ORDER : Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 03.05.2006/24.05.2006 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in revision case no. 50 of 2004, whereby the order of premature termination of petitioner's mining license has been upheld. It has also been prayed inter alia for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of mining lease afresh by taking into account that the petitioner was granted lease over the land in question by the sanctioning authority after making due verification and necessary enquiry. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of plot no. 393(part) having an area of 3 acres of land situated under mouza kulkullidangal of the District Dumka, a mining lease for stone was granted in the year 1994 for a term of 5 years after observing all formalities, necessary enquiry and verification conducted by the Circle Officer, Shikaripara. The Circle Officer, Shikaripara by his report dated 03.12.1993, affirmed the fact that the area in question is recorded as gochar in the record of rights which is out of the forest area and the same is also rocky. It was also reported by the Circle Officer that due to extraction of the stones from the land in question, there has been a ditch and the same is not fit for grazing. The petitioner on the basis of aforesaid lease was carrying on the business of stone quarrying and was regularly paying the royalty etc. to the government. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the lease in question was further renewed for a term of 10 years w.e.f. 10.01.1999 to 09.01.2009 and in support of the last renewal, the petitioner has filed a copy of extract of the lease deed (Annexure-2). It is further submitted that in course of time, the nature of the land got changed from pasture to 'ditch' and several leases were also granted in adjacent area of the land in question, some of which are still existing. In one of the cases relating to the adjacent area of the land in question, by virtue of the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Patna in Revision Case No. 188/88, the lease is still existing. In one of the cases relating to the adjacent area of the land in question, by virtue of the order passed by the Mines Commissioner, Patna in Revision Case No. 188/88, the lease is still existing. It is also submitted that in terms of the mining lease, the petitioner had been depositing royalty to the Govt., but due to his poor financial condition, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of royalty during the period December, 2000 to May 2003 and accordingly a good sum of amount was lying due against him. Since 1994, the petitioner had been working and even prior to the said period, the nature of land had already been changed by illegal mining activities being carried by unknown persons. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, vide order dated 13.02.2004 terminated the mining lease of the petitioner on the basis of misleading report of District Mining Officer, Dumka wherein it was stated that the lease was earlier granted to the petitioner over the pasture land and also on the ground of non payment of dues which was communicated vide letter dated 11.03.2004 issued under the signature of District Mining Officer, Dumka. Being aggrieved by the order contained in letter no. 472 dated 11.03.2004 issued under the signature of District Mining Officer, Dumka, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand vide order dated 03.05.2006/24.05.2006 dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. The petitioner has put challenge to the order dated 03.05.2006/24.05.2006 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Mines Commissioner committed serious error in treating the land in question as “gochar” land particularly in view of the fact that the mining lease for quarrying of stone was initially granted to the petitioner pursuant to the enquiry report of the Circle Officer, Shikaripara. As per the said report, though the land was shown as gochar land, yet it was also reported that in course of time, unknown persons have converted it as ditch by removing the surface stones from the said land and thus the same is not suitable for grazing. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted mining lease for quarrying stones on gochar plot no. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted mining lease for quarrying stones on gochar plot no. 393/p over an area of 3.00 acre of land of Mauza-Kulkuidangal of Shikaripara police station of Dumka, District for a period of five years from 10.01.1994 to 09.01.1999 and the lease was further renewed for a period of ten years from 10.01.1999 to 09.01.2009. It is submitted that thereafter it was found that the land of plot no. 393 of Mauza-Kulkuidangal of Shikaripara police station is recorded as gochar and according to section 38 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, the lands recorded as Gochar cannot be settled or brought under cultivation or to be utilized by any one for any purpose other than grazing. It is further submitted that it was also noticed that grant of mining lease over gochar land is also restricted under Rule 5 (2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (corresponding to Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004). It is also submitted that apart from this, a sum of Rs. 1,66,233/- was also found as outstanding mining dues against the petitioner. Thereafter a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the District Mining Officer, Dumka vide letter no. 1676/M dated 26.12.2003. The petitioner submitted his reply on 16.01.2004 but his reply was found not satisfactory, hence the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka terminated the mining lease granted to the petitioner. It has been observed in the order that the land in question (plot no. 393 of Mauza Kulkulidangla) stands as gochar land. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 03.05.2006/24.05.2006 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand is completely in accordance with law and the same needs no interference by this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that though before granting mining lease to the petitioner in the year 1994, a report of the Circle Officer, Shikaripara was called for by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, yet on perusal of the said enquiry report, it appears that the recommendation made by Circle Officer, Shikaripara was itself vague. On the one hand, it was reported that the land in question is gochar land and on the other hand, it was also reported that in course of time, stones lying over the said land have been removed which has created ditch over it, therefore the same is not suitable for grazing. It is well settled that the nature of land is to be considered on the basis of revenue records maintained by the government. So long as the nature of land is mentioned as gochar land in the revenue records, the report of any revenue authority is of no consequence. Section 38(1) of the Santhal Paragnas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949 reads as under :- “38. Grazing land shall not be cultivated-(1) No land recorded as village grazing land or gochar shall be settled or brought under cultivation or utilized for any purpose other than grazing by any one”. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others versus Pakur Jagran Manch and Others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 591 has held at paragraph no. 24 and 25 which reads as under:- 24. Whenever it becomes inevitable or necessary to dereserve any gochar for any public purpose (which as stated above should be as a last resort), the following procedure contemplated in Regulations 24 and 25 and Section 38(2) should be strictly followed:- (a) The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner shall prepare a note/report giving the reasons why the gochar had been identified for any non-grazing public purpose and record the non-availability of other suitable land for such public purpose. The Deputy Commissioner shall send the said proposal for dereservation to the State Government for its previous sanction. (b) The State Government should consider the request for sanction keeping in view the object of gochar and the need for maintaining a minimum of five per cent of village area as gochar, and call for suggestions/objections from the villagers before granting sanction. (c) If the State Government grants the sanction, the Deputy Commissioner should proceed to make an order dereserving, the gochar by making appropriate entries in the record-of-rights and reclassifying the same for the purpose for which it was dereserved. (c) If the State Government grants the sanction, the Deputy Commissioner should proceed to make an order dereserving, the gochar by making appropriate entries in the record-of-rights and reclassifying the same for the purpose for which it was dereserved. (d) Whenever the gochar in a village is dereserved and diverted to non-grazing use, simultaneously or at least immediately thereafter the State should make available alternative land as gochar, in a manner and to an extent that the gochar continues to be not less than 5% of the total extent of the village as provided under Section 38(2) of the Tenancy Act. 25. When the gochar is not government land, but is village common land vesting in the villagers and not the Government, the consent of village headman and the jamabandi raiyats/villagers in whom the land vests shall have to be obtained, before dereservation and diversion of use of gochar. 9. Further the mining lease over the gochar land is also restricted under Rule 5(2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 1972 (corresponding to Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004). 10. On perusal of the impugned order dated 03.05.2006/24.05.2006 it appears that the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand has duly considered the aforesaid aspect including the applicability of provisions of Section 38(1) of the Santhal Paragnas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949 and Rule 5(2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concessions Rules 1972 (corresponding to Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004). Moreover, Learned Commissioner, has also observed in the impugned order that a certificate case has also been filed against the petitioner for recovery of mining dues. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioner that by virtue of the order of Mines Commissioner, the mining lease is still continuing in adjacent lands, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the said matter was again taken up by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi in case no. 127 of 2002, and vide order dated 08.10.2003, the case was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, for fresh consideration and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in R.M.P. Case No. 22/03-04 cancelled the mining lease of adjacent lands. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 03.05.2006/24.05.2006 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. 50 of 2004. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.