AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Mangu @ Mangilal has approached this Court with the following prayers:-
 “(i) the impugned Mining Lease No.12/95 (Annexure-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondent No. 1 to 6 may kindly be directed to inspect the site and assess the illegal mining and further directed to imposed the penalty as per
relevant mining rules for conducting illegal mining upon the Respondent No.7 regarding M.L. No.12/95.
(iii) the letter/ communication dated 28.9.17 (Annexure-12) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iv) Respondent no.7 may be directed to compensate the petitioner for doing illegal mining activities done without the consent of the petitioner under
the mining lease area, which is quantified at Rs.30.00 Lakhs.â€
Facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to have purchased a khatedari land admeasuring 14.12 bighas 12 biswas in the Araji No.1378/1, Village
Boraj, Tehsil & District Rajsamand from the khatedar owner Kesha son of Chena by a registered sale deed executed on 19.02.2015. The mutation of
the land in question was entered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed and he claims to be cultivating the same peacefully
and without any hindrance. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent No.7 Shri Rajendra Kumar started interfering in the
petitioner’s field and threatened that he would carry out mining activities thereupon alleging that he is having a mining lease for the land in
question. The petitioner made an inquiry and was surprised to know that one Shri Farid Ali S/o Shaukat Ali had applied for grant of mining lease on the
disputed chunk of land and procured the same with connivance of Mining Officials without taking consent from the predecessor in title of the
petitioner’s land i.e. Shri Kesha. Thereafter, Shri Farid Ali, the original allottee transferred the Mining Lease No.12/1995 in favour of the
respondent No.7 Shri Rajendra Kumar.
The petitioner filed a representation dated 10.04.2017 to the Mining Engineer, Division II, Rajsamand requesting him not to renew the mining lease in
favour of Shri Rajendra Kumar. However, the Mining Engineer rejected the petitioner’s representation vide order dated 09.06.2017 mentioning
inter alia, that Shri Kesha, being the predecessor in title of the petitioner, had executed a consent letter in favour of the mining lease holder and thus,
the objection of the petitioner was not sustainable. The petitioner claims that he filed a detailed representation to the Mining Authorities regarding his
possession over land of Khasra No.1378/1 and that the respondent No.7 was carrying on illegal mining activities thereupon and in response thereof, a
notice dated 17.11.2017 was issued to Shri Rajendra Kumar by the Mining Engineer, but inspite thereof, he was continuing illegal mining activities on
the field of the petitioner upon which, he has approached this Court through this writ petition seeking a restraint order on the mining activities being
carried on by Shri Rajendra Kumar on the field purchased by him.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by Smt. R.R. Kanwar, Government Advocate on behalf of the Mining Department and by Shri Muktesh
Maheshwari, Advocate on behalf of the private respondent No.7. The Mining Department as well as private respondent have refuted the allegations
set out by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the reply filed by respondent No.7, it has been alleged that the petitioner has made wholesale
misstatement of facts and concealments in the pleadings of the writ petition. It is stated that the mining lease was granted on the field in question way
back in the year 1996. The mining lease No.12/95 was initially granted for a period of 20 years in favour of Shri Farid Ali with the consent of Shri
Kesha. The written consent letter (Annexure-R/1) dated 23.03.1996 issued by Shri Kesha in favour of Shri Farid Ali has been annexed with the reply.
The mining lease was transferred in favour of Shri Rajendra Kumar by Shri Farid Ali on 08.10.1998 and the same was extended for a period of 20
years i.e. till 09.07.2026 by order dated 09.07.2012. The khatedar Shri Kesha never raised any objection regarding the mining operations on his field.
The petitioner has concealed the fact that the mining lease was renewed in terms of the New Mineral Policy 2011 promulgated on 28.01.2011. It is
categorically stated that there is no requirement of taking consent of the khatedar for extension of the mining lease period which is effected by
operation of law. It is further stated in the reply that the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 have been replaced by the Rajasthan Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 and that under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of 2017, there is a deemed extension of the prevailing mining leases issued
earlier for a further period of 50 years. It is further stated in the reply that the extension under Rule 9(2) is automatic and deemed. A copy of
registered sale deed dated 17.10.1998 has been placed on record by the respondent No.7 by which, Shri Kesha sold out the land in question to one
Shri Vasudev. It is stated that without getting the earlier registered sale deed canceled, the registered sale deed dated 19.02.2015 was executed in
favour of the petitioner which is totally void and fraudulent because the first sale deed is still in force. Shri Vasudev filed an appeal against the
mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner and the said appeal came to be accepted by the Additional Collector, Rajsamand by order dated
06.04.2017 and the mutation made in favour of petitioner was cancelled.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply wherein, the fact regarding the sale deed executed in favour of Shri Vasudev is not disputed. However,
alongwith the rejoinder, copy of a suit filed by Shri Kesha for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of Shri Vasudev has been annexed.
It may be noted here that the suit was filed by Shri Kesha in the Court of Civil Judge, Rajsamand on 04.08.2018 i.e. well after filing reply in the writ
petition. Shri Kesha also filed a complaint against Shri Vasudev and one Shri Satyanarayan for forging the sale deed. Copy of the said complaint has
also been filed with the rejoinder. Copy of an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate has also been annexed with the rejoinder. The said appeal is reportedly still pending and an interim injunction to maintain the status quo has
been passed therein.
The respondent Mining Department has filed a detailed reply to the writ petition wherein, the procedure of granting the mining lease in favour of Farid
Ali, the transfer thereof to the respondent No.7 Rajendra Kumar and extension, is justified as having been undertaken in accordance with law and the
claim of the petitioner that the mining lease was granted without consent of khatedar is emphatically refuted.
