Disposed

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Lakhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2025CW/7678/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of his mining lease, a demand of Rs.3,12,32,332/- and attachment for auction, and sought quashing of the revisional order dismissing his revision as time-barred. Relying on Om Prakash Agrawal, the Court disposed of the petition directing that if he applies under the Amnesty Scheme and deposits the entire amount due, respondents shall restore the lease.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction: if petitioner applies under Amnesty Scheme and deposits entire amount due and application is accepted, respondents shall restore possession and mining lease.

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Lakhan Singh Vs… — Mining and Natural Resources | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49254]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7678/2025

¶4

Ravindra Singh Son Of Shri Lakhan Singh, Resident Of Village Daurda, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Mines And Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Bharatpur.

¶9

Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur.

¶10

Mining Engineer-Cum-Chairman, Inquiry Committee, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Near Housing Board Police Station Chowki Road, Chawani Road, Dholpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Alankrita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

¶14

Order

¶15

04/12/2025

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

¶17

prayer:-

¶18

“(i) By issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the order dated 18^th March, 2025 passed by the Joint Secretary in the Revision Petition No.150/2024 may be quashed and set aside and matter may be relegated back to revisional authority for considering the matter on merits after waiving limitation period applicable if any.

¶19

(ii) By issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the order passed by the AME dated 09.07.2024 as well as 16^th October, 2024 may be set aside by which

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49254]

[CW-7678/2025]

the respondents have levied a demand on the petitioner and further terminated the mining lease of the petitioner without considering the factual and legal aspects of the present case.

¶24

(iii) By issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the order dated 3^rd April, 2025 whereby the property of the petitioner has been attached and put up for auction may be quashed and set aside.

¶25

(iv) By issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be restrained from recovering the demand of Rs.3,12,32,332/- vide order dated 03.04.2025 from the petitioner till the final decision present writ petition or revision petition if the matter is relegated back to revisional authority.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendecy of the present writ petition, the respondent – State has floated an Amnesty Scheme for the year 2024-25, which is operative till 31^st December, 2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner intends to avail the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, as the petitioner squarely falls within the scope of Clause-3 of the said Scheme.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue that once the entire amount due to the Government is deposited under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of restoration of the mining lease from the date on which it was cancelled, has already been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1414/2022 (Om Prakash Agrawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others ) decided on 02.02.2023 . The relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶28

“It is also noted that the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is liable to deposit the actual entire amount due for restoration of

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49254]

[CW-7678/2025]

his mine and the petitioner cannot get the restoration of his mining lease on account of deposition of the amount under the Amnesty Scheme is noted to be rejected only on the ground that the Amnesty Scheme was floated to give benefit to the mining lease holder. The Amnesty Scheme does not make any distinction for the amount due to the persons in whose favour the lease is in existence or the persons in whose case leases have been cancelled. Therefore, once the petitioner has deposited the entire amount due to the respondents in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme floated, it can safely be presumed that the entire amount due to the Department relating to dead rent has been deposited and there is no impediment in the continuation of the mining lease of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is also of the view that once the entire amount due to the Government has been deposited though under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the restoration of mining lease from the date from which it was cancelled.

¶33

The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the Amnesty Scheme cannot be used as a tool to set off the entire amount due to the Government for the non-payment of the dead rent and the same can be used only for avoiding the proceeding under the LR Act is not sustainable in the facts of the present case and deserves to be rejected on the ground that once the entire amount due to the Government has been calculated and the Government itself is desirous to extend the benefit to the persons like the petitioner through the Amnesty Scheme, then the benefits of restoration of the mining lease cannot be denied.

¶34

It is also noted that the Appellate Authority has taken note of the fact that the amount due to the Government was duly deposited, however, since No objection certificate was not issued in favour of the petitioner, only on this hyper-technical ground, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, this Court is also of the view that since the amount due to the Government has been deposited and the 'No Objection Certificate' thereafter has been issued, the mining lease of the petitioner is liable to be restored from the date of its cancellation. The view taken by this Court in the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company(supra) that on account of certain amount due towards non-deposition of the dead rent, extreme penalty of cancellation of mining lease cannot be resorted to, also holds good in the present case and, therefore, the extreme action of the respondent in

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49254]

[CW-7678/2025]

cancellation of the lease for non-deposition of the dead rent due is also not sustainable.”

¶39

In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file an application under the Amnesty Scheme and if the same is accepted by the respondents, the respondents be directed to pass an appropriate order for restoration of the mining lease upon deposit of the entire amount due.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

In view of the above, the present writ petition, as agreed, is disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioner files an application under the Amnesty Scheme and deposits the entire amount due from the petitioner to the Government, the respondents shall examine the said application and if the said application is accepted, the respondents shall pass an appropriate order for handing-over the possession and restoring the mining lease, in view of the judgment passed in Om Prakash Agrawal (supra).

¶42

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶43

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶44

AVINASH GULERIA /1

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Lakhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Singh Son of Shri Lakhan Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Balaji Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Sharma Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan

Kunna Ram Punia S/O Bhanwara Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Gurjar S/O Shri Ranglal Gurjar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Manoj Kumar Gour S/O Shri Matadeen Sharma Vs Matadeen Sharma S/O Late Shri Bansidhar Joshi

Narendra Singh, Proprietor Ship Vs State of Rajasthan