RAMAKISHAN PRAJAPAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of this appeal are noted herein below:

(2.) Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the second appellate authority was absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the appellants. The lease cancellation order dtd. 11/1/2002 was never conveyed to the lease holder. The delay in depositing the dead rent was unintentional and it was deposited alongwith the penalty amount on 21/6/2012 after which, inadvertently, a first appeal was again preferred before the first appellate authority which was withdrawn on realising the mistake and the second appeal was preferred to the State Government supported by an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay for bona fide reason. The dismissal of the appeal as being barred by limitation was totally unjustified as the appellate order was passed ignoring the factum of the deposit of the dead rent albeit with some delay. Dr. Acharya vehemently contended that the order dtd. 11/1/2002 cancelling the mining lease was never conveyed to Shri Ramakishan Prajapat. That the amount of the dead rent has been deposited long back with penalty, etc. and thus, a lenient view deserves to be taken by restoring the mining lease in favour of the appellants-petitioners. He further urged that the learned Single Bench also fell in error while dismissing the writ petition on the technical issue of laches and that a pragmatic and humanitarian view should be taken by directing restoration of the mining lease in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Sandeep Shah, learned AAG representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and pointed out that the plea that the order of cancellation of the mining lease was not conveyed to the lease holder, is totally false because an appeal was actually preferred by the mining lease holder against the order dtd. 11/1/2002 before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone which was dismissed on 19/4/2006. This order was not challenged within limitation and thus, the same attained finality. Deposit of the dead rent amount after significant delay would not entitle the lease holder or his legal representatives to get the lease restored because non-deposit of the dead rent entails the automatic consequence of cancellation of the mining lease. That being the situation, the appellants-petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.