Disposed

M/S Hada Marbles and Minerals v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2021CW/2292/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of three petitions concerning the mutation of mining leases to two sons against the claim of other legal heirs. The Court directed the State Government to pass a speaking order on the mutation's legality and proposed cancellation after hearing both parties, maintaining the status quo in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State Government to decide mutation legality and propose cancellation via speaking order after hearing parties; status quo maintained.

M/S Hada Marbles and Minerals Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 6)

¶2

[CW-14714/2017]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14714/2017

¶5

Dhanraj Singh S/o Late Kalyan Singh, By Caste Hada Rajput, Resident Of Saravada, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi, District Kota Rajasthan, Through His Power Of Attorney Kamlesh S/o Mathura Lal Ji, By Caste Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Aarwada, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Mines, Dept Of Mines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Division-I, Rajsamand.

¶10

Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Division-I, Rajsamand.

¶11

M/s Hada Marbles And Minerals, C-264, Talvandi Kota Rajasthan Through Its Partners Bhanwar Singh S/o Late Kalyan Singh And Mahendra Singh S/o Late Kalyan Singh, Residents Of Saravada, Ps Modak Station, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi, District Kota.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 977/2018

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Mines, Dept Of Mines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶19

Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Division-I, Rajsamand.

¶20

Superintendent Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Division Rajsamand.

¶21

M/s Hada Marbles And Minerals, C-264, Talvandi Kota

¶22

(2 of 6)

¶23

[CW-14714/2017]

¶24

Rajasthan Through Its Partners Bhanwar Singh S, Residents Of Saravada, Ps Madak Station, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi, District Kota.

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2292/2019

¶27

M/s Hada Marbles And Minerals, C-264, Talwandi, Kota, A Registered Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Bhanwar Singh Hada S/o Late Shri Kalyan Singh Hada, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C-264, Talwandi, Kota.

¶28

----Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department, The Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶31

The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. 3. The Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Rajsamand Division-Ii, Rajsamand.

¶32

The Mining Engineer Department Of Mines And Geology, Rajsamand Division-I, Rajsamand.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kuldeep Mathur & Mr. BS Sandhu
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. PP Choudhary, Sr. Adv. & Mr. DD Thanvi on VC, Mr. Vikas Balia, Mr. Arvind Shrimali. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol.

¶35

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶36

Order

¶37

11/08/2021

¶38

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶39

Since the facts in these three cases are arising out of a common factual matrix, all these three petitions are being decided by this common order.

¶40

(3 of 6)

¶41

[CW-14714/2017]

¶42

The brief facts emanating are that mining leases Nos.111/09 and 155/94 were held by one Kalyan Singh. Mr.Kalyan Singh made a registered Will in favour of his two sons Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh on 13.01.2015 regarding the mining leases in question. Mr.Kalyan Singh expired on 15.10.2015 leaving six legal heirs. The legal heirs apart from Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh started contesting the registered Will as well as the transfer of the mining leases to Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh in favour of whom the leases were mutated on 16.12.2016. It is also observed that they both created a partnership deed on 17.10.2015 on the basis of registered Will. It is an admitted position on facts that by virtue of the civil litigation, the issue of challenge to the registered Will as well as the interse right between the six legal heirs is subject to the outcome of the civil litigation.

¶43

The prayers in the writ petitions are as follows:-

¶44

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14714/2017:-

¶45

“(1) The impugned orders dated 16.12.2016 (Annex.18) and Mutation Supplemental Contracts dated 19.12.2016 (Annex.19) which were executed in pursuance of the orders dated 16.12.2016 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (2) Respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the legal representatives of Late Kalyan Singh for entering the mutation in their names for the mining leases of Late Kalyan Singh.”

¶46

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 977/2018:-

¶47

“(1) The impugned Order dated 30.01.2017 (Annex.18) and Mutation Supplemental Contract dated 30.07.2017 which was executed in pursuance

(4 of 6)

[CW-14714/2017]

may

of the Order dated 30.01.2017 (Annex.18) kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶52

(2) Respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the legal representatives of Late Kalyan Singh for entering the mutation in their names for the mining lease of Late Kalyan Singh.”

¶53

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2292/2019:-

¶54

“(1) Quash the proceedings initiated by the respondents for declaring the mining lease mutated in favour of the petitioner-firm to be null and void; and

¶55

(2) It be held that the present case being of mutation of mining leases, Rule 75 of the Rules of 2017 has no application whatever; and (3) In any case the respondents may be directed to mutate the mining leases in question jointly in the name of the two brothers (partners of the petitioner firm) and execute requisite rider agreements; and”

¶56

The bone of contention, therefore, here between the parties is that the legal heirs of Kalyan Singh except Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh are claiming that there could not have been a legal mutation in favour of Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh. The averment of Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh is that mutation was in accordance with law and the proposed notice for cancellation is unlawful.

¶57

In an overall consideration, the issue of legality of the mutation in question is pending before the State Government as the State Government has already issued a proposed notice of cancellation and the same ought to be decided by passing a speaking order. The ends of justice would be served if the State Government is directed to decide the outcome of the proposed

¶58

(5 of 6)

¶59

[CW-14714/2017]

¶60

notice along with the question of legality of the mining leases in favour of the Bhanwar Singh and Mahendra Singh, after hearing both the parties.

¶61

In view of the above, all these three writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

¶62

a) The State Government shall decide the fate of the mutation dated 16.12.2016 while proceeding with the proposed notice of cancellation impartially and fairly strictly in accordance with law. Such application of mind shall reflect the reasons why the mining leases has been accepted/granted or why the same is cancelled/undone.

¶63

b) The parties shall be free to take their complete stand before the State Government by filing necessary submissions within a period of 15 days from today. The State Government in turn shall be required to pass a speaking order within a period of 60 days thereafter. The State Government while dealing with the matter and passing order will be required to give specific reasons as to whether the mutation done on 16.12.2016 was lawful or not and shall also be required to adjudicate as to whether the proposed cancellation is required to be given effect to or not.

¶64

c) Until the speaking order is passed by the respondent authorities as directed above, the status quo regarding the mines in question shall be maintained by all the parties.

¶65

d) The civil rights inter se between the legal heirs shall remain subject to the civil litigation which they have already initiated.

¶66

(6 of 6)

¶67

[CW-14714/2017]

¶68

It is needless to say, that either of the parties if aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse.

¶69

All the earlier applications stands disposed of in light of this final order passed.

¶70

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶71

134-136-SPhophaliya/Jitender/-

M/S Hada Marbles and Minerals v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hada Marbles and Minerals v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhala Ram Vs State

Smt Tasleem Bano Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State

Ravindra Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Chananmal Vs State

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan