High Court dismissed simultaneous writ petitions seeking cancellation of mining leases for non-commencement, invalidity due to Tribal Sub Plan status, and directions to consider a representation for declaring land as pasture. The court held no PIL case for interference.
Writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9539/2020
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9545/2020
(2 of 7)
[CW-9539/2020]
----Petitioners
Versus
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9936/2020
----Petitioners
Versus
(3 of 7)
[CW-9539/2020]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjawat. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pratiyushi Mehta on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
15/01/2021
By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to cancel the Mining Lease Nos. vfu[kku@mn;@viz@mn;@,e ,y&318/2011 dated 27.02.2018, vfu[kku@mn;@viz@mn;@,e ,y&316/2011/2377-283 dated 28.12.2017 and vfu[kku@mn;@viz@mn;@,e ,y&317/2011 dated 27.02.2018 granted by Additional Director (Mining), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur in favour of private respondents. That apart, directions are sought to decide the representation made by the petitioners to stop mining activities over the land in question.
Precisely, the contention of the petitioners is that the land land in question, in respect whereof the mining leases are granted, though recorded in the revenue record as “fcykuke xSj dkfct&dk'r”, is being used by the villagers as pasturage, which cannot be divested for any other use. It is submitted that the mining leases were executed in favour of private respondents in the years 2017 and 2018, but till this date the mining operations have not been started.
(4 of 7)
[CW-9539/2020]
Relying upon Condition No.21 of the Mining Lease, it is submitted that since the respondents have not commenced the mining activities for a period of more than six months without obtaining written sanction from the competent authority, the mining leases are liable to be cancelled.
It is further submitted that since the mining area in question falls within Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) and, therefore, no mining lease could have been granted in favour of private respondents.
Reply to writ petition(s) has been filed on behalf of respondents taking the stand that as per the revenue record, the disputed land is categorised as “xSj eqefdu ukdkfcy dk”r” and has never been declared as pasture land by the competent authority. Regarding non-cancellation of the mining leases, it is submitted that the doctrine of privity of contract permits only parties to the contract to enforce the conditions settled between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners who are not party to the contract, cannot seek cancellation of the mining leases by way of public interest litigation.
Regarding, restriction imposed on grant of mining lease in TSP area, it is submitted that the mining leases were granted much prior to the area being declared as TSP and, therefore, the question of obtaining prior permission of the Panchayat for the purpose of grant of mining leases did not arise.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though the land in question is recorded in the revenue record as “xSj eqefdu ukdkfcy dk”r” but as a matter of fact the land is being used as pasturage by the villagers and, therefore, they have right to press the claim for declaring the land as pasture land. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of this Court
(5 of 7)
[CW-9539/2020]
in the case of Bhagulal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No.13686/2019 decided on 24.08.2020), which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court with the observations in the following terms:
“In view of the discussion above, the petition is disposed of with the observations that it will be open for the Gram Panchayat, Gyangarh to make an appropriate representation/application to the competent authority for declaring the land as ‘pasture land’,which is already put to use as pasturage, in accordance with the relevant rules. If any application/ representation is made in this regard, the same shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant rules, expeditiously, in any case, within a period of two months. No order as to costs.”
Learned counsel while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition urged that the mining area in question since falls within TSP area, the same was not available for allotment for mining purposes.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the land in question is recorded in the revenue record as “xSj eqefdu ukdkfcy dk”r” and not as pasturage, the action of the respondents in granting mining lease cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that no representation appears to have been made by the petitioners for declaring the land in question as pasture land and, therefore, the question of issuing directions for consideration of the representation of the petitioners for declaring the land in question as pasture land, does not arise.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record.
Indisputably, the land in question is recorded in the revenue record as “fcykuke xSj dkfct&dk'r” and in this regard the
(6 of 7)
[CW-9539/2020]
‘Jamabandi’ of the land in question placed on record by the petitioners is Annex.2 is self-explantory. Unless the land is declared as pasture land, the action of the respondents in granting mining lease, if the land was available for mining purposes, cannot be faulted with.
So far as cancellation of the mining leases for not commencing the mining activities is concerned, it is a matter between the lessee and lessor and as per terms and conditions of the contract, it is always open for the respondents to cancel the mining lease. Such rights of the parties under the contract cannot be subject matter of consideration by this Court in PIL jurisdiction. If on account of any breach of condition the mining lease is liable to be cancelled, it is the matter to be exclusively dealt with the lessor in accordance with law.
Regarding non-availability of the land for the purpose of mining on account of it falling within TSP area, it is not disputed before this Court that the mining leases were granted prior to area in question being declared as ‘TSP’ area and, therefore, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners in this regard, is also devoid of any merit.
Coming to the last contention of the petitioners of declaring the land in question as pasture land, suffice it to say that unless the mining leases are cancelled and the land is made available for pasturage, the question of issuing any direction to respondents for considering the representation of the petitioners for declaring the mining area as pasture land does not arise, more so when no representation as such has been made by the petitioners for declaring the land in question as pasture land. It is always open for the petitioners to make appropriate representation in this
(7 of 7)
[CW-9539/2020]
regard before the competent authority, which shall obviously be considered in accordance with law.
In view the discussion above, no case for interference by us in exercise of writ (PIL) jurisdiction is made out.
The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
4, 5 & 6-DJ/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether mining leases can be cancelled by a public interest litigant if the lessee has not commenced operations.
Whether the grant of mining lease is invalid because the land falls within a Tribal Sub Plan area.
Whether the Court should direct respondents to consider a representation to declare pasturage land as pasture land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhagulal & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶67
Bhagulal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No.13686/2019)
Shankar Lal S/o Kanji Suthar
Gajendra Singh S/o Veer Singh
State of Rajasthan
Director, Directorate of Mines and Geology
Sangeet Lodha
Rameshwar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
