Remanded

Nathava Lal Mali v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2024CW/3363/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a notice demanding deposit of penalty and dead rent under Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, attached to an application for lease extension. The court remanded the matter to the Mining Engineer to decide the application afresh. The respondent must supply copies of penalty orders and provide a hearing opportunity if orders were not yet pa

What did the court decide?

Remanded to the Mining Engineer, Karauli, to decide the application under Rule 16(2) of the 1986 Rules afresh; respondent to supply copies of penalty orders.

Nathava Lal Mali Vs State and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49718]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3363/2007

¶4

Nathuva Lal Mali S/o Shri Nande Ram, Village Mahu, Post Harnagar, Tehsil Mandrayal, Distt. Karauli Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

¶8

Deputy Secretary Mines, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kedar Solanki for Mr. Lokesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha,AGC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 03/12/2024

¶13

This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 27.06.2006 passed by the Mining Engineer, Karauli and order dated 31.10.2006 dismissing the revision petition.

¶14

The relevant facts are that the petitioner was a successful bidder. Vide order dated 02.11.1988, the petitioner was granted lease for mining Sand Stone near Plot No.5, Village Makanpur Watada, Tehsil and District Karauli. The lease was granted for the period of ten years i.e. from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1999. The dead rent was fixed as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The dead rent for the period i.e. from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1999 was enhanced to Rs.3,41,694/-. The petitioner filed an application under Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986

[2024:RJ-JP:49718]

[CW-3363/2007]

(2 of 3)

(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986') for extension of the lease period. During pendency of the application after expiry of the lease period, the possession of the land-in-question was taken by the Mining Department. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was accepted on 06.09.2005 and matter was sent back to the Mining Engineer to decide the application filed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1986 on merits. In pursuance to the remand, notice dated 27.06.2006 was issued by the Mining Engineer attaching the copies of panchnamas, stating that in view of Panchnamas varying from 15.04.1988 to 29.12.1989, an amount of Rs.2,14,800/- was due for unauthorized mining and there is dead rent due of Rs.35,87,333/-. The petitioner was directed to deposit amount of Rs.38,02,133/- within fifteen days and to produce the receipt. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the revision. The revision filed by the petitioner against notice dated 27.06.2006 was dismissed, hence the present petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the panchnamas attached with the impugned notice do not relate to the land-in-question and one of them is prior to grant of mining lease to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had neither deposited the penalty amount nor the dead rent.

¶21

The application filed by the petitioner for extension of the lease period was earlier not considered and on remand by the revisional authority, notice was issued for deposit of Rs.38,02,133/-. Albeit, the copies of panchnamas were attached with the notices but there is nothing on record to show that on the

[2024:RJ-JP:49718]

[CW-3363/2007]

(3 of 3)

basis of the panchnamas demand was created by passing an order. By the procedure adopted by the respondents while dealing with the application filed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1986, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to challenge the demand sought to be recovered by the respondents.

¶26

It would be appropriate to note that the application filed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1986, as per notice dated 27.06.2006, was to be considered only on petitioner depositing the due amount within fifteen days.

¶27

In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the Mining Engineer, Karauli to decide the application filed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1986 afresh. The respondent shall supply the copy of the orders imposing penalty. In case, no order has been passed, the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the order of demand or the order passed on the application filed under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1986.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

¶31

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶32

Simple Kumawat /38

¶33

Whether Reportable : Yes

Nathava Lal Mali v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathava Lal Mali 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Chhabara Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mohan Kanwar and Ors. Vs Bor and Ors.

Subodh Institute of Management Vs All India Council for Technical Ors.

Suraj Mal Vs the Board of Revenue Ajmer and O

Suwa Lal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Akram Chaudhary and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.