Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anand Kumar vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 26 April, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. &
other connected matters
Judgment dt:26/4/2013
1/106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10833/2010
(along with other 131 connected matters - See Schedule 'A')
DATE OF ORDER : 26th April, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. J.L.Purohit, Sr. Advocate along with ]
Mr. Rajeev Purohit, ]
Mr. N.L.Joshi, ]
Mr. C.S.Kotwani, ]
Mr. Rajesh K.Bhardwaj ]
Mr. B.S.Sandhu, ]
Mr. Trilok Joshi, ] for the petitioners.
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, ]
Mr. A.K.Singh, ]
Mr. Vishal Jangid, ]
Mr. Vijay Purohit, ]
Mr. D.L.Motsara, ]
Mr. R.S.Choudhary, ]
Mr. Hemant Jain, ]
Mr. Moti Singh, ]
Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, ]
Mr. Hemant Choudhary, ] for the respondents.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. &
other connected matters
Judgment dt:26/4/2013
2/106
Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate and Addl. Advocate General with
Mr. Pradhuman Singh, for the State.
REPORTABLE
BY THE COURT:
1. In the present set of writ petitions there is an interesting controversy as to whether the Revenue Department of the State Government can demand conversion charges for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes by the present petitioners, which are situated in the colony area covered under the provisions of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 or other than colony area, the khatedari agricultural land covered by the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 3/106
2. The petitioners have set up brick kilns on their respective agricultural lands and some of the brick kilns fall in colony areas on the agricultural land allotted to the petitioners under the Colonization Act, 1954, which area includes command land (irrigated through canals or water courses constructed by the State Government like Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna etc.) or uncommand land and the petitioners have set up their brick kilns on their such agricultural lands, after obtaining mining leases from the Mining Department for excavation of brick earth, a minor mineral.
3. The present writ petitions are directed against the show cause notices issued by the revenue authorities like Addl. Collector or Tehsildar, Sriganganagar and Hanumangarh etc.,who have called upon the petitioners to show cause and demanded the conversion charges for use of such agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
4. By interim orders, different coordinate benches have allowed the brick kilns operation without payment of conversion charges for the time being. The respondent revenue departments have filed reply to the writ petitions in some of the cases, which on their request was SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 4/106 treated as adopted reply in all the cases and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the arguments were heard finally at the admission stage itself.
5. Mr. J.L.Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. C.S.Kotwani, Mr. B.S.Sandhu, Mr. A.K.Singh, Mr. Hemant Jain, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Mr. Vishal Jangid and Mr. Trilok Joshi appeared and argued on behalf of the petitioners, whereas, Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat and Mr. Hemant Choudhary appeared and argued on behalf of the Revenue Departments of the State Government.
6. The sheet anchor of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court was that for setting up of the brick kilns by the petitioners on their agricultural lands, they had obtained prior mining leases from the Mining Department of the State Government and only under such mining leases they were excavating the minor mineral i.e. Brick earth from their agricultural fields and were manufacturing bricks in the kilns erected by them on such lands, therefore, the State Government could not demand further conversion charges from the petitioners as the lands in question should be deemed to have been converted for user for non-
agricutural purposes with the grant of mining leases by the Mining SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 5/106 Department and relying upon some previous judgments of this Court, they urged that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notices demanding the conversion charges under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 and they could not interfere with the functioning of Mining Department from whom the petitioners had already obtained the mining leases and this Court has already held that manufacturing of bricks in the brick kilns is covered by the terms of mining leases and the revenue authorities cannot simultaneously demand any conversion charges, premium or the lease charges from the petitioners. They also submitted that similar conditions contained in 1966 Rules were struck down by this Court and, therefore, the revenue authorities cannot now again demand the conversion charges from the petitioners and the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed quashing the show cause notices and demand of the conversion charges from the petitioners.
7. Reliance placed upon by the petitioners was on the following judgments of this Court & of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Leeladhar vs. State of Rajasthan - 1963 RLW 423 - DB
(ii) Shiv Chand Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan-1967 RLW 30-DB SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 6/106
(iii) Mohd. Bux vs. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1993 Raj. 211-FB
(iv) Khushi Ram Kiln Company vs. State of Rajasthan - (2002) RLW 318 - SB
(v) Hari Ram & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. - SBCWP No. 7130/1985 decided on 10/12/2000
(vi) State of Rajasthan vs. Seator Kiln Company - (2002) 10 SCC 253
8. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat and Mr. Hemant Chowdhary appearing for the respondent Revenue & Colonization Departments, respectively and Mr. Anand Purohit, Senior Advocate and learned Addl. Advocate General for the State vehemently submitted that the demand of conversion charges from the petitioners is not only justified but the present writ petitions are only directed against the show cause notices issued by the revenue authorities and, therefore, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked prematurely against the show cause notices as no patent and inherent lack of jurisdiction has been alleged against the revenue authorities. They also urged that the writ petitions involve seriously disputed questions of facts like whether the land is situated in colony area or the same is khatedari agricultural land, whether any prior mining leases have been obtained by the petitioners or not, whether SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 7/106 the conversion charges were paid at the time of obtaining such mining leases from the Mining Department or not, and whether the activity of manufacturing bricks in the said brick kilns is covered within the terms of mining leases and therefore, within the ambit and scope of Minor Mineral Concession Rules or not etc. They submitted that all these are mixed questions of facts and law and unless proper factual foundation is established with the evidence, the academic question of levy of conversion charges cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed as premature. They also urged that The Rajasthan Colonization Project Area Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 were later on amended in the year 1988 and and condition nos. 19 and 20 were inserted for private khatedari lands, which were sought to be used for setting up of brick kilns and condition nos. 19 and 20 were never challenged nor they were declared ultra vires by this Court and, therefore, reliance placed on the judgments of this Court by the learned counsels for the petitioners is misplaced.
9. They also brought to the notice of this Court the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Seator Kiln Company (2002) 10 SCC 253 in which after noticing the Full Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Bux vs. State of Rajasthan - AIR SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 8/106 1993 (Raj.) 211, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that conditions no. 19 and 20 inserted in 1966 Conditions vide Notification dated 30/4/1988 were not the subject matter of judicial review before the Full Bench decision in the year 1993 and, therefore, it could not be said that those conditions were declared to be bad in law and only conditions no. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of 1966 Conditions were declared ultra vires by the Full Bench in Mohd. Bux's case and, thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the orders of Division Bench remanded back the matter to the learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that after remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the batch of 5 cases including the case of Seator Kiln Company were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 15/4/2002 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2183/1988 (Khushi Ram Kiln Company & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.- (2002) RLW 318) in which the learned Single Judge held that in view of the fact that conditions No. 19 and 20 were not declared ultra vires by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Bux (supra), consequently the Collector, Sriganganagar could demand one time conversion charges on the change of use of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes, however the learned Single Judge held that since such conversion charges were already deposited under the unamended Rules @ SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 9/106 Rs.40/- per bigha per annum, after amendment of law, the revised and increased conversion charges @ Rs.400/- per bigha per annum could not be demanded from the petitioners.
10. The learned counsels for the respondents, therefore, urged that as far as demand of conversion charges for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes was concerned, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for the petitioners were of no avail as the two relevant Rules, namely (i) Rajasthan Land Revenue (Use of agricultural land for non agricultural purposes) Rules,1966 on the one hand and (ii) Minor Mineral Concession Rules on the other hand operated in different fields and the grant of mining leases for excavation of minor mineral, namely brick earth could not prohibit or exclude the levy of conversion charges for such change of user of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in the form of mining of brick earth and manufacturing of bricks in the brick kilns and in view of such admitted industrial and commercial use of agricultural land, the petitioners were liable to pay the conversion charges to the Revenue Department of the State Government.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents, thus, sought to distinguish the previous judgments emphatically relied upon by the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 10/106 learned counsels for the petitioners in support of their cases and submitted that that the present writ petition not only deserve to be dismissed on merits, as the conversion charges can be demanded from the petitioners and this being not the case of any conflict of jurisdiction by the Revenue authorities by encroaching the powers of the authorities of the Mining Department and the revenue authorities are not insisting upon grant of fresh lease of the agricultural land by them, since the Mining Department has already issued the mining leases or quarry licenses for excavation of minor mineral i.e. Brick earth and, therefore, by levy of conversion charges prescribed under the different law enacted with reference to Section 90A read with Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956, the demand of such conversion charges could not be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the present set of writ petitions against show cause notices issued by the revenue authorities like SDO or Tehsildar for demand of such conversion charges deserve to be dismissed by this Court.
12. Before pronouncing upon the rival contentions raised by the parties before this Court in this batch of writ petition, it is considered expedient to have a look into the history of judicial precedents of Rajasthan High Court on this issue as well as relevant legislations SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 11/106 governing the controversy in hand so that the facts of the cases and rival contentions of the learned counsels can be examined in correct perspective.
History of judicial precedents on the issue 12.1 The earliest case on this controversy of setting up the brick kilns on agricultural lands in colony area covered by the Colonization Act, 1954 was decided by the Division Bench on 4th March, 1963 in the case of Leeladhar vs. State of Rajasthan- 1963 RLW 423 in which the controversy arose in the background of following facts narrated in para 2 and 3 of the judgment:
"The facts of this case are that the petitioner firm purchased apiece of agricultural land comprising of Khasra No. 330 measuring 5 bighas and 31/2 biswas in village Bhadra, and after obtaining permission, and entering into an agreement with the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, it started manufacturing bricks by constructing a brick-kiln on the said land. The lease granted by the Mining Engineer to the petitioner firm was renewed every year and the petitioner's contention is that it is holding a lease which is valid up to 31st of March, 1963. The petitioner wanted to extend its kiln and, therefore, an application was made SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 12/106 by the petitioner firm to the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, Hanumangarh, for further allotment of land measuring 9 bighas 1 biswa. This application of the petitioner was published by the Tehsildar Colonisation for inviting objections, but instead of granting land to the petitioner, Naib-Tehsildar Colonisation, Nohar, intimated the petitioner firm about the order of the Deputy Commissioner Colonization requiring the petitioner to stop the manufacturing of bricks in Khasra No. 330 forthwith, and if the petitioner failed to obey his order then under Secs. 22 and 24 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Colonisation Act) possession of the land in dispute would be taken over by the Government. The letter of the Naib Tehsildar dated 2nd April, 1962 has been placed on record by the petitioner and is marked as Ex. 5. It was against this order of the Naib-Tehsildar that the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned order on the ground that the Naib Tehsildar or any other officer of the Colonisation Department had no jurisdiction to pass such order. The petitioner further averred that it was carrying on its business under a vaild lease granted to it by the Mines and Geological Department of the Government of Rajasthan under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and, therefore, authorities of the Colonization SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 13/106 Department had no jurisdiction to interfere and pass the impugned order to restrain the petitioner from manufacturing bricks on the land owned by the firm.
After the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (leases) Conditions, 1959, was enforced by the Government of Rajasthan the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation passed another order on the 14th of March, 1962, demanding the petitioner to stop working of the brick kiln and remove within one month all his material from the land which was allotted to him for that purpose in 1957. By this impugned order, the petitioner was also required to deposit the rent of the said land from 1959 up to 31st of March, 1962, at the rate of Rs.40/- per bigha and also it was directed that if the petitioner wanted to continue to manufacture bricks on the said land then he should make an application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Bricks kiln (leases) Conditions, 1959, to regularise the case of the land already allotted to him. It is against this order of the Deputy Commissioner of Colonization that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation, which is an obvious encroachment on the freedom of trade guaranteed to the petitioner by the Constitution be quashed and the respondents be directed not to interfere, in any SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 14/106 manner, with the petitioner's right to manufacture bricks in 22 kilas of land in respect of which the petitioner holds a valid lease from the Mining Department. It is also prayed that the respondents be restrained from realising the amount of rent assessed arbitrarily by the respondent No. 2 from the petitioner without any authority of law."
12.2 The Division Bench held that since excavation of minor mineral was governed by the provisions of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 only and the authorities under the Mining Department were only supposed to grant the mining leases for mining rights, the revenue authorities could not interfere with such grant of leases even if the land fell within the colony area and thus discussing the comparative provisions of MMCR and the definition of `Land' in the Colonization Act, 1954, the Court held in para 6 and 9 as under:
"6. We gave a careful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. It was in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, a Central enactment, that the Government of Rajasthan have framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, and enforced them in the State of Rajasthan. From the scheme of these rules SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 15/106 read with Section 2 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, it becomes obvious that the development of the minor minerals in the State is the concern of the Mines and Geological Department of the State. Sub - rule (2) of rule 1 of the said Rules makes these rules applicable even to the lands wherein Bapi and proprietary rights are claimed. Thus, it would be clear from the provisions of these rules that wherever lease is required to be given in respect of any minor mineral then it can be given under the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 only, irrespective of the fact whether the land wherefrom the minor mineral is to be used is an agricultural land or not. We could not lay hand on any provision in the Mineral Concession Rules whereby the land situate in a project area declared as colony under the Colonisation Act is to be treated differently in the matter of granting mining lease therein. An elaborate procedure has been provided in the mining rules for the grant of a mining lease and once the lease is granted the lessee acquires full mining rights under the terms and conditions of the lease granted to him in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
Power to regulate, supervise and control mining rights in respect of the minor mineral rests with the officers of the Mines & Geological Department of the State. Learned Deputy Government Advocate could not point SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 16/106 out to us any provision in Minor Mineral Concession Rules whereby the lessee may be required to obtain further permission from the officers of the Colonization Department if the land is leased out to him under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules in a colony declared under the Colonisation Act. We may state that we could not find any such provision either in the Colonisation Act or in Minor Mineral Concession Rules which may prescribe different procedure for granting mining rights in project areas of a colony. The intent and purpose of the colonisation Act, as we could gather from its preamble and other contents thereof, appear to be to provide provisions for the colonization and administration of lands in the colonies. The definition of the word "land" as is given in this Act throws further light on the true scope of the Colonisation Act. It is obvious from the perusal of the Act that it applies only to that land which is let or held for agricultural purposes subservient thereto or grove land or for pasturage, including land occupied by houses or enclosures situated on a holding, or land covered with water which may be used for the purpose of irrigation or growing Singhara or other similar produce. The word "land" as defined in the Colonisation Act makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of the Act would apply to no other land except one which is used for above mentioned purposes. Therefore, contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate that no mining SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 17/106 rights are perfect in the colonies which are declared as such under the Colonisation Act unless further sanction is obtained from Colonisation Department does not appear to be sound as exploitation of mineral by manufacture of bricks after constructing brick kiln does not fall within the purview of the purposes for which the provisions of the Colonisation Act are enacted by the legislature.
9. The word "land" as used in sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Colonisation Act cannot have a wider connotation, and cannot be given a meaning different from its definition as it has been used in relation with tenant. We cannot think that under the provisions of the land can be allotted to tenants for any other purpose which has no relevance with the tenancy rights. Taking brick earth a minor mineral from the land and manufacturing of bricks therefrom can have no connection with the purpose of tenancy and, therefore, whatever authority is conferred on the Government by sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Colonization Act to prescribe conditions is in relation with the land which is to be allotted for agricultural purposes or any other purpose subservient thereto, or for such other purposes which have been specified in the definition of the word "land" in the Colonization Act. As stated above, land allotted for a mining lease does not fall SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 18/106 within the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Colonisation Act and therefore, in our opinion, Government have no authority, under this provision of the Act, to prescribe any conditions which may govern the lease of the land in a colony granted for the construction of brick kiln which has no connection whatsoever with the creation of rights regarding tenancy in the land.
12.3 Lamenting on the lack of coordination between two departments of State Government, the Division bench concluded that once the mining lease is granted under the valid Rules and rights have been granted in favour of citizens of the country, this sort of Notifications by other authorities was not justified. The conclusions as contained in para 11, 13 and 14 of the judgment are also reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"11. It will not be out of place to observe that in these cases petitioners have been put to this unnecessary harassment on account of lack of co- ordination between the two departments of the Government. If it were the intention of the Government, that the land in project areas may not be used for min- ing leases under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules then the purpose could have been achieved by the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 19/106 Government either by issuing administrative instructions to the Department of Mines & Geology directing them not to grant any mining lease in such areas or by bringing a necessary amendment in the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959. When once mining lease is granted under the valid rules and rights have been created in favour of a citizen of the country, this sort of interference is uncalled for. The rights created in favour of the citizens under valid law must be respected by the Government and they should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the law in force.
13. In both these petitions, the brick kilns were constructed by the petitioners before the impugned notification was issued by the State Government. The contention of Mr. Lodha that the provisions of the conditions prescribed by the Government by means of the impugned notification, even if valid, cannot be attracted to demolish the brick kilns which were constructed prior to the issue of the impugned notification, appears to be quite sound. As stated above, we are of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation had no authority to order the demolition of the kilns constructed under the valid lease granted by the authorities under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Every citizen has a right to carry on a business subject, of course, to the conditions which may be laid down by a valid law of the land. In this case, no valid conditions have been prescribed to SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 20/106 regulate the construction of kilns in the project area of a colony established under the Colonization Act, and, therefore, no restriction can be imposed on the petitioners to carry on the business of manufacturing bricks by using their kilns which had already been erected by them on the land allotted to them for that purpose.
14. In view of the above observations, we allow the writ petitions and direct that the opposite parties be restrained from interfering with the rights of the petitioners which they are enjoying under valid leases granted in their favour by a competent authority under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The opposite parties are further restrained from realising from petitioner Lila Dhar in petition No. 184 of 1962 the rent of the disputed land at the rate of Rs.40/'- per bigha from 1959 to 31st of March, 1962. Each petitioner shall get one set of costs from the respondents.
13. That three years after the judgment rendered in the case of Leeladhar's case (supra), on 27/7/1966, the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Chand Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan - 1967 RLW 30, again came across with the question of validity of The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Brick Kiln Leases in Non-project Areas) Conditions, 1960, which were later on substituted by The SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 21/106 Rajasthan Colonization Project Area Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 and the Court reiterated the view taken by it in the case of Leeladhar's case (supra) and held that the authority to make the brick kiln from the brick earth excavated under the mining leases granted to the petitioners under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 was implied in such mining leases and Conditions of 1960 having the overriding effect about the allotment of leases under the MMCR, 1959 could not hold the field and they were declared ultra vires. The profused extracts of the relevant portions is considered necessary so that the controversy in hand in the present cases could be appreciated and the development of legal position in this regard from time to time since MMCR on the one hand and Land Revenue Rules applicable to such cases also replaced and repealed from time to time can be better appreciated with the help of understanding the precedents in proper perspective. The facts of Shiv Chand Goyal's case (supra) in para 2 of the judgment are like this;
"2. Petitioner Shivchand was permitted by the Panchayat Ridmalsar vide its resolution No. 3 dated 30th November, 1960 (Ex. 1) to construct a brick-kiln and to prepare the bricks by digging the brick earth from Killas Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 22/106 in Murabba No. 72, Chak No. 60 LNP situate in the Abadi areas within the jurisdiction of that Panchayat. After having obtained the said permission, the petitioner applied to the Mining Department for granting mining lease for quarrying brick earth from the said area which was allotted to that petitioner by the Panchayat. The Assistant Engineer, Mines and Geology, Bikaner, granted the requisite permission under R. 57(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, to quarry the brick earth from Killas Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 20 in Square No. 72 (vide document Ex. 2 dated 25th October, 1961). In pursuance of the said permission, a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner and Mining Engineer on the 25th October, 1961. This lease agreement is placed on record as Ex. 3. According to the terms of this agreement, the petitioner was to pay Rs.96/- as dead rent and -/4/- per ton or Rs.11- per thousand bricks as royalty. It is alleged that the petitioner paid Rs.584.86 NP. as royalty to the Mining Department on 14th September, 1961. The Tehsildar, Padampur on receipt of a complaint from one Rameshwarlal Gupta submitted his report on 7th October 1961, to the Collector, Ganganagar that the petitioner had put up his brick-kiln without permission and, therefore, appropriate action may be taken against him. The Collector on receipt of the said report directed the Tehsildar on 1st Nov , 1961 (Vide SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 23/106 Ex. 5, to attach the petitioner's brick-kiln and the bricks manufactured by him which may be lying at the spot. In pursuance to this order of the Collector, the Tehsildar attached the petitioner's kiln as well as the bricks.
