RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE farts of this writ petition are that the respondents accorded a sanction of mining; lease for building stone in favour of the petitioner on 25 -3 -1958. The dead rent was of Rs. 4501/ - and royalties were to be charged as stated in the order of sanction. The mining lease was for the period from 1 -4 -1958 to 3 -3 -1960. Besides, the petitioner was requiifd to pay surface rent and all taxes as per the Government Rules The petitioner deposited Rs. 1125/ - of the first installment and Rs. 1125/ - towards security. No lease deed was executed. The petitioner contends that he was a not given the possession of the mines By his order dated 5 -5 -1959, the Director of Mines and Geology, however cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the due installments as stipulated in the agreement. Thereafter, the Department of Mines and Geology sent a certificate of recovery on 27 -1 -1960 of the recovery of Rs. 3,945/60 under the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act to the SDO Jodhpur. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a petition denying his liability upon which the proceedings were dropped on 24 -11 -1961. A fresh requisition certificate was sent by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur on 4 -9 -70, to the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Bikaner, under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Laid Revenue Act, 1956. This certificate was transferred by the said Assistant Mining Engineer to the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery), Jodhpur. The petitioner submitted his objections before the respondent that the recovery having once been dropped cannot be recommenced and that no recovery can be made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, in the absence of the agreement. The objections were rejected on 15 -11 -1971. The petitioner now prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery proceedings and for mandamus and prohibition to restraint the respondents from recovery of the aforesaid amount and to return Rs. 2250/ - paid by him.

(2.) IN reply, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had signed an agreement on 8 -5 -1958 but the same was not signed by the Director of Mines and Geology as the petitioner failed to deposit the amounts due. There were certain other deficiencies also The Department also stated that the area was previously held by the petitioner. He was in continuous possession of the area and has also worked some quarries therein as was disclosed in his letter dated 9 -5 -1958 in which he protested that he established some quarries but a Railway Contractor was also working in the same area without his permission and was collecting ballast. He requested on 27 -4 -59 that his contract may be terminated right from 1 -4 -58. But the Director cancelled the lease because the petitioner fail d to make the due payments That is how the recovery came to be effected. The learned Dy. Government Advocate submitted further that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 257B of the Land Revenue Act 1956) by way of a suit and therefore, the writ petition was liable to dismissal.