Shri Sandhu, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the mining lease was granted without consent of the
khatedar and the sale deed executed in favour of Shri Vasudev is forged and fabricated. The khatedar Shri Kesha has filed an FIR in this regard
which is pending investigation. He submitted that the renewal of mining lease has admittedly been carried out without taking consent of the khatedar
and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the mining lease in question should be directed to be cancelled.
Per contra, Shri Muktesh Maheshwari and G.C. Smt. R.R. Kanwar, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently and fervently opposed
the submissions advanced by Shri Sandhu. They urged that the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. The fact
regarding the registered sale deed of the subject land executed by Shri Kesha in favour of Shri Vasudev has been intentionally concealed by the
petitioner. Before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner was well aware about the fact that the land had been sold by Kesha to Shri Vasudev.
Vasudev filed an application for cancellation of the mutation entry wherein, the petitioner was a party. However, he intentionally concealed these facts
and events in the pleadings of the writ petition. They further urged that not only, was the mining lease granted with the express consent of Shri Kesha
but even, the transfer thereof in favour of Shri Rajendra Kumar was well within his knowledge. The mining activities are being unabatedly undertaken
on the khatedari land in question for the last 20 years without any objection by the khatedar. It was further contended that the khatedar was well
aware that he had sold the land to Shri Vasudev, and that is why, he never raised any objection regarding use of field in question for mining purposes.
Shri Maheshwari has also, during the course of argument, placed on record copies of the Final Report submitted by the Police after investigation of the
FIR No.29/2018 lodged by the petitioner herein and urges that the Police conducted thorough investigation and found the case to be false. He further
urged that the consent to conduct mining activities on the field in question was given by Shri Kesha wheres the FIR has been filed by the petitioner
which clearly gives an indication of his malafide motives. He further urged that the mining lease has been automatically extended for a period of 50
years by virtue of Rule 9(2) of the MMCR, 2017. He fervently contended that the land in question was sold by Shri Kesha to Shri Vasudev by a
registered sale deed way back in the year 1998 and thus, the petitioner cannot claim any right thereupon, and is not entitled to question or challenge the
right of the respondent Rajendra Kumar to carry on mining activities thereupon. On these grounds, he implored the Court to dismiss the writ petition
with heavy cost.
Smt. R.R. Kanwar, G.C. representing the Mining Department, also supported the contentions advanced by learned counsel Shri Maheshwari and
sought dismissal of the writ petition.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.
First and foremost, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Court while filing the writ petition. The
fact regarding the registered sale of the land in question having been executed by Shri Kesha in favour of Shri Vasudev in the year 1998 was well
within the knowledge of the present petitioner. Shri Vasudev had sought cancellation of mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner by filing an
appeal in the year 2015. The petitioner was notified of the appeal, however, he chose not to appear in such proceedings. The appeal was allowed by
order dated 06.04.2017. It may be stated here that the notices of the application filed by Vasudev before the ADM were published in the newspaper
and thus, the petitioner cannot feign ignorance thereof. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate by filing an
appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. At para 8 of the appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner himself has
emphatically pleaded that the proceedings for publication of the notices in the newspaper were illegal. However, the petitioner has denied in his
rejoinder that he was made aware of these proceedings by way of publication of notices.
Be that as it may. The fact remains that a second sale cannot be considered a sale in the eye of law. The registered sale deed executed by Shri
Kesha in favour of Shri Vasudev way back in the year 1998 was never challenged in any court of law until reply was filed in the present writ petition.
Manifestly, in view of the reply filed by the Mining Department, as well as the private respondent, it is clear that the explicit written consent to
undertake mining activities on the field in question was given by the khatedar Shri Kesha. Manifestly, the petitioner appears to have used some
influence on Shri Kesha and got the subsequent sale deed executed without making any efforts to have the earlier sale deed cancelled. Until and
unless, the registered sale executed by Shri Kesha in favour of Shri Vasudev is cancelled, the petitioner cannot stake any claim on the land in question.
Thus, the contention of Shri Sandhu that the mining lease in question was granted without consent of the khatedar is absolutely untenable.
In view of the clear language of Rule 9(2) of the MMCR, 2017, the sanctioned mining leases are required to be extended (and not renewed) for a
period of 50 years by deemed fiction of law. The letter (Annexure-12) dated 28.09.2017 issued by the Mining Engineer clearly indicates that the said
mining lease dated 09.07.1996 stands extended till 09.07.2026 and would be further extended till 09.07.2046. As the petitioner was not in picture when
the mining lease in question was granted and was further extended till the year 2026, he has no legal right to challenge the same. The allegation that
the consent of Shri Kesha, the original khatedar was procured by committing fraud and forgery, is also nullified and falsified in view of the fact that
the Police has given a negative Final Report after investigation of FIR No.29/2018 lodged by the petitioner with these allegations. During investigation
of the said FIR, Shri Kesha gave a categoric statement to the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had executed the consent letter in favour of
Farid Ali for undertaking mining activities on the field in question.
In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with gross
misstatements and concealment of material facts from the Court and thus, he is not entitled to seek any relief whatsoever in exercise of extraordinary
writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the action which is impugned in the instant writ
petition is absolutely just and legal and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Thus, the writ petition as well as stay application are dismissed as being devoid of merit.
A cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner for filing a frivolous writ petition with blatant concealment and mis- statements of facts.
The cost upon being deposited shall be appropriated in the funds of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.