RATANLAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the appellate decree of the learned District Judge, Ajmer upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the same was barred by the provisions of sec. 257 B2 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, hereinafter to be referred as the "act".

(2.) PLAINTIFF Ratanlal Kamdar was holding a prospecting licence for Beryl and other minerals in village Bander Sundri, Tehsil Kishangarh vide an order dated 6-9-53. The aforesaid licence was renewed upto 21-9-54. The plaintiff had thereafter submitted an application for a further renewal of his licence on 18-9-54 before the State Government. On 16-10-54 the plaintiff made an application to the Mining Engineer, Jaipur for the grant of a mining lease for Beryl and other atomic minerals and for some other minerals. The area for which the lease was desired was 80 acres. Some 15 months thereafter the Mining Engineer wrote a letter to the plaintiff that the lease was sanctioned and the plaintiff was called upon by the Assistant Mining Engineer to attend his Office for signing the plans and to have the lease agreement executed and getting it registered. The plaintiff attended the Office of the Assistant Mining Engineer, but the documents were not delivered to him and he was asked to await the execution of lease deed by the Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur. According to the plaintiff, the lease deed was not executed. Subsequently, however, the Assistant Mining Engineer called upon the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 200/- as the fee of the prospecting licence from 20-10-53 to 19. 10. 58. The plaintiff proceeded to say that he had deposited this amount on 21-1-59 and further deposited Rs. 40/- as prospecting licence fee for the subsequent period of one year from 20-10-58 to 19-10-59. On 1-1-59, the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan Udaipur, informed the plaintiff that the question of inclusion of Felspar and quartz in the lease to be given to the plaintiff was under consideration of the State Government and the plaintiff would be intimated of the date of the execution of the agreement. Thereafter there seems to be no changes in the proposal for the grant of the lease, but eventually by his letter dated 9-3-60 the Assistant Mining Engineer called upon the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 4000/- as an advance dead rent from 22-9-55 to 22-9-60 within a fortnight. The plaintiff, however, replied saying that as the lease deed had not been executed and the plaintiff had already deposited the prospecting fee he wanted to know why this much amount was being demanded of him. Then there was some further correspondence between the plaintiff and Mining Department. Eventually the plaintiff was informed that as the plaintiff was not agreeable to the period of the lease being not counted from 20-9-54 the order for granting the lease had been cancelled. He was further told that the area was declared free and the dues be recovered from the plaintiff under the Land Revenue Act.