 (7) of the Act of 1956. 3. The Collector by his judgment dated 31.03.1993 after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondents could not produce any document to indicate valid mining, the report dated 02.12.1984 prepared by the Patwari and Mauka Parcha dated 02.12.1985 prepared by the Tehsildar were not contradicted; the land was recorded as Bila Naam Sarkar and the land in question did not form part of boundaries of Mining Department and, consequently, imposed penalty to the extent of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents approached the RAA, the RAA by its judgment dated 27.09.1995 rejected the appeal and upheld the findings recorded by the Collector. 5. On appeal from the judgment passed by the RAA, the Board by its judgment dated 02.03.1993 found that the issue was covered by judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 1996 DNJ (Raj.) 630 and another order passed by the Board and held that the proceedings could only be taken under the provisions of Mining Act and, consequently, set aside the judgments dated 31.03.1993 and 27.09.1995 passed by the Collector and the RAA respectively. 6. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case as in the case of Ramesh Kumar, the allegations, were regarding raising of construction by Ramesh Kumar over the leased land without permission of the Collector and, therefore, proceedings under Section 89 (7) of the Act of 1956 were initiated, however, as in the present case, the respondents were not having any mining lease and the area also did not fall within the boundaries of any mining area, the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar was clearly distinguishable and the Board fell in error in setting aside the orders passed by the two authorities by applying principles laid down in the said judgment. 7. Despite Service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 9. A bare look at the report dated 13.01.1986 (Annexure - 2) made by the Tehsildar clearly indicates that the respondents were trespassers on the land in question and had extracted minerals to the extent of 25,000 tonne. Whereafter, before the Collector, a plea was raised that the respondents undertook mining operations based on the lease granted by the Mining Department, however, no material whatsoever was produced and the penalty as noticed hereinbefore was imposed, even before the RAA, no material was produced to indicate that the respondents had any valid mining permission. 10. Before the Board, the only plea was raised that under provisions of Section 89 (7) of the Act of 1956, the Collector had no power to take action and reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra). Whereafter, the Board as noticed hereinbefore relying on the judgment set aside the judgments passed by the Collector and the RAA. 11. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of Ramesh Kumar (supra) had no application to the facts of the present case has substance, inasmuch as, the issue raised in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) pertained to exercise of power under Section 89 (7) of the Act of. 11. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of Ramesh Kumar (supra) had no application to the facts of the present case has substance, inasmuch as, the issue raised in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) pertained to exercise of power under Section 89 (7) of the Act of. 1956 within the leased mining area and this Court came to the conclusion that such an action under the provisions of Section 89 (7) of the Act of 1956 was not permissible and it is only under the Minor Minerals Concessions Rules or the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 an action could be taken. 12. In the present case, a finding of fact has been arrived at by the two authorities i.e. the Collector and the RAA that the respondents had not undertaken the mining operations in any leased area and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The provisions of Section 89 (7) of the Act of 1956 clearly prescribes that any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes minerals from any mine or quarry, the right to which vests in and 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 over in wiling of the Collector lo pay penalty not exceeding a sum calculated @ Rs. 50/- per tonne or a fraction thereof of the minerals so extracted or removed. 14. In view of the express provisions of Section 89 (7) of the Act of 1956 alongwith the findings recorded by both the authorities below, the Collector was justified in imposing the penalty and the RAA was justified in upholding the same. 15. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The judgment dated 02.03.1998 passed by the Board is set aside.No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******