A PIL was filed seeking to restrain authorities from implementing an irrigation project on land reserved for mining. The court held the matter was not a public interest issue as land allocation is an executive domain and dismissed the petition.
Prayer for restraining implementation of irrigation project dismissed as PIL being misconceived in law.
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. 10754/2022
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate
:
(2 of 3)
[CW-10754/2022]
assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
01/08/2022
Heard.
This P.I.L. has been filed by the petitioner praying for lease.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that in the orders as mentioned in Annexure 1 included and shown in Para 4 of the petition, the lands which are essentially reserved for mining purposes are being allowed to be used for implementation of Prime Minister Agriculture Irrigation Scheme. Accordingly, Learned Senior Counsel submits that on representation made by one of the petitioners, Government has also accepted the representation particularly taking into consideration that this irrigation also adversely affect the allotment of land for mining purposes. Despite such decision of the Government, respective Gram Panchayats are not adhering to such directions and allowing implementation of the Irrigation Project of the Government of India.
In our considered opinion, the issue which has been raised before this court cannot be said to the matter in public interest. The prayer in the writ petition is to restrain the authorities from implementing irrigation project on the ground that it will affect the mining activity. As per petitioners own showings, the mining area is under allotment procedure and some persons may have been allotted mining lease in the areas in the question. Those who have
(3 of 3)
[CW-10754/2022]
been allotted, have not come before this Court. As to in what manner, the land used is to be permitted, is essentially for the Government to decide. To what extent the mining area should be used and whether irrigation project should be allowed to be extended in areas reserved for mining activities are all matters which are exclusively in the domain of the executive and not for the Courts to decide one way or the other.
In the garb of PIL, no direction can be issued to restrain the respondents from implementing irrigation scheme. Leaving it open for aggrieved persons to take such remedy as may be available to them under the law, this PIL, being misconceived in law, is dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
12-DeepikaV,Deepta/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation can restrain authorities from implementing an irrigation project on reserved mining land.
Whether the decision on land use for mining versus irrigation is within the exclusive domain of the executive.
Whether an PIL filed by affected persons can succeed when the mining area is under allotment procedure and allottees are not before the court.
Ekbal Khan
Fote Khan
Sabir Khan
Subhan Khan
Mehrab
State Of Rajasthan
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
