CHHOGA RAM MUNDOLIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the facts mentioned in the memo of writ petition petitioner deposited security amount of Rs. 1500/ - and also paid quarterly dead -rent amounting to Rs. 1500/ - in advance on 20.1.1984. Lease deed was registered in his favour on 16.1.1984 and the annual dead -rent was fixed at Rs. 6,000/ -, The petitioner had been granted mining lease for ten years w.e.f. 20.1.1984 for mineral Marble, near Dhani of Village Narmanpur, Distt. Ajmer, for an area measuring 100x100 meters in Khasra No. 786. The site of the aforesaid mining area was shown on the papers but no physical or actual possession was delivered to the petitioner by the department. Sultan Singh and his son Ajeet Singh obstructed as they were cultivators of neighbouring field and therefore, the matter was referred to the concerned authorities of the Department and it was requested to evict those persons from the mining area so that mining operations could be started. The petitioner made his all efforts by contacting all the concerned authorities but with no result. However, the Tehsildar, Ajmer, inspected the site and proceeded Under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The S.D.M. Ajmer also rejected the regularisation proceedings of the aforesaid trespassers. A case Under Section 447 IPC was also registered at P.S. Gegal against those persons for committing tress pass in the mining area allotted to the petitioner. Assistant Mining Engineer, Markrana, illegally cancelled the mining lease and forfeited the security deposited by the petitioner vide order dated 12.8.1985 and the petitioner was ordered to deliver possession of the area to the Mining Department. The petitioner has further been penalised for payment of annual dead -rent amounting to Rs. 9000/ - plus penal interest thereon. The petitioner submitted a revision petition against the said order dated 12.8.1985 before the Deputy Secretary to Government. Mines Department which was also dismissed on 21.10.1986 and it is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court on 15.12.1986. Notices were issued on 18.12.1986 as to why this writ petition should not be admitted.

(2.) REPLY has been filed on behalf of Ajeet Singh, respondent No.4 on 25.8.1988 wherein he has submitted that the petitioner was never handed over physical possession of the land in dispute: Sultan Singh or his son Ajeet Singh (respondent No. 4) never put any obstructions but the answering respondent is in occuptation of the said lund in his own rights and had been cultivating the same and had also got a Boda in a portion of the land bearing Khasra No. 786 from the life time of his father, for the last forty years or so. He had not encroached upon any land nor had trespassed nor put any obstruction and the matter is still pending for regulation before the S.D.O. and challan Under Section 446 IPC is also pending adjudication, he has further submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and damages against the State of Rajasthan which is till pending and since the petitioner has already an alternative remedy by filing the above suit, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It has futher been submitted that the land bearing Khasra No. 786 is a part of land known as Durga Mataji Ki Doongari which is a sacred and religious place for the residents of nearby village and there also exists an old temple of Durga Mataji.

(3.) A rejoinder to the said reply has been filed by the petitioner on 28.9.1989 wherein it has again been asserted that physical possession of the lease area was never given to him but only paper possession was handed over to him since the department itself was not having actual physical possession for the leased area at the time of the grant or prior to it. It has further been submitted that the Mining Department has played a fraud and mis represented that the area was available with them for grant of mining lease and since physical possession of the lease area was never handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay any dead rent. The petitioner has enclosed with the rejoinder a copy of his application dated 14.2.1984 which was duly received by the Mining Engineer, Ajmer. The petitioner had also filed a copy of the return for the month of Jaunary, 1984 and subsequent periods showing that no mining operations could be done because Sultan Singh was in actual physcial possession and he was not allowing the petitioner to do any mining operation. He has quoted instance of one Girwar lal who also could not do mining operations due to obejctions by Forest Department and it was held that dead -rent for such period was not recorverable.