Representations were, however, made against this alleged illegal attachment to the Collector whereupon the Collector, by his order dated 31st January, 1962, allowed the petitioner to bake his Katcha bricks and on 30th of July, 1962, the bricks were ordered to be released from attachment provided the petitioner furnished security to the extent of the value of the bricks so that the Government may forfeit the security amount if the attachment of the bricks was declared to be legal by the authorities. It may, however, be mentioned here that the lease granted to the petitioner by the Mining department meanwhile expired and he obtained another lease and a fresh permission from the department concerned to manufacture the bricks upto 31st March, 1963.
13.1 The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Chand Mal Lodha (who lateron adorned the office of Chief Justice of this Court) as contained in para 8 of the said judgment were as follows:-
"8. The main contention of Mr. Lodha is that the petitioner had obtained mining lease from the mining department under the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 24/106 Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for quarrying the brick earth from the area leased out to him and prepare bricks therefrom by erecting a brick-kiln in that area and this right of the petitioner cannot be curtailed or interfered with by any other authority except the one mentioned in the said Rules. He also contends that the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Brick Kiln Leases in Non- Project Areas) Conditions 1960 (for the sake of brevity to be referred hereinafter as the statement of Conditions of 1960) is ultra vires of Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act under which they have been framed and that by framing such conditions the State Government could not empower the Collector to interfere with the petitioner's rights created under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Mr. Raj Narain, on the other hand, urged that the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules have nothing to do with the permission for constructing the brick-kiln and, therefore, the petitioner cannot trace any right to erect a brick kiln from the provisions of these Rules. In the alternative,, it was also urged that even if the permission for construction of a kiln could be granted by the Mining Engineer under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the statement of Conditions of 1960, which is a special law relating to the construction of a brick kiln shall prevail over the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules as the former deals with the grant of a mining lease of a minor mineral while the latter makes provision for the allotment of land for the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 25/106 purposes of constructing the brick kiln and it has nothing to do with the grant of a lease for a minor mineral and, therefore, the kiln can be constructed only after obtaining permission from the Collector."
13.2 Explaining the Scheme of MMCR, 1959 with reference to the Mines & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Division Bench in Shiv Chand Goyal's case (supra) in para 10 observed as under:-
"10. Under the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State Government has been empowered to make rules for regulating the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Section 19 of this Act says that any mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. This overriding provision of this Act makes it abundantly clear that a mining lease can be granted by the State Government or the officers authorised under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules only in accordance with the provisions of the rules made Under Section 15 of that Article The scheme of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 shows that the leases in respect of the minor minerals in the State SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 26/106 can be granted by Government or by the officers of the Mining Department who have been empowered in that behalf by the Government by virtue of Schedule III annexed to the said rules. These rules lay down exhaustive provisions for governing the rights created under the mining leases granted under Chapter II thereof They also deal at length with the procedure for the grant of the mining lease and also for dealing with the delinquent lessee who is found guilty for not complying with the terms of the lease. The rules also prescribe the rate of royalty and the dead rent and the maximum area which can be leased out under these provisions. Reading the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1959 along with Section 19 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, it becomes quite clear to us that the development of a minor mineral in the State is the concern of the Mines and Geological Department of the State. It is either the Government or the officers of this department, who have been empowered under Schedule III to these rules who can grant the mining leases in respect of the minor minerals under these rules. No other authority except the officers of the mining department or the Government can create rights by giving mining lease to a citizen of India.
13.3 Simultaneously, the applicability of Conditions of 1960 was examined in the following perspective in para 12 to 14 as under:-
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 27/106 "12. Before we examine the provisions of the Statement of Conditions of 1960, we feel it necessary to mention that it is implicit in the lease granted by the mining department for exploiting the brick earth that the lessee in order to manufacture the bricks from the brick earth which is undoubtedly a minor mineral can construct a kiln to bake the bricks without which it is difficult for him to put his product for a commercial use. In these circumstances, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of Mr. Raj Narain that construction of a brick kiln for manufacturing the bricks from the brick earth is a separate matter and cannot be covered by the grant of a mining lease under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It is inconceivable that a person who has been granted a lease under the provisions of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules to quarry the brick earth has no right to construct the kiln to utilize the mineral for the purpose for which the lease was given to him, and he shall be required to rush to the Collector of the District to obtain permission for that purpose. It has not been urged by Mr. Rajnarain that the brick earth can be used for any other purpose except for manufacturing the bricks. If this contention of learned Deputy Govt.
Advocate that under a lease granted for quarrying the brick earth the lessee is not empowered to construct a kiln to bake his bricks is accepted, then the very SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 28/106 purpose for which the mining lease is granted will get frustrated, and the lessee shall be able to achieve his purpose of getting a mining lease under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules only when the Collector had put his seal on it by permitting, the construction of a kiln on the land leased out to him under the mining lease. In such circumstances, we cannot but hold that the permission to construct a kiln on the area leased out by the mining department is implicit in the lease itself.
13. We now come to the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Brick Kiln Leases in Non-Project Areas) Conditions, 1960. These Statements of Conditions of 1960 were framed and published by the Rajasthan Government in the exercise of their power conferred by Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Before we examine the true scope of the Statement of these Conditions, we feel it necessary to have a look at the provision of the law under which they have been made by the Government. Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, reads as follow
-
"Notwithstanding anything hereinfore contained, the State Government shall have power to allot land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as it deems fit."
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 29/106
14. No doubt, this provision of law gives power to the Government to prescribe conditions for the allotment of land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility. But the contention of Mr. Lodha is that even if the purpose for constructing a brick-kiln is taken to be a purpose for an industry or for any purpose of public utility, the impugned conditions prescribed by the State Government do not really relate to the allotment of land or the grant of lease for the purpose of the construction of the brick kiln but they really deal with the grant of the leases for exploiting the minor mineral,(important distinction) namely, the brick earth and this being contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1957, the Conditions should be declared as illegal and it should be taken that they do not confer any power on the Collector for the grant of the leases for the construction of brick kiln on the land belonging to the Government. Our attention has been drawn in this connection to clause 10 of the Conditions which prescribes premium, rent and royalty and water charges payable by the lessee to the Government. Under this clause the Government is entitled to realise from the lessee the annual rent of Rs.30/- per bigha and a royalty at the rate of Rs.1/- per 1000 bricks. It has also been provided in these Conditions that if the land is allotted for the purposes of constructing the brick kiln by the Collector of the District, then such a lease shall be subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in Form SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 30/106 C annexed to these Statements of Conditions.
13.4 The conclusions of the Court examining both the comparative laws are contained in para 15 to 19 of the judgment, which are also quoted below for ready reference:-
"15. In order to find out the real nature of the lease, under these conditions we have to examine the terms of the lease prescribed under the Statement of Conditions itself. The relevant portion of cl. 2 of Form C is in the following form:
"2. Lessee's rights to get earth and make bricks-The following liberties are included in the said demise- (1) To get from the said land earth, clay and other materials to be used in the manufacture of bricks and to manufacture the same into bricks on any part of the said land and to sell and dispose of the bricks so manufactured............." (This was the domain of Mining Department) Cl. 10 of the Statement of Conditions further provides that a lessee shall have to pay (1) a premium which shall be equal to the highest did offered at a public auction, (ii) annual rent of Rs.30/- per bigha, (iii) royalty at the rate of Rs.1/-per 1000 bricks and (iv) water charges at the rate of 20 NP per 1000 bricks, SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 31/106
16. These provisions contained in these statement of Conditions irresistibly lead us to the conclusion that these Conditions have not been prescribed by the Government for the allotment of land for the construction of brick kiln, but they are in the form of a lease of the land permitting the lessse to take the earth,, clay and other materials which are used for the manufacture of bricks and for that purpose the rate of royalty prescribed is not for the construction of the brick kiln but for the preparation of the bricks, and it is calculated on the basis of the amount of the quantity of bricks manufactured by the lessee. It will were' even and to note here that under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules the royalty prescribed for the brick earth also tallies with the rate of royalty that has been prescribed under the statement of Conditions of 1960. These factors lead no room for doubt that in the garb of prescribing the conditions for granting permission or lease for the construction of brick kiln, the Government have authorised the Collectors of the Districts to virtually grant the mining leases in respect of the minor mineral used for the manufacture of the bricks.
17. Looking to the scheme of Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, we cannot but hold that this power of granting the lease for a minor mineral cannot be delegated by prescribing such statement SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 32/106 of Conditions to the Collector. As observed above, the grant of a mining lease is a concern of the Government or the officers of the Mines and Geological Department as specified in Schedule III and that a mining lease can be granted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and under no other law as Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, is a clear bar for the grant of a mining lease in any other manner except under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules made under the provisions of that Act. It has been clearly laid down in Section 19 of the said Act that any mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of that Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. We feel that in view of such a specific provision of the Central Act, it is not open to the Government to Create a parallel authority for granting the mining lease of the brick earth which has been clearly declared as a minor mineral by the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. In this view of the matter, we are definitely of opinion that the purpose for which the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Brick Kiln Leases in Non- Project Areas) Conditions, 1960 have been prescribed by the Government runs counter to the object and the scope of Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The impugned Conditions of 1960 are also illegal as they are repugnant to the provisions of Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 33/106 Development) Act, 1957. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the Statement of Conditions of 1960 cannot confer any power on the Collector to interfere with the working of the leases in respect of the brick earth validly granted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is quite legitimate that he cannot be restrained by any other authority except the authority created by the Minor Mineral Concession Rules in carrying out the mining operations under the lease granted to him by a competent authority.
18. In view of these discussions, we hold that the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Brick Kiln Leases in Non- Project Areas) Conditions, 1960 are ultra vires of the provisions of Section 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and are, therefore, illegal, and the Collector had no authority under these conditions to restrain the petitioner to prepare the bricks in the area leased out to him under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959.
19. The writ application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the Collector, Ganganagar, on 1-11-1961 is hereby set aside. Petitioner shall get his costs from the contesting respondents.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 34/106
14. From the above, it can be seen that the effort of the Revenue Department to grant lease hold rights to the persons even to excavate brick earth, who had already obtained mining leases and demanding at the same time lease rent for the said allotment or grant of lease, where the Mining Department had already granted the mining leases for excavation of brick earth, a minor mineral, the Court held that these two parallel lease giving same rights to the petitioners were illegal and subsequent Notifications demanding lease charges by the Revenue Department under the Conditions of 1960 were ultra vires the provisions of Section 102 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and hence quashed the same while declaring the Conditions of 1960 as ultra vires.
