PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dtd. 18/10/2004 passed by District Collector Sawai Madhopur imposing penalty of Rs.2,00,000.00 u/s 89 (7) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short '1956 Act').

(2.) The brief facts are that vide order dtd. 5/1/1973, petitioner was allotted land measuring 690.66 hectare, situated in village Rewali, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur for twenty years. On 7/5/1992 that is twelve months prior to the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the lease. The application was not decided in the prescribed period and was treated as deemed to have been rejected. The revision filed against the deemed rejection was accepted vide order dtd. 1/12/1992. The order of the deemed rejection of the renewal application was set aside with directions to the respondent to decide the application within two hundred days. The proceedings initiated u/s 91 of the 1956 Act culminated in order of dispossession dtd. 25/3/2020. The order for dispossessing the petitioner was set aside in the appeal and the matter was remanded back to Tehsildar to proceed u/s 89 of 1956 Act. Consequent of the remand the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur vide order dtd. 18/10/2004, imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,000.00 u/s 89 of 1956 Act. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of provisions of Rule 24A (1) of 1960 Rules, twelve months prior to the expiry of lease period petitioner filed an application for renewal of the mining lease. On failure of the State Government to dispose of the application within stipulated period, as per Rule 24A (6) of 1960 Rules the lease period is deemed to be extended till the order is passed. Submission is that finding recorded is that no mining was done in Khasra No. 513 and 2060 of Village Riwali, Tehsil Bamnawas and the penalty was imposed for extracting 4000 tonnes Soapstone from Khasra No.1 for which renewal application was pending. It is contended that for the period from 1992 to 1999, the returns for mining were filed and royalty as assessed by the Department was paid.