Disposed

Smt Maya Devi v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2022CFA/811/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two connected civil first appeals and one dismissed appeal. It observed that since the mining lease underlying the original civil suits for permanent injunction was revoked by the Mining Department, the impugned judgments became redundant and the appeals stood disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

First appeals No. 811/2005 and 353/2006 disposed of as infructuous; First Appeal No. 84/2004 dismissed as not pressed.

Smt Maya Devi Vs State and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 811/2005

¶3

Smt Maya Devi W/o Surendra Singh Chauhan, resident of Kolila, Tehsil, Behrod, Dist. Alwar through her General Power of Attorney Sh. Laxman Singh S/o Sh. Dan Singh aged 48 years, resident of Plot No.15, opposite Rajdhani Tourist Motel, N.H. 8, Kotputli, Dist. Jaipur.

¶4

Smt. Saroj Kanwar W/o Shri Laxman Singh, aged 58 years, resident of village Amaitan, opposite RTM Hotel, Tehsil Kotputli, Dist. Jaipur

¶5

----Appellant-defendant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary Mines Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Mining Engineering, Jaipur Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, ‘C’ Scheme, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents-defendants

¶10

Kailash Chand Mangla S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, resident of B-5, Raja Park, Jaipur (expired on 28.10.2005) now represented through his legal representatives:-

¶11

3/1. Smt. Shakuntla Widow of Kailash Chand Mangal (since deceased)

¶12

3/2. Sanjay S/o Kailash Chand Mangal

¶13

3/3. Ajay S/o Kailash Chand Mangal since deceased now being represented through following legal heirs:-

¶14

3/3/1 Smt. Suman Agarwal Wife of late Shri Ajay Agarwal

¶15

3/3/2 Tushar Agarwal son late Shri Ajay Agarwal

¶16

3/3/3 Tanmay Agarwal son of late Shri Ajay Agarwal All residents B-5 Goving Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶17

3/4 Vijay S/o Kailash Chand Mangal

¶18

3/5 Akshaya S/o Kailash Chand Mangal

¶19

3/6 Sarita D/o Kailash Chand Mangal All residents of B-5, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶20

------ Plaintiffs-respondents

¶21

Connected With

¶22

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 84/2004

¶23

Kailash Chand Mangla (Since deceased) through his legal heirs1/1 Smt. Shakuntla Mangal aged 62 years W/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Mangla, resident of B-5, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶24

(2 of 5)

¶25

[CFA-811/2005]

¶26

1/2 Sanjay Mangal aged 42 years S/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Mangla resident of 87, Mauji Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur

¶27

1/3 Ajay Mangal (since deceased)

¶28

1/3/1 Suman Mangal aged 38 years wife of Late Shri Ajay Mangal

¶29

1/3/2 Tusar Mangal son of Late Shri Ajay Mangal

¶30

1/3/3 Tanmay Mangal son of Late Shri Ajay Mangal

¶31

(No.1/3/2 and 1/3/3 both minors through their mother and natural guardian smt. Suman Mangal) All residents of B-5, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶32

1/4 Vijay Mangal aged 37 years S/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Mangal, residents of B-5, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶33

1/5 Sarita Rana aged 32 years w/o Shri Pushpendra Rana d/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Mangla, resident of 4-ka-40, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur 1/6 Akshay Mangal aged 32 years s/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Mangla, resident B-5, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶34

----Appellants

¶35

Versus

¶36

Laxman Singh S/o Dan Singh Rajput, resident of Dhanki Khatikan, Tan Karoli, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj)

¶37

Ratipal Singh S/o Dan Singh Rajput, resident of Dhanki Khatikan, Tan Karoli, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj)

¶38

Raghuvir Singh S/o Dan Singh Rajput, resident of Dhanki Khatikan, Tan Karoli, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj)

¶39

Sheopal Singh S/o Gangu Singh, resident of Dhani Hapoda, Tan Panchpahari, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶40

Moti Singh S/o Gangu Singh, resident of Dhani Hapoda, Tan Panchpahari, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶41

Jassu Singh S/o Gangu Singh, resident of Dhani Hapoda, Tan Panchpahari, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶42

Sawai Singh S/o Chandra Singh Rajput, residents of Hapoda, Tan Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶43

Ram Singh S/o Chandra Singh Rajput, residents of Hapoda, Tan Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶44

Raju Singh S/o Chandra Singh Rajput, residents of Hapoda, Tan Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶45

Nand Singh S/o Chandra Singh Rajput, residents of Hapoda, Tan Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶46

Babu Singh adopted son of Prabhu Singh, residents of Hapoda, Tan Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶47

Ratan Singh S/o Umrao Singh Rajput, residents of Hapoda, Tan Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur

¶48

Maya Devi widow of Surendra Singh, resident of Village Kolila

¶49

(3 of 5)

¶50

[CFA-811/2005]

¶51

Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 14. Tehsildar (Land Holder) Kotputli

¶52

----Respondents-defendants

¶53

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 353/2006

¶54

State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of Mines, Government Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur

¶55

Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur

¶56

----Appellants-defendants

¶57

Versus

¶58

Kailash Chand Mangla (since deceased) through his legal heirs

¶59

1/1. Shakuntla widow of Kailash Chand Mangla

¶60

1/2 Sanjay S/o Kailash Chand Mangla

¶61

1/3 Ajay S/o Kailash Chand Mangla

¶62

1/4 Vijay s/o Kailash Chand Mangla

¶63

1/5 Akshay s/o Kailash Chand Mangla

¶64

1/6 Sarita D/o Kailash Chand Mangla

¶65

All residents of B-5, Govind Marg, Raja Park, Jaipur

¶66

----Respondents-plaintiffs

¶67

Smt. Maya Devi W/o Shri Surendra Singh Chauhan, resident of Kolila Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶68

-----Respondent-defendant

¶69

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Mishra Mr. Manish Sharma Mr. Zakir Hussain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.K. Sharma Sr. Adv. with Mr. T.P. Singh Shekhawat

¶70

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶71

Order

¶72

07/11/2022

¶73

In S.B. Civil First Appeals No.811/2005 and 353/2006:

¶74

These first appeals have arisen against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 passed in civil suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff Kailash Chand bearing

¶75

(4 of 5)

¶76

[CFA-811/2005]

¶77

No.79/2004 by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Respondent-plaintiff, on the basis of mining lease situated at Khasra No.668, 669, 672 and 669/1112 village Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Paota, Jaipur, instituted the civil suit for permanent injunction and appellant-defendant Maya Devi, claimed herself to be Khatedar of lands in question and opposed the civil suit. Hence, appellant-defendant Maya Devi has challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 by way of filing Civil First Appeal No.811/2005.

¶78

Appellant-defendant-State of Rajasthan has also challenged the decree for permanent injunction dated 21.10.2005 passed in favour of respondent-plaintiff by way of filing Civil First Appeal No.353/2006.

¶79

During pendency of appeal, an application (No.1/2022) has been filed in First Appeal No.811/2005 stating that mining lease in question has been revoked by the Mining Department by its order dated 20.1.2020 and therefore, the suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff itself has become infructuous and accordingly the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 has become redundant. Therefore, appeal be disposed of accordingly. A copy of order dated 20.1.2020 has been placed on record as Annexure-1.

¶80

Counsel for appellant-State has also made similar prayer in First Appeal No.353/2006.

¶81

Counsel appearing for respondents-plaintiffs does not dispute that the mining lease has been revoked vide order dated 20.1.2020 by the Mining Department, however, he submits that as far as first appeal No.811/2005 is concerned, he has no objection to dispose of the appeal finally but as far as first appeal

¶82

(5 of 5)

¶83

[CFA-811/2005]

¶84

No.353/2006 filed by State is concerned, same may be dispose of subject to challenge and final outcome of the order dated 20.1.2020.

¶85

Having considered contentions of learned counsel for both parties, taking into consideration, the order dated 20.1.2020 whereby and whereunder the mining lease in respect of lands in question has been revoked, it is hereby observed that the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005 has become redundant, subject to challenge and outcome thereof to the revocation order of mining lease, both first appeals No.811/2005 and 353/2006 stands disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶86

In S.B. Civil First Appeal No.84/2004:

¶87

This first appeal has been preferred by appellant-plaintiff Kailash Chand, feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his civil suit No.18/1996 vide judgment dated 29.10.2003. This civil suit was also filed on the basis of mining lease situated at land of Khasra No.668, 669, 672 and 669/1112 village Panch Pahadi, Tehsil Paota, Jaipur, which undisputedly has been revoked by the Mining Department vide order dated 20.1.2020, therefore, counsel for appellants-plaintiffs does not press this first appeal, in view of revocation of mining lease.

¶88

Accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed as not press.

¶89

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶90

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶91

NITIN /49-51

Smt Maya Devi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Maya Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girraj Prasad S/O Phool Chand Vs Smt. Pancham Katta Proprietor Rajasthan Ves Products Industries

Shiv Kumar Vs Seth Jugaldas Ganeriwala Charitable Trus

Chauthu S/O Shri Bhoramal Vs Mangal Chand S/O Late Shri Baluram

Kailash Chand Vs Laxman Singh and Ors.

Smt Gunmala Sogani W/O Shri Bhagchand Sogani Vs Smt Joravar Devi Papdiwal W/O Late Shri Nathu Lal Papdiwal

Chandulal Vs Ramveer and Anr.