Disposed

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Mar 2015CW/159/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a PIL filed by villagers complaining of illegal mining in recorded Johad/Paytan lands. The Court held that existing mineral leases are valid and directed the State to stop only illegal operations. It left the distinct task of withdrawing leases or altering revenue records to the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State to take steps to stop illegal mining operations and consider amending revenue records or withdrawing leases if mining is occurring in prohibited areas.

Mohan Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Mining and Natural Resources | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.159/2014

¶5

Mohan Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶6

Date of Order :: 25^th March, 2015

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶9

Mr. D.D.Chitlangi, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General and Mrs. Suman Porwal, for the State. Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.D.Thanvi, Mr. Arvind Shrimali and Mr. Abhishek Mehta, for the respondent No.6.

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

To have a writ, direction or order for respondent Department of Mining to stop illegal mining activities in several khasras of village Chaani, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, this petition for writ is preferred by four residents of village Chaani, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.

¶12

The case of the petitioners is that several persons including respondent No.6 M/s Harish Clays Mines are indulged in illegal mining activities but the Department of Mining is not taking any adequate action to stop that. As per the petitioners, the land bearing khasras Nos.70 to 88 are recorded as Johad, Paytan or as Shamshan

¶13

-2-

¶14

were no industrial or mining activity can take place, but the same is going on there indiscriminately. It is asserted that the Government of Rajasthan while complying with the directions given by Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.1052/2012, Hariram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., issued a circular dated 16.6.2003 instructing all the authorities competent not to allot Agore, Johad, Paytan and other restricted lands for any other purpose than their original actual use.

¶15

Contesting the writ petition a reply to the same has been filed by the Department of Mines stating therein that the respondent No.6 is operating within the area allotted for mining activities long back in the year 1962. At the first instance mining lease for the area concerned was executed in favour of M/s Lodha Brothers, Udaipur in the year 1968 but that was surrendered in the year 1968. The mining area being vacant then was allotted to Shri Rajendra Kumar Golcha in the year 1968. On 5.12.1972 mining lease in favour of Shri Rajendra Kumar Golcha was executed for a period of 20 years. Shri Rajendra Kumar Golcha in terms of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 sought transfer of the mining lease in favour of M/s Harish Clays Mines (respondent No.6) and while acting upon that necessary sanction was given on 9.4.1985. A necessary deed in this regard was executed on 5.3.1986 and was registered on 11.3.1986. The transferred lease was renewed time to time in accordance with the existing provisions. It is also stated that before renewing the mining lease necessary clearance from the Ministry of Environment too was taken. According to the Department of Mining, as per Major Mineral

¶16

-3-

¶17

Development Regulations Ordinance, 2015, lease in favour of the respondent No.6 shall remain in currency upto 11.4.2023. It is also stated by the respondents that in last more than five decades no grievance has been raised by any of the villager of village Chaani about illegal mining operations. The renewal of mining lease was made after having necessary clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest and by conducting public hearing the State Pollution Control Board also granted necessary consent for mining operations in the area concerned.

¶18

A reply to the writ petition has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 in general giving details as given by the Department of Mining.

¶19

A reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the officers of the Department of Revenue of the Government of Rajasthan, according to which the lands bearing khasras Nos.70 to 77 are shown as Sawai Chak, Nakabil Kast, Johad, Paytan in revenue records. The Patwari of the area concerned has reported certain illegal mining activities by the respondent No.6 in the area concerned and on basis of that every possible step has been taken to stop the same.

¶20

The facts stated above indicate that the mining activities are going on in the area concerned from last about 53 years. The respondent No.6 is having mining lease for that purpose. The mining leases have been granted to the mine operators including the respondent No.6 only after having necessary approval from the Ministry of Environment

¶21

-4-

¶22

and Forest and also by getting necessary sanction from the Rajasthan State Pollution Board. True it is, as per revenue records some of the part of land where mining activities are in operation is recorded as Johad, Paytan, Nakabil Kast or Shamshan Bhumi in the revenue records but in any case it is not in dispute that the respondent No.6 is having authority to undertake mining activities on basis of the lease granted by the Government of Rajasthan. It is for the Government of Rajasthan to examine as to whether such permission could have been granted or not. We do not think that it shall now be appropriate to stop mining activities in the area concerned where the respondent No.6 is operating from last several years on basis of a valid grant. The Government of Rajasthan if thinks that no such lease could have been granted, then it may take appropriate steps to withdraw mining activities from the area concerned in accordance with law.

¶23

So far as illegal mining activities are concerned, we are of considered opinion that necessary steps in this regard shall require to be taken by the respondent State and its other competent functionaries to stop the same as per provisions of the Major Mineral Development Regulations.

¶24

In view of whatever stated above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for writ with a direction to the respondents to take every possible step to stop illegal mining in the area, if that is going on. The State Government, if is of the view that the mining operations as a consequent to the leases granted is going

¶25

-5-

¶26

on in a restricted/prohibited land area, then necessary steps in accordance with law either to make necessary changes in revenue records or to withdraw the mining leases, whichever is in larger public interest, may also be taken.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order to costs.

¶28

(JAISHREE THAKUR),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶29

Mathuria.KK/PS

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Anr. Vs Surendra Gund

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Dr. O.P. Chandak

Dinu Khan Vs State and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. Vs Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Kar.Samiti and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,and Ors. Vs Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Kar.Samiti and Anr.

Principal Investigator and Co-Ordi.and Anr. Vs Chandra Prakash and Anr.