HASMAT TARA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of a common order and arise out of the same suit and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided together.

(2.) The land in question earlier belonged to one Shri Munir Khan who was original holder of the land. He died in the year 1940. His nephews Fajlu Khan and Hafij Khan succeeded to the estate according to one party and according to the other party only Hafij Khan succeeded to the estate of Munir Khan. M/s. J. K. White Cement Works purchased the land in question from sons of Hafij Khan alone. When they tried to enter possession, successors of Fajlu Khan objected and filed the suit and prayed for temporary injunction therein for protecting their possession. Daughters of Hafij Khan were also impleaded in this suit. On 12-2-96 a temporary injunction was issued at the instance of the successors of Fajlu Khan as well as three daughters of Hafij Khan. Four appeals were filed against the injunction order, all of them were dismissed. The matter went to the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction and the Board of Revenue partly allowed the revision applications and vacated the injunction and instead asked for a security to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- from J. K. White Cement Works. Against this decision of the Board of Revenue three writ petitions were filed before the learned single Judge, two by J. K. White Cement Works and third by Smt. Hasmat Tara and others. The learned single Judge set aside the orders of the Board of Revenue as well as of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed that M/s. J. K. White Cement should approach the Collector for determination of compensation under sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Collector shall determine the compensation for infringement of right of occupation and disturbance of the successors of the lands in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 and on determination of the compensation M/s. J. K. White Cement Works shall furnish solvent security and surety for the like amount to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh before whom the suit was pending and thereafter the Company shall be entitled to excavate minerals from the land in question. Against this order these three appeals have been filed before this Court.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides we find that the question involved in the case is a short one. In view of the provisions of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 there can be no case for issue of a temporary injunction against excavation of minerals from a revenue paying land under a licence granted by the State Govt. Section 89 declares that the right to all mines, minerals and quarries shall vest in the State Govt. and the State Govt. shall have all powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right. Section 89 regulates the right to exploit the miners by the assignee of the State Govt. and also provides safeguards for assuring payment of compensation to the holders of the land. Section 89 is reproduced hereunder :-