15. It appears that the controversy and conflict between the two Departments qua brick kiln owners in the northern part of the State did not die down even with the replacement of Conditions of 1960 with the new Conditions of 1966 and also the new MMCR of 1977 replacing the old MMCR of 1959 and upon reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court made on 2/2/1982, the Full Bench of this Court again considered the validity of Rajasthan Colonization Project Area Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 and Rule 4 (3) of the MMCR, 1977 and in the said Full Bench reference decided on SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 35/106 22/2/1993 in the case of Mohd. Bux vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Hon'ble Justice A.K.Mathur (who later on adorned the seat of Hon'ble Apex Court as well) writing the said judgment for the Full Bench discussed the matter in the following manner. The four questions referred by the learned Single Judge were as under:-
"1. This matter has been referred to this Full Bench by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on account of the reference made by the learned single Judge by his order dated 2-2-1982, whereby the learned single Judge has referred the following four questions for consideration of the Full Bench, which read as under :--
"I. Whether under the Rules of 1977 in the lease of brick-earth, establishment of brickkiln is also implied and if so whether subject matter of allotment of sites for establishment of brick-kilns is covered by the Rules of 1977?"
"2. Whether the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Lease) Conditions, 1966 only deal with the allotment of sites for the establishment of brick- kiln, a subject covered by Entry 18 of the List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution and as such are valid?"
3. Whether the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (lease) Conditions, 1966 are beyond the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 36/106 authority of the State Government and as such are ultra vires of its powers?
4. Whether the view of this Court in Shivchand Goyal v. State of Rajasthan 1967 Raj LW 30, that in the lease of brick earth granted under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 framed under Section 15 of the Minor and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 the establishment of brick-kiln is implied is not good law, and if so whether establishment of brick- kiln is a subject not covered by Entry No. 54 of the List I (Union List) of Schedule VII of the Constitution and is covered by Entry 18 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution and as such the conditions of 1966 are valid?"
15.1 The background of challenge made to Rule 4(3) of the MMCR, 1977, which required NOC from the Colonization Commissioner, which according to the petitioners was in conflict with the other provisions of the MMCR, 1977 and the aforesaid two previous decisions of this Court, the Full Bench narrated the background of the case in para 3 and 4 as under:-
"3. The petitioners Mohd. Bux & Ahmed Bux filed a writ petition praying that Rule 4(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 may be SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 37/106 declared unconstitutional and void and be struck down and the Mining Engineer, Bikaner may be directed to proceed with the petitioner's application for grant of the. mining lease without a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Colonisation Commissioner and he may be directed to ignore Rule 4(3) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977.
4. The petitioners and their, father are manufacturers of bricks in Bikaner. The petitioners' father had a mining lease under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 for excavating the brick-earth for manufacturing the bricks for the period from 7-2-1973 to 6-2-1978. Before the expiry of this lease, the State Government framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1977') in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. These Rules superseded the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 provides that no lease shall be granted or renewed in any area which is a colony within the meaning of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954') unless the applicant produces a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Colonisation Commissioner under the said Act. Prior to the framing of the Rules of 1977, the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S. SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 38/106 28 read with sub-sees. (1) and (2) of the Act of 1954 prescribed conditions named as the Rajasthan Colonization Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions 1966 (hereinafter called as 'the Conditions of 1966'). Under the Conditions of 1966 the brick kilns can be established on a lease granted by the Collector by a public auction. Condition 4 provides for reservation of lands for this purpose. Conditions 6, 7, 8 and 9 provide the procedure for the auction and grant of the lease. Condition 12 provides that immediately on the grant of a lease by the Collector under Condition 10 the Collector shall inform the Mining Department and on receipt of such information from the Collector, the Mining Department shall issue a mining lease for the brick earth under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules valid for a period of lease granted by the Collector. According to these Conditions of 1966 the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation who was conferred with the power of the Collector by the State Government under the Act of 1954 issued a notice dated 29-4-1980 for auctioning certain brick kilns and the petitioners being the highest bidders the auction was knocked down in their favour. The petitioners were asked to deposit 1/4th of the bid amount immediately which the petitioners did on 14-7-1980. The remaining amount was asked to be deposited by the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation on 2-8-1980. But the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation did not intimate the Mining Department for grant of lease despite that he SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 39/106 accepted full payment of the auction bid from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner to intimate the Mining Department to grant lease in favour of the petitioners but they were informed that the Commissioner Colonisation has directed to re- auction the plots as per the Conditions. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner Colonisation by the order dated 13-1-1981 finally refused to send intimation to the Mining Department for granting the lease. The Deputy Commissioner Colonisation issued another notice for holding fresh auction. Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977.
15.2 The reasons of reference by the learned Single Judge was noted in the following terms by the Full Bench in para 5 of the said judgment.
"5. In this context, when the matter was argued before the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge felt that in view of the amendment in the definition of land as defined under Section 2(v) read with Section 7(1) of the Act of 1954, the matter requires reconsideration. He also felt that the Rules of 1977 do not include permission to establish brick kilns for manufacture of bricks.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 40/106 15.3 The legislative history of three MMCR of 1959, 1977 and 1986 were narrated in para 9 and 10 in the following terms:
"9. As per the definition of minor minerals the ordinary sand which is being used for manufacture of bricks is a minor mineral and, therefore, the State Government is competent to regulate its development by framing the rules in the purported exercise of power conferred on the State Government by virtue of Section 15 of the Act of 1957. In the purported exercise of this power the State Government first framed the rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. These rules were subsequently superseded by another rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1977 and again now the State Government has framed the rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Since we are concerned in the present matter with the Rules of 1977, therefore, we will refer to the provisions of the Rules of 1977 to answer the questions referred to us by this reference.
10. Under the Rules of 1977 the power to grant mining lease has been conferred on the authorities mentioned in the Schedule appended to these rules. Therefore, the power to grant licence/ lease has been SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 41/106 conferred by the State Government on the authorities mentioned in these rules.
15.4 The Full Bench found that Rule 4(3) of MMCR, 1977 as well as certain provisions of Conditions of 1966 were ultra vires and the reasons given by the Full Bench in para 15 to 17 were as under:-
"15. In the purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28 read with Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7, the State Government framed the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Conditions of 1966'). These conditions govern the grant of leases for brick kilns in the colony area.
Condition 4 lays down the reservation of areas for establishment of brick kilns. By virtue of Condition 4 the Collector shall order the reservation of areas for the establishment of brick kilns in mandis, villages and chak abadis, after examining the requirements of the local people, soils, etc., and the khatedari or other occupied lands including abadi areas. It further provides that this reservation shall be made by the Collector after consulting and obtaining a certificate from the Director of Mines or his nominee with regard to the suitability of the soil of the area to be reserve for brick kiln or kilns. Then, Condition 5 deals with the demarcation of plots for each brick kiln which SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 42/106 shall not exceed ten bighas. Condition 6 deals with the allotment which shall be leased out to the public by auction for a period not exceeding 10 years at a time. Condition 7 deals with auction notice. Condition 8 deals with the description of the plots and Condition 9 deal with rent. Condition 10 deals with the period and Condition 11 lays down certain obligations of lessee. Condition 12 deals with grant of mining lease. Condition 12 of the Conditions of 1966 reads as under :--
"12. Grant of mining lease.--Immediately on grant of a lease by the Collector under Condition No. 10, the Collector shall inform the Mining Department and on receipt of such intimation from the Collector, the Mining Department shall issue a mining lease for bricks earth under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, valid for the period of the lease granted by the Collector."
16. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 were framed by the State Government in the purported exercise of power conferred by Section 15 of the Act of 1957. Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 prescribes restriction on grant of mining lease. The Rules of 1977 lays down a detailed procedure for grant of the mining leases and the authorities competent to issue such leases. Chapter II deals with the grant of mining lease and we are only concerned with Rule 4(3) SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 43/106 of the Rules of 1977 in the present case and as to how the mining lease shall be granted of a mineral which lies in the colony area.
17. Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 reads as under: --
"(3) No mining lease shall be granted or renewed in any area which is a colony within the meaning of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 unless the applicant produces a no objection certificate from the Colonization Commissioner under the said Act."
15.5 Thereafter, discussing the previous judicial precedent in the case of Leeladhar vs. State of Rajasthan, the Full Bench held that condition nos. 6. 7, 9 , 10, 11 and 12 of Conditions of 1966 were ultra vires and at the same time Rule 4(3) of the MMCR, 1977 was also ultra vires. The relevant conclusions of the Court contained in para 20, 22, 27 and 28 are as under:-
"20. In this back-ground we have to examine the whole issue involved in the present case. The crux of the matter is that when a power to grant the mining leases has been delegated by the State Government under the Rules of 1977 on the Mining Engineer then how can the Commissioner Colonization or the Collector under the Act of 1954 interfere with this power SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 44/106 of grant, revocation and renewal of the mining leases of minerals in the State.
22. As a result of this the Rajasthan Colonization Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1959 issued by the Government of Rajasthan by the Notification No. F. 6 (123) Rev. B/56, dated the 21st March, 1959 were declared ultra vires. Then, again the Government has framed the Rajasthan Colonization Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966, notwithstanding the fact that the same were already struck down by the Division Bench of this Court.
27. Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 puts an embargo on the power of the mining department for granting leases as the applicant has to obtain a no objection certificate from the Commissioner Colonization. This embargo has been put for the reason that according to the Conditions of 1966, as the land in question falls in the colony area, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1954 are applicable and likewise the conditions which have been framed under the Act of 1954, which lay down the procedure for grant of leases of brick kilns.
28. We have bestowed our best of the consideration to both the provisions, one thing is clear that the minor minerals are regulated by the Act of 1957 and under the delegated authority under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, the Rules of 1977 were framed by the State and SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 45/106 that will hold the field rather than any other provisions of the Act or the Rules. If any other provisions of the Act or the Rules are contrary to that then they will be ultra vires. Therefore, we have to see as to what extent the Rules of 1977 and the Conditions of 1966 can hold the field and to what extent they run counter to each other. Chapter II of the Rules of 1977 lays down the grant of mining lease. The grant of a mining lease shall be governed by Chapter II and the procedure given in Chapter II has to be followed. Therefore, the Conditions of 1966 cannot hold the field and the Conditions to that extent are ultra vires. But to what extent they can be said to be ultra vires. So far as the legislative competence of the State Government for framing these Conditions under the Act of 1954 is concerned, the same is not disputed. But the question is that the grant of leases can be governed by these conditions or not. Our considered opinion is in negative. The grant of mining leases shall be governed by the Rules of 1977 as the same being mineral. Now, the question is whether Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 is necessary or not. All the minerals vest in the State Government and the areas have to be earmarked for mineral operations. Under S. 102 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956; also a power has been conferred on the Government for allotment of land for the purposes other than agriculture. This power has been delegated to the Collector of the concerned area. Therefore, the Collector has to ear-mark the land for SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 46/106 the mining purposes. This land falls in the colony area and therefore some competent authority has to ear-mark the land for purposes other than agriculture. Therefore, a necessity arose for framing the Conditions of 1966 for the purpose of granting leases for brick kilns. Condition 4 provides reservation of areas for establishment of brick kilns. Conditions lays down the demarcation of plots. To this extent we can understand that the authorities under the Act of 1954 can legitimately act as this land falls in the colony area and under that a power has been delegated by the State Government to certain authorities like Collector or Commissioner Colonization, as the case may be. Therefore, to this extent Condition 4 does not run contrary to the Rules of 1977 and likewise Condition 5 of demarcation of plots. Condition 8 lays down the description of the plots. These conditions cannot be said to be ultra vires of the Rules of 1977 and they can legitimately hold the field. But rest of the conditions regarding procedure for allotment contained in Condition 6, Condition 7 regarding auction notice, Condition 9 relating to rent, Condition 10 relating to lease period, Condition 11 of obligations of lessees and Condition 12 for grant of mining lease by the Mining Department which have been made conditional to the order of the Collector cannot be said to be valid. Therefore, the moment the Collector reserves the land and demarcate the plots and gives the description of the plots for grant of mining leases to this extent the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 47/106 action of the Collector can be justified under the Conditions of 1966 but beyond that he has no authority and he cannot direct the mining department as to what they should do and how they will grant the leases. He has authority only to the extent of allotting the area for mining operations and after that the procedure that will govern the grant is that of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules and thereafter he has no business to interfere in the grant of leases or otherwise. Therefore, both these the Rules of 1977 and the Conditions of 1966 have to be read together to the extent, they are not inconsistent. Thus we are of the opinion that the Collector or the Colonisation Commissioner can ear-mark the area for establishment of brick kilns in the colony area and demarcate the plots but thereafter the authorities under the Rules of 1977 shall come into picture and they will grant the mining leases in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1977. Therefore, we hold that the Conditions of 1966 are only valid to the extent the Collector or the Commissioner Colonisation ear-marks the area for establishment of brick kilns and demarcate them into plots. Rest of the conditions are contrary to the Rules of 1977 and they are struck down i.e. Conditions Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. They are contrary to the Rules of 1977 as such they are ultra vires.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 48/106 Here, let us have a look at the aforesaid struck down conditions No.6,7,9,10,11 & 12 of The Rajasthan Colonization Project Area Brick Kiln (Leasels) Conditions, 1966:
"6. Allotment - (1) The plots so demarcated shall be leased to the public by auction for period not exceeding ten years at a time.
(2) Plots may be reserved for Government departments for running brick manufacturing kilns for the use of the department concerned, on payment of the prescribed lease money. The departments will have to work such kilns departmentally.
(3) Plots for brick kilns may be given to co-operative Societies for a period not exceeding ten years on a rent of rupees forty per Bigha per annum.
7.Auction notice - (a) The Collector shall issue a notice of the intended auction in the form given in Annexture 1.
(b) The notice shall be published for general information in the official Gazette, or by beat of drum in the area concerned, or in any manner considered suitable by the Collector. A copy of such notice shall also be pasted on the notice board of the office of the Collector.
9. Rent - Immediately after a lease is sanctioned by the Collector, the lessee shall deposit the amount of the bid SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 49/106 given at the auction. The Government departments shall deposit the lease money at the rate of rupees twenty per annum per plot. The Co-operative Societies shall deposit the amount of rent at the rate mentioned in clause (3) of Condition No. 6.
10. Period - The lease shall be granted for such period as the Collector may fix, not exceeding ten years at a time.
{Provided that the Collector may extend the period of lease for a period not exceeding five years at a time on payment of proportionate amount of the bid as originally sanctioned increased by 25%.
11. Obligation of lessee. - (1) The lessee shall execute agreements in the form given in Annexure 11 and there by covenant with the Government -
(a) not to excavate brick making clay or earth or start any mining operations, or prepare any bricks, without first obtaining a mining lease under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, from the Mining Department.
(b) to pay to, or on behalf of the Government the rent or any other payments which may become due under the lease, at the proper time and place, in such manner as may be prescribed by law or fixed by order of a competent authority.
(c) to agree to use the whole or any part of the land only for the purpose for which the lease is granted, SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 50/106 namely, making of a brick kiln, and not to use it in any other manner likely to lessen its value, or erect any permanent structure thereon not connected with the purposes for which the lease is granted;
(d) to erect or construct permanent marks demarcating correctly the boundaries and limits of the land and at all time to maintain the same in good repair in accordance with any directions issued in that behalf by the Collector from time to time;
(e) not to do, or suffer to be done, any act inconsistent with, or injurious to any of the rights hereby excepted and reserved to the Government or any other person, and in particular to permit without let or hinderance all officers or servants of Government, or other persons duly authorised by the Government in this behalf, to enter upon the land, at all times and to do all acts and things necessary for or incedental thereto; and for
(i) the purpose of enforcing compliance with any of the terms of lease; and
(ii) any purpose connected with the full enjoyment, discovery and use of the mineral or other rights reserved to Government without any claim to compensation, whether by way of remission of rent otherwise, except as may be specifically provided:
(f) not to interfer with the lawful use by the public of the existing rights and easements thereon by any third person: and SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 51/106
(g) not to assign, sublet or transfer, by mortgage or otherwise, or part with the land or any part thereof without the permission in writing of the Government. (2) The lessee or any other person holding the land or any part thereof shall bind himself that if he commits breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, or fails to perform any of the conditions of lease, or suffers, or permits such breach or non-performance, the Collector shall, at any time, after giving him a notice of thirty days and an opportunity to appear and state his objections, be entitled to determine the lease and re-enter on the land, and, if necessary, require the lessee or such other person to pull down and remove any buildings, structures or constructions made on the site or material lying thereon, within a period of specified by the Collector after the determination of the lease and on his failure to do so, the Collector shall be free to cause the same to be removed at the expenses of the lessee or such other person or to fix and pay reasonable compensation for the same after deducting any amount that may be found due from him on the date of such payment and the cost incurred in the removal of structures, whereupon such buildings and material etc. shall absolutely vest in the Government.
12. Grant of mining lease. - Immediately on grant of a lease by the Collector under Condition No.10, the Collector shall inform the Mining Department and on receipt of such intimation from the Collector, the Mining SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 52/106 Department shall issue a mining lease for brick earth under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, valid for the period of lease granted by the Collector."
15.6 While striking down the aforesaid some Conditions of 1966 and also Rule 4(3) of MMCR, 1977, the Court answered the aforesaid four questions in the following terms:
"29. Likewise, Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 lays down that before granting or renewing any mining lease the applicant shall produce a no objection certificate from the Commissioner Colonisation under the Act, This rule is also invalid and ultra vires because it makes the grant dependent on an authority created under the Colonisation Act of 1954, which has no power under the Rules of 1977 framed under Section 15 of the Act of 1957.
30. The learned single Judge has also made a reference to Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. Entry 18 has already been reproduced above. Entry 18 does not cover the minerals. When there is a specific entry which covers the minerals then that will govern it and it ii wrong to say that the entry which covers land which includes rights over the land will include mineral also. In fact, Entry 18 gives a power SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 53/106 to the State Government to legislate regarding land rights in or over the land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, collection of rents, transfer and alienation of agricultural land, land improvement and agricultural loans and colonization. This entry by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an entry relating to minor minerals. All the rights over or in the land undoubtedly vest in the State Government but for the distribution of management of the land a proper division of powers has been made and so far as Entry 18 is concerned it relates to land tenure which is evident from the entry itself and it includes land tenure etc. as mentioned above. But it does not include the minerals as mentioned in Entry 54 of List I of Seventh Schedule, which clearly lays down that the regulation of minerals development to the extent to which such regulation and development shall be under the control of the Union and as is declared by the Parliament by law from time to time in the public interest. Therefore, under the Constitution primarily the regulation and development of the minerals has been reserved for the Union of India and a power has been given to the Parliament to declare the law and for control and management of the minerals the Parliament has framed the Central Law i.e. Minor Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and in that Section 15 has conferred a power on the State Government to manage and control the minor minerals and other minerals as is given under the Act SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 54/106 by notifications from time to time. Therefore, Entry 18, List II of the Seventh Schedule will not confer any power on the State Government to frame the Conditions of 1966 for regulating the grant of leases for mining operations.
31. As a up-shot of the above discussion, we answer the questions framed by the learned single Judge as follows : --
Question No. 1:
We answer that the area for establishment of brick kilns shall be made available by the Commissioner/ Collector/ Colonisation and the allotment of leases shall made by the Mining Department under the Rules of 1977. Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1977 is ultra vires.
Question No. 2:
The Conditions Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 are ultra vires and they are struck down. Entry 18 of List II of Seventh Schedule does not cover the minerals.
Question No. 3:
The Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 are beyond the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 55/106 authority/competence of the State Government to the extent of grant of mining leases.
Question No. 4:
The law laid down in Shivchand Goyal's case (1967 Raj LW 30) is good law and the establishment of brick kiln is covered by Entry 54 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and not by Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the Conditions of 1966 are ultra vires beyond the ear- marking of the area for establishment of brick kilns.
16. On 18th July, 2000, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Seator Kiln Company - 2002 (10) SCC 253 by a short order held that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of High Court had fallen into error in following the Full Bench decision in the case of Mohd. Bux's case (supra) that even where the khatedari agricultural lands were sought to be used for non-agricultural purposes and amendment in the Conditions of 1966 by inserting two conditions, namely condition no. 19, 20 and 21 w.e.f. 30/4/1988 was not the subject matter of judicial review by Full Bench and, therefore, that judgment did not apply to these amended provisions and, thus, in the light of amended provisions, the matter SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 56/106 deserves to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge. This being a short order of 5 paras, it is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"1. The question that arises in this batch of civil appeals is: whether the subject-matter of writ petition filed by the respondent is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Mohd. Bux v. State of Rajasthan1.
2. Conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes in the State of Rajasthan is governed by the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Area Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 (for short "the 1966 Rules") and granting of mining lease is governed by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (framed under the Central Act) (for short "the 1977 Rules"). The respondents in these appeals were allotted plots of conversion of the agricultural lands into plots for the purpose of kiln. They paid certain amounts as conversion fee under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Concession of Agricultural into Non-Agricultural Land) Rules, 1961. The State of Rajasthan amended the 1966 Rules and added Part C on 30-4-1988. Pursuant to the said amendment fresh demands were raised against the respondents who challenged the amended Rules as well as the demand raised against him. The learned Single Judge SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 57/106 before whom the writ petition came up for hearing proceeded on the ground that the subject-matter of the writ petition was covered by the decision of the Full Bench, referred to above, and accordingly allowed the writ petitions by quashing the demands. The State of Rajasthan carried the matters in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the orders of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench having found that the appeals are barred by limitation by 75 days and also observing that on merit the subject- matter was covered by the Full Bench of the High Court in the case referred to above, dismissed the writ appeals by orders dated 18-5-1994, 19-5-1994 and 22- 2-1993. It is the validity of those orders that are assailed in the appeals by special leave.
3. Heard Mrs Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan as well as Mr Sushil Kumar Jain and Mr Manoj Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. We have perused the judgment of the Full Bench. The Full Bench pronounced upon the validity of Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the 1966 Rules, which deal with the procedure for allotment of lease. The validity of Conditions 19 and 20 which were inserted by Notification dated 30-4-1988 was not before the Full Bench. Therefore, it could not be said that the said conditions have been held to be bad. It is no doubt true that while summarising the discussion in para 31 under Question 3, it is stated that SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 58/106 the Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 are beyond the authority/competence of the State Government but it is qualified by the clause to the extent of grant of mining lease which refers to the conditions mentioned above and they do not cover Conditions 19 and 20. The Division Bench also fell into the same error in confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. White setting aside the judgments under appeal we find it appropriate to remand the matters to the learned Single Judge, after restoring the writ petitions to the file of the High Court, to be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. That after such remand also, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Hari Ram & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.
- SBCWP No. 7130/1985 decided on 10/12/2000, by Hon'ble Dr.Justice B.S.Chuahan (presently Hon'ble Judge of Apex Court, as His Lordship then was) even held that the case was not placed before the Supreme Court in the case of Seator Kiln Company in correct perspective and the condition No.10 which stood amended with a proviso added thereto, the impugned demand was hit by the decision of Full Bench in the case of Mohd. Bux and condition No. 10 SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 59/106 already stood struck down in Mohd. Bux case (supra), therefore, the writ petition was allowed in the following terms:
"Heard Shri M.L.Garg, for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari for the respondents. This matter has been remanded back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 18th July, 2000 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of a large number of cases by the common order and held that the said cases were not covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Mohd. Bux v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1993 Raj. 21, wherein several conditions including conditions no. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Rajasthan Colonization Project Are Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 have been declared ultra vires to the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.
So far as this case is concerned, it appears that the case has not been placed in correct perspective before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The impugned order dated 7.6.1985 (Annex.3) puts a demand of money on the basis of order dated 20th August, 1979 by which the condition No. 10 stood amended and a proviso was added to it. For the reason that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mohd. Bux (supra) had already declared the condition No.10 ultra vires and unconstitutional, the question of raising any demand in pursuance of the said provision or proviso to that provision cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 60/106 As this case stands fully covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Mohd. Bux (supra), the petition succeeds and is allowed and the demand is hereby quashed. No order as to costs."
18. Recently, another coordinate bench of this Court in Lok Hitkarni Chimni Bhatta Sahakari Samit Ltd. vs. State & ors. -
SBCWP No. 6438/2008 decided on 10/11/2008 dealing with the controversy in a slightly different context as would appear by the facts narrated by the learned Single Judge himself held that the petition was not required to take any licence from the District Collector for establishment of Brick Kiln once he had taken the mining lease from the Mining Department but as far as pollution problem allegedly created by the brick kiln was concerned, the learned Collector could bring it to the notice of the Pollution Control Board for taking needful action against the petitioner. The relevant factual background and the opinion of the learned Single Judge are quoted below for ready reference:
"According to the facts of the case, the petitioner is carrying business of mining operations upon 19 bighas and 16 biswas of the lands in Sq. No. 37 as per mining patta Annexure-9 granted by the Mining Engineer. The said patta granted by the Mining SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 61/106 Engineer is valid upto 31.10.2008. According to the petitioner, the Collector, Hanumangarh issued a notice on 1.1.2003 to the petitioner alleging that the period of lease was not extended after 26.9.1995, therefore, mining operations carried out by the petitioner is in violation of Rajasthan Colonisation Project Areas Brick Kiln (Leases) Conditions, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conditions of 1966" only). In pursuance of the said notice dated 1.1.2003, the petitioner filed his reply to the Collector, Hanumangarh Annexure-36 in which it is pointed out that as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Mohd. Bux vs. State of Raj, reported in AIR 1993 Raj. 211, it has been held that Condition No. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Conditions of 1966 are ultra vires and those Conditions were declared invalid, therefore, as per Condition No. 10 of the Conditions of 1966, there is no requirement of any renewal of license. Further, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sriganganagar has granted lease in favour of the petitioner, which is valid upto 30.10.2008.
Therefore, the proceedings undertaken vide notice dated 1.1.2003 may be dropped. But, according to the petitioner without considering and ignoring the fact that Condition nos.6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Conditions of 1966 were declared illegal in case of Mohd. Bux (supra), the District Collector has passed the impugned order whereby he has directed the Tehsildar to recover SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 62/106 a sum of Rs.6,93,334/- and Rs.6,79,467/- and further directed that if any case is made out under Section 89 (7) and 91 of the Land Revenue Act and under Section 22 of the Colonization Act then he may file suit for that.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order passed by District Collector although on various grounds but basic ground is that proceedings were initiated by the District Collector under the Conditions of 1966 and after the judgment of this Court in case of Mohd. Bux (supra), there is no power left with the District Collector to initiate any proceedings, so also there is no question of getting any renewal under Condition No. 10 of the Conditions of 1966.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court was brought to the notice of the District Collector but District Collector although observed in the impugned order that there is judgment but the land is 'rakbaraj', therefore, lease is required to be cancelled.
The aforesaid judgment is still in existence. Further, the District Collector himself observed in the impugned order that certain conditions of the Conditions of 1966 were declared invalid but the impugned order has been passed by the District Collector for recovery on the ground that there is no extension of lease after 1995 SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 63/106 for the business of bricks kilns by the Collector, Hanumangarh and land was used by the petitioner - Samiti for the purpose of said business but in this case, the case of the petitioner is that they are holding a valid license issued by the Mining Department, which is valid upto 30.10.2008. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is having mining lease granted by the Mining Department, therefore, they are in lawful possession of the land, as such, the order which is passed by the District Collector for the recovery of the amount cannot be termed as a legal order because in the said order, it is observed by the District Collector that the petitioner is in illegal possession and utilizing the said land for the purpose of construction of bricks knowingly well that after judgment of Mohd. Bux's case (supra) Mining Department is having jurisdiction to make allotment of lease and there is no jurisdiction left with the Collector to make allotment of lease for brick kilns.
In my opinion, if it has come to the knowledge of the District Collector that the petitioner is not using the land for the purpose for which the petitioner - Samiti has been granted lease by the Mining Department, then, the District Collector was to make inquiry from the Mining Department whether any allotment of lease for establishment of brick kiln has been granted or not, thereafter in the event of non-grant of any lease for brick kiln by the Mining Department action was to be taken but in this case without ascertaining or informing SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 64/106 the Mining Department, the District Collector has straight away passed an order for recovery. Obviously, if land is not used by the petitioner - Samiti for the purpose of establishing brick kiln as per allotment of lease by the Mining Department, then, obviously it can be said that there was breach of conditions of license or lease issued by the Mining Department for which the Mining Department is competent to take action against the petitioner - Samiti after the judgment of Mohd. Bux's case (supra) by the Full Bench of this Court but admittedly the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh for recovery of dues for use of land for the purpose of production of bricks while installing kilns on the ground that there is no renewal of license for the said purpose by the Collector after 1995. In view of Mohd. Bux's judgment (supra), petitioner is not required to take any license from the District Collector for establishment of brick kiln but for pollution problem and other problems, if any action is required to be taken against the petitioner - Samiti then the District Collector is required to inform the Mining Department for not renewing or for cancellation of lease, if any, issued in favour of the petitioner - Samiti. But on the contrary without referring the matter to the Mining Department, the District Collector himself exercised the powers without any provision of law.
I have perused the impugned notice issued to the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 65/106 petitioner - Samiti on 1.1.2003 in which it is specifically stated that there is no renewal of lease after 1995. Therefore, without any extension you are pursuing business which is in contravention of the Conditions of 1966 but as per the judgment of Mohd. Bux's case (supra), no power is left with the District Collector to issue any lease for the purpose of bricks kilns business.
In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.8.2008 issued by the District Collector, Hanumangarh is in contravention of the judgment rendered by this Court in Mohd. Bux's case (supra) in which it has been specifically hold that the District Collector has no jurisdiction for allotment of lease for brick kiln and allotment of lease is required to be made by the Mining Department under the Rules of 1977 and not under the Conditions of 1966. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Collector is totally without jurisdiction."
19. Almost in a similar controversy as has obtained before this Court in the present batch of writ petitions, the Karnataka High Court in Chikkusappa vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. - 2006 (3) Kar.L.J. 64, it was held that the Divisional Commissioner of the Revenue Department under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 demanding conversion charges on the agricultural land SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 66/106 admittedly being used for mining operations for mining of the black granite and pink granite from the agricultural land was justified in requesting the Mining Department to withhold the mineral dispatch permit of the mining lease holder unless and until they get the land use converted and pay charges for such diversion of use from the agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes. Distinguishing the previous decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Veeramadhu & ors. vs. Deputy Commissioner - Writ Petition No. 4563/87 decided on 14/7/1987, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner with the following observations. First the factual matrix from the said judgment and then the conclusion part is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"3. Petitioners who extract the mineral, particularly, black granite or the pink granite from the quarries, after cutting boulders and rocks into requisite size, want to transport the same to a port wherefrom it is being exported to foreign countries. Such transportation is governed by Rule 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and necessary application for securing what is known as the mineral dispatch permit in Form MDP had been made by the petitioners. It is in the process of issue of such permits SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 67/106 that the petitioners have encountered hurdles and difficulties and the petitioners are complaining that they are being unnecessarily asked to run around made to go from pillar to post; that the respondents, particularly, the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology, the Deputy Director has not positively responded to their application and for issue of mineral dispatch permit, but purporting to place reliance on certain communication dated 7-12-2001 (copy at Annexure-H) said to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner of the District has withheld issue of mineral dispatch permits on the premise that he has been apprised by the Deputy Commissioner through the letter referred to above apprising that such applicants may be informed that they can get mineral dispatch permits only after securing permission in terms of the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), a permission where under the petitioners are allowed to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes also and that they have been asked to ensure with the same; that such mineral dispatch permits will be issued only after the authorities are satisfied that the petitioners are persons in possession of a permission in terms of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
4. The petitioners who are eager to transport the cut and sized boulders in either black granite or pink SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 68/106 granite were unable to transport it to the ports for export as the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology have not issued the mineral dispatch permits so far and it is in the context of such inaction on the part of the respondents that the petitioners have approached this Court contending that without any justification in law, the respondents have withheld issue of mineral dispatch permits; that it is not the business of the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology to either insist or apprise the petitioners that the petitioners are required to obtain permission in terms of provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; that once earlier such a controversy had arisen when in respect of very petitioners and some others also, the issue of transport permits were withheld for one reason or the other and particularly when the persons like the petitioners were told to seek for permits through the Tahsildar of the Taluk, such inaction on the part of the authorities had been made subject-matter of the decision in Writ Petition No. 4563 of 1987 and connected matters and this Court having categorically ruled that the respondents had no competence or jurisdiction to insist on the petitioners to obtain any transit permit in the present state of law, even if persons like the petitioners had not obtained requisite permission under Sections 95 and 96 of the Act; that the said ruling applies to the present cases also and automatically, this Court should issue a writ directing the respondents, to grant mineral SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 69/106 dispatch permits to the petitioners on the petitioners complying with such other requirements contemplated in law such as payment of royalty, fee towards demarcation of the area identified and earmarked for quarrying activity contemplated under Rule 17 of the Rules; that in fact, the petitioners are more than willing to comply with all other requirements under the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and they have already complied with the same; that in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4563 of 1987 and connected cases, wherein identical disputes having been decided in favour of the persons like the petitioners, the present inaction on the part of the respondents clearly attracts the scrutiny of this Court for issue of a suitable writ in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; that the respondents cannot by referring to the provisions of Section 95 of the Act postpone or decline the issue of mineral dispatch permits to persons like the petitioners; that they cannot be compelled to move the revenue authorities for issue of permission for diverting the lands to non-agricultural purpose as contemplated under Section 95(2) of the Act; that in fact, Section 95(2) of the Act is not even attracted, inasmuch as, there is no diversion at all, in the sense, that in the land where the petitioners are carrying on quarrying operations, the land had never been cultivated hitherto; that the terrain being one of rock and boulders, it is not possible to grow SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 70/106 anything nor had anything been grown on the land earlier and if so, there being no diversion or conversion of the user, in the sense, land for agricultural use being converted for non-agricultural use does not arise and therefore the inaction on the part of the authorities calls for issue of suitable writ.
61. The ruling of this Court in the case of Veeramadhu, if at all can be sought to be applied as a ruling which lays down a ratio amounting to determination and declaration of rights of the landowners like the pattadars in the old Mysore area vis-a-vis the minor mineral which exist in such lands. If there is a dispute or debate in the context of which question that arises is one of determination of the rights of such persons, the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Veeramadhu, undoubtedly constitutes a precedent and can be applied. But insofar as the argument that observations of the Court in the context of provisions of Section 95 of the Act is also a ratio in the case of Veeramadhu and therefore constitutes a precedent and has to be applied to the present situation and the present cases also and the present petitions are required to be disposed of in terms of directions issued by this Court in the case of Veeramadhu is concerned, I am afraid the arguments on the face of it fails and has to be rejected straightaway for the reason that this Court was not considering the scope and extent of applicability of the provisions SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 71/106 of Section 95 of the Act, in the context of issue of mineral dispatch permits as in the present cases. In fact either in the impugned notice and communication to the petitioners in the case of Veeramadhu or in any other communication, the provisions of Section 95 of the Act had been specifically referred to as a provision non- compliance of which had come in the way of the authorities. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 95 of the Act were incidentally called in aid by the learned Advocate General to defend the action of the respondents in causing interference vis-a-vis the rights of the petitioners to exploit minor minerals in their lands. The issue was the right of pattadars in patta lands in respect of minor minerals containing in such lands. The decision is on this issue and not on the scope, extent and applicability of Section 95 of the Act. At any rate, I am of the clear view that for understanding or interpreting the provisions of Section 95 of the Act, the decision of this Court in the case of Veeramadhu, neither lays down any ratio nor the decision has the status of a precedent in respect of such ratio nor was this Court even seized of the question of examining the provisions of Section 95 of the Act as such.
62. On the other hand, in the present batch of cases, the Deputy Commissioner who in fact is the Competent Authority under the provisions of Section 95 of the Act to accord permission for SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 72/106 conversion or diversion of the land for non-
agricultural purpose has forwarded the communication pointing out the very provision that the persons like the petitioners are required to comply with this provision whenever there is diversion of land from agricultural use to other use and if the officials of the department of mines and geology were to issue mineral dispatch permits, they were to, before issue of such permission, ensure compliance of requirement of statutory provisions of Section 95 of the Act.
66. It should be noticed that the provisions of Section 95 of the Act are regulatory provisions. It is not one to curtail or take away any of the rights of the petitioners, particularly in respect of the rights over the minor minerals which a pattadar has in his patta land, but a general regulatory provision which occurs in the Act governing agricultural land also known as lands assessed to land revenue. There is no dispute or doubt that even patta lands are lands assessed to land revenue and come within the scope of Section 95 of the Act. These are all lands assessed or held for the purpose agriculture and as contended by the learned Government Pleader, it is not necessary that the land in fact should have been actually being used for agricultural purpose in the sense it is being cultivated, but if it was so held for agricultural purpose SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 73/106 in the sense it had been assessed to land revenue earlier, then, if the owner intends to use the land for such other purpose as a non-agricultural purpose, the landowner is required to apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner who may on examination of the relevant rules and other statutory provisions, grant or refuse permission as the case may be. It is not only the case of the petitioners that it is not possible or impossible for them to obtain such permission, but the argument is that: (1) the provision is not applicable to in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Veeramadhu; (2) the respondents cannot insist on this; and (3) that it creates further misery, problem, inconvenience, and even hardship to the petitioners if they were driven to the plight of seeking permission from the revenue authorities.
69. With regard to the argument that it is not a diversion as no agricultural operations had been carried on the particular stretch of land hitherto and therefore there is no conversion or diversion, this argument also fails for the reason that it is not the requirement of Sub- section (2) of Section 95 of the Act that only when agricultural operation should have been carried on in the particular land, whereupon only it amounts to conversion, if on such stretch of land quarrying activity is started. The requirement is that if the land is held for agricultural use or assessed for agricultural SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 74/106 purpose, compliance with Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act is a must and an activity in the nature of quarrying granite or mining activity is undoubtedly a diversion from an agricultural activity. Therefore, Sub- section (2) of Section 95 of the Act is clearly attracted to the fact situation of the petitioners. If such is the fact situation, the requirement of law cannot be avoided; that the activity if is being carried on without compliance of this requirement of law, has been noticed by the authorities who administer such provision and if such statutory authorities bring to the notice of the other statutory authorities, who may be performing in other enactment such as Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, apprising them to ensure compliance, by persons like the petitioners, of the requirement of Section 95 of the Act, before issue of mineral dispatch permits, I do not think there is any violation of any law or statutory provisions or any objectionable conduct or act on the part of the authorities functioning under the Act. If on the other hand, a writ as sought for by the petitioners is to be issued by this Court, it only amounts that the respondents are compelled to act in a manner to give a go-bye to the statutory provisions or to overlook the requirement of law and to issue a permit of the nature of mineral dispatch permit, even when the authorities have reservation for issue of such permits due to non-compliance by the petitioners with such other statutory requirements which are SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 75/106 attracted to the situation. It is for this reason, I am of the view that the decision of this Court in the case of Veeramadhu is not a precedent which has to be applied to the present situation and petitions cannot be disposed of in terms of the said decision.
81. To sum up, a land classified for agricultural use in the revenue records under the provisions of the Act if is sought to be used by a person for mining operations and if such a person has applied for issue of a mineral dispatch permit under the provisions of Rule 42 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 and the authority to issue the permit at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner functioning under the provisions of the Act enquiries such a person as to whether the person had obtained permission for diversion of the user of the land to a non-agricultural purpose like the mining operation and insists that if the person has not already obtained the same, issue of mineral dispatch permit will be deferred pending obtaining such a permission, then I find there is nothing wrong either in the action of the authority functioning under the MMDR Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 in deferring the issue of mineral dispatch permit nor anything wrong in the communication by the Deputy Commissioner to such authority apprising him to insist on the obtaining of permission by such person and SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 76/106 therefore neither a writ of certiorari can be issued to quash the internal communication from the Deputy Commissioner to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology nor a writ of mandamus can be issued to the Deputy Director, Department of Mines and Geology to compel him to issue mineral dispatch permits even if the person who has sought for issue of the same had not obtained permission for diversion of the use of the land for non-agricultural purpose."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - (2008) 9 SCC 500 while repelling the challenge to the one time premium or conversion charges demanded for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 59 of the of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which provided for taking of one time premium upon variation of land revenue according to purpose for which land is used when the agricultural land was put to use for other purposes like industrial, commercial or even mining, upheld the demand of such one time premium, which was challenged on the ground of discriminatory and different slabs of one time premium city wise for the State of M.P. The Apex Court upheld the levy of premium for better land use under Rule 14 of the Code. The relevant portion of Section 59 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the contentions of both the parties and conclusion of the Apex Court in para 31 of the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 77/106 judgment are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"Section 59. Variation of land revenue according to purpose for which land is used.- (1) The assessment of land revenue on any land shall be made with reference to the use of land-
(a) for the purpose of agriculture or such farm house, which is situated on holding of one acre or more;
(b) as sites for dwelling houses;
(c) for purposes other than those specified in items (a),
(b), (d) or (e);
(d) for industrial or commercial purpose;
(e) for the purpose of mining under a mining lease within the meaning of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (No. 67 of 1957);
Provided that the assessment of land revenue on any land situated in the areas which are constituted as reserved or protected forests under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), with reference to use of land for any of the purposes aforesaid shall not be proceeded with or any procedure relating to the assessment to be followed under the relevant provisions of the Code shall not be commenced except on a certificate permitting the use of land issued by an officer of the Forest Department duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf;
7. Mr. A.K. Sanghi, the learned Counsel for the SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 78/106 appellants submitted that there are restrictions for not exceeding the rental value and assessment rates under Sections 81(4) & 81(6) and Rule 5(b) of Section 59, which are quoted above. Mr. Sanghi also submitted that the imposition of land revenue is guided by number of factors, principles, restraints which are not to be found while imposing premium under Section 59(5) or the impugned Rule 14. There are no guidelines or nexus either with Section 59 or the Code itself.
8. Mr. Sanghi further submitted that the impugned Rule 14 which imposed a flat rate of premium irrespective of the factors or considerations which go in imposing land revenue is in excess and violative of Section 59(5) and Section 258(2)(iii) of the Code. The premium which is sought to be levied cannot exceed the land revenue itself. The land revenue is the main object and purpose of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
9. Mr. Sanghi contended that the preamble of the Code says that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of the Revenue Officers, rights and liabilities of the holders of land from the State Government, agriculture tenures and other matters relating to land and the liabilities incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh. As such, the premium under Sub-section (5) to Section 59 which has been charged for diverting the land use from agricultural to non- agriculture is only a part of the land revenue and SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 79/106 is being charged by way of additional revenue.
10. According to Mr. Sanghi, the premium has to be less than the land revenue imposed on the diverted land. It cannot exceed the land revenue itself. According to him, in the present case, the premium sought to be imposed is about 100 times than the existing one and is admittedly more than the land revenue in most of the cases.
24. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that the factors that determine the land revenue of a particular parcel of land cannot be the determining factors for fixing the rates of premium to be imposed on conversion/diversion of the land for a different use. Learned State counsel submitted that the factors governing the imposition of premium are inherently different from those governing the assessment/determination of land revenue. This is so since the purpose and object of both the levies are inherently different in character. While the land revenue is a levy closely identifiable with the benefits arising out of occupation of land, premium is a charge on the benefit arising out of betterment of ones holding. The land revenue is of a recurrent nature which is required to determine in relation to a particular parcel of land and its actual value whereas premium is a one time charge, the basis of determination of which is the estimated value of benefit that is estimated to accrue SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 80/106 by virtue of a change in better land use. This basis is fortified by the existence of Rule 13 which prescribes that when any land assessed for any non- agricultural purpose is diverted to any agricultural purpose no premium shall be imposed under Section 59(5). Similarly, Rule 15 prescribes that upon re-diversion of land from other uses to agricultural, although the premium shall not be refunded, no further premium shall be charged for re-diversion. Thus, upon amalgamation of agricultural lands in urban areas, the value of such lands inherently undergo a betterment in value and thus the premium is validly charged a condition for granting permission to better the usage of land. Thus, the charge i.e. the premium which has a direct nexus to the opportunity of betterment of a parcel of land shall be valid and legal.
31. The State Government enjoys ample powers of not only to fix land revenue rates or to refix them upon conversion/diversion of the land for another use but also charges premium upon diversion of land for another use.
The premium is a one-time charge for diversion of land for better land use under Rule 14 of the Code. Rule 13 prescribes, when land is assessed for any non-agricultural purpose and is diverted to any agriculture purposes, no premium shall be imposed under Section 59(5). The scheme of the Act clearly reveals that the premium is charged only SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 81/106 when land use is converted for betterment. In this view of the matter, the State is fully justified in charging the premium and the same is in consonance with the spirit, objects and reasons of the M.P.Land Revenue Code. On analysis of the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions of the Code it cannot be said that Rule 14 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The classification of various cities in the State is determined as per the values of the land in different cities, the extent of population of those cities and character of those cities. Important cities of the State are classified differently from smaller cities and towns as also according to their population. Similarly, villages are also classified differently and rate of levying premium for conversion is accordingly prescribed. The Schedule is based on reasonable differentia taking into account relevant factors for the purpose and it cannot be called arbitrary or discriminatory."
21. From the above, it appears that the demand of conversion charges in the present case for which only show cause notices have been issued by the Revenue Authorities and which are under challenge before this Court, there is a misconception with the petitioners that levy of conversion charges is the same thing as the fresh lease by Revenue authorities, though they already have mining SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 82/106 leases under MMCR. It is clear that actually both the Rules operate in absolutely different fields and levies under different laws, one under the MMCR and another under the Revenue laws by revenue department under Section 90A read with Section 102 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the two are different character of levies. The one is neither in substitution, overlapping or derogatory to the other.
In fact, the demand of conversion charges is for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, which is an admitted position; that once the mining leases have been issued to the petitioners for use of agricultural land for mining purposes, which is indisputably a non-
agricultural purpose by definition, then the demand of conversion charges or premium for such admitted user of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes or for diversion of use, said demand of conversion charges cannot be even denied and disputed by the petitioners. The contention of learned counsels for the petitioners that once the land was demarcated for mining purposes, it should be deemed to have been converted for non-agricultural purposes and the lease charges having been paid for issuance of mining leases, now conversion charges cannot be demanded by the Revenue authoriteis is fallacious. The grant of mining leases under MMCR is only a right to excavate the minor mineral i.e. brick earth and nothing beyond that is either envisaged under MMCR nor the mining SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 83/106 authorities could grant it. In fact, the very grant of mining leases by Mining Department to the present petitioners, is the beginning point and the very basis for initiation of proceedings by the revenue authorities for demanding the conversion charges from the present petitioners for putting the agricultural land into use for non-
agricultural purposes. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned show cause notices cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction but on the other hand, the said proceedings appear to be perfectly justified in law.
22. Therefore, while the present writ petitions could be simply dismissed as premature relegating the petitioners to appear before the revenue authorities to show cause before them, since the learned counsels for the petitioners heavily relied upon the preceding judgments of this Court and even contended that the impugned action of the revenue authorities was without jurisdiction, it was considered appropriate to pronounce upon the true character & interpretation of the two levies under two different laws interpreting the provisions of law in a harmonious manner.
23. Let us have a look at the substantive provisions of the revenue law relevant to the controversy here.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 84/106 Initially, the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 were framed for regulating the mining operations in the State of Rajasthan, which were repealed by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 and the said Rules of 1977 also stood repealed in 1986 by the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, which are in force till date.
The substantive provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"GSR 119: - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act. 1957, (Central Act 67 of 1957), the State Government hereby makes the following rules for regulating the grant of quarry licences, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor mineral and for purposes connected therewith namely:-
THE RAJASTHAN MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1986
1. Short title, extent and commencement:-
(1) These rules may be called The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.
(2) They shall extend to the whole of the State of SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 85/106 Rajasthan including the areas in which Bapi and proprietary rights are claimed.
(3) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Rajasthan Gazette.
2. Repeal and Savings:-
The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 are hereby repealed.
Provided that any thing done or any action taken under the provisions of the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of these rules.
3. Definitions:-
(1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
(i) to (xix) ..........
(xx) "Royalty" means the charge payable to the Government in respect of the ore or mineral excavated, removed or utilized from any land as prescribed in schedule-I;
CHAPTER - II Grant of Mining Lease 4 Restriction on grant and renewal of mining lease:-
(1) No mining lease shall be granted in respect of such mineral / minerals as Mining Engineer / Assistant Mining Engineer may notify in this behalf within his jurisdiction with the approval of the Director.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 86/106 (2) No mining lease shall be granted to a person who is not a citizen of India unless prior approval of the Government of India has been obtained.
(3) [ ..... ] [(4) (i) No mining lease shall be granted or renewed to a person against whom or any member of his / her family or against a firm of which he / she is or was a partner, the dues of the Department are outstanding.
(ii) No mining lease shall be granted in favor of a partnership firm or a private limited company unless a no dues certificates of Department is submitted by all partners of the partnership firm or all members of the private limited company as the case may be.
Provided that where an injunction order has been issued by a court of law or any other competent authority staying the recovery of such dues, the non payment there of shall not be treated as disqualification for the purpose of grant or renewal of any mining lease.
5. ......
6. ......
7. ......
8. No prospecting licence, mining lease or any other mineral concession in respect of a minor mineral shall be granted or renewed in the Schedule Area without obtaining prior recommendation of the Panchayati Raj Institutions at appropriate level as prescribed under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Modification of provisions in SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 87/106 their Application to the Schedule Areas) Act, 1999 (Act No. 16 of 1999).
09. ......
10. ......
11. ......
12. No mining lease shall be granted or renewed in contravention of Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, as amended from time to time."
It would also be relevant to quote the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-
Agricultural purposes in Rules area) Rules, 2007 which repealed the earlier Rules of 1992.
"G.S.R.- In exercise of powers conferred by clause (xi-A) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec.261 read with Sec.90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No.15 of 1956), the State Government hereby makes the following rules for conversion of Agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes in rural areas; namely-
1. Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) These rules may be called the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 88/106 (2) They shall extend to all rural areas in the State of Rajasthan.
(3) These rules shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Definition. - (1) In these rules, unless there is any thing repugnant to the subject or context;
(a) "Act" means the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act No. 15 of 1956);
(b) "Commercial purpose" means the use of any premises for any trade or commerce or business, which shall include a shop, commercial establishