RAMLAL LALCHAND Vs. H G DANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Ramlal Lalchand and Jagannath Ramlal challenge the grant of a lease on 22-1-1962 to the respondent No. 5 Messrs. Sadiq and Company of Nagpur. It appears that both the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 had for several years prior to the grant of the quarry lease to the respondent No. 5 made applications to the-State Government through the Collector, Nagpur, for the grant of quarry rights in several fields. We are here concerned with field No. 18 of village Bina. Both the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 are engaged in the business of manufacturing bricks and for that purpose they require the soil of that field for use in brick-making.

(2.) THE history of the dealings of the respondent No. 5 which resulted in the grant of the lease on 22-1-1962 to them is as follows on 24-1-1960 the respondent No. 5 entered into an agreement with the then owner of the field Deorao Patil to Bina. By that agreement, Deorao Patil agreed to sell the field and another field No. 23/2 to the respondent No. 5 for R. s. 13. 000/ -. Having entered into that agreement, the respondent No. 5 approached the petitioners and entered into an agreement with the petitioner No. 1 for a certain right of passage to that field from the petitioners' field No. 23. That agreement was entered into on 22-3-1960 and is at annexurc R-7. The respondent No. 5, having thus cleared the ground for 'quarrying operations by acquiring surface rights and the right of way for themselves, applied on 11-8-1960 to the Collector, Mining Section, Nagpur, for a quarry lease in 6. 51 acres of land in khasra Nos. 23/2 and is. The Collector, by his letter dated 7-10-1960 (annexure R. 9), asked the respondent No. 5 to file land plans for the area which the Collector said was available for grant subject to its approval by the Collector. Those plans were filed; but on 10-8-1961 the Collector rejected the application of the respondent No. 5 for the quarry lease. That letter is annexure R. 13, dated 10-8-1961. The reason given was that the area applied for by the respondent No. 5 was useful for agricultural purposes. The respondent No. 5 then wrote a letter dated 14-8-1961 to the Collector. In order to explain the contents of that letter it is necessary to state that by this time the respondent No. 5 had, pursuant to the agreement entered into with the owner of the fields on 24-1-1960, obtained from the owner Deoraq Patil a registered sale deed for the two fields Nos. 23/2 and 18. That registered sale deed is annexure R-6, when the respondent No. 5 wrote to the Collector on 14-8-1961 they referred to this fact that they had purchased the field No. 18, and then continued: "we have to state that the original sale deed [will be produced on receipt of information. We also enclose herewith the consent letter for the road executed by Shri Ramlal on 22-3-60 (copy enclosed) for your reference. We request you to review our claims in the light of circumstances stated above at an early date. " it is the use of the expression "review" in this letter that has given rise to the argument on behalf of the petitioners as to the scope and extent of the power of the Collector to act as a reviewing authority in the circumstances of this case, with which we shall presently deal. There is no further correspondence before us after the letter dated 14-8-1961, but it is clear that the Collector issued on 15-12-1961 an order sanctioning a quarry lease' in favour of the respondent No. 5 over an area of 3 acres comprised in khasra No. 18 of village Bina, and after the crediting of the security deposit and fees, a formal quarry lease was granted on 22-1-1962. That is the grant which the petitioners challenge in the present petition.

(3.) NOW, while the respondent No. 5 were taking all these steps, the petitioners on their part were not silent. On 29-6:1962 the petitioner Ram: lal made his first application and on 14-5-1954 he had been informed that Government was pleased to sanction a quarry lease over 2. 28 acres of land, though the area is not clearly mentioned, nor any field numbers. The order sanctioning the grant of quarry lease is at annexure D. Thereafter the petitioners allege in their petition that for some reason Government withdrew its order dated 14-5-1954 and in lieu of the land granted by that order, gave the petitioners some other land as indicated in the map at annexure E. According to the petitioners, this land was also land out of khasra No. 18. On 4-6-1957 the petitioner Ramlal was given, a quarry lease in respect of 1. 40 acres of khasra No. 18, along with other areas from khasra Nos. 16, 21 and 22. Appended to this lease is a map which shows the area granted to the petitioner Ramlal. ' The total area granted to him was 3. 28 acres. There is a dispute between the parties as to the exact location of the two areas granted to the petitioner Ramlal and to the respondent 5 by their lease deed dated 02-1-1962; but for the purposes of this petition it is unnecessary to go into that' question. In fact that is hardly a question which this Court would undertake to determine in a writ petition.