GOVERDAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that show cause notice dated 5.11.1990 (Annex.6) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to excavate the mineral in question.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of a mine quarry bearing No. M.L. 237 in respect of marble mineral in size 100 x 100 meters = 10,000 sq. meters in the area of Devi Mata Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur. The Mining Engineer, Udaipur issued an order on 9.3.1989 granting lease and required the petitioner to comply with certain formalities under the law. It is alleged that the petitioner complied with all the requirements of law and deposited a part of the dead rent, furnished solvent security amount, demarcation fees and also the non -judicial stamps for execution of the lease deed. It is alleged that consequently the Mining Engineer executed a lease -deed in favour of the petitioner. Then, the petitioner entered on the land in question and started search for mines, dug, processed and carried out the mining operations. He made certain kaccha approach road and necessary measures were taken for excavating the mineral. The petitioner also applied to the Additional Collector, Udaipur for determination of compensation to be paid in respect of the land leased out to the petitioner since the surface rights in respect of total Araji No. 3645 vested in Thakurji Shri Shyam Sunderji which is under the control of the Devasthan Department. In reply to this application the petitioner was informed that the valuation of the land is Rs. 10,000/ - per Bigha and till the amount of compensation is not paid no mining work can be continued. But despite a number of applications being submitted the Additional Collector, Udaipur did not determine the amount of compensation. Thereafter the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to pay the maximum compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per bigha as claimed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur as surface amount. However, the respondent No. 3 issued a show -cause notice to the petitioner that since the surface rights of the land is vested in the Devasthan Department and the Revenue Department has refused to give the surface rights the lease deed is proposed to be revoked. It is this show -cause notice which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel and perused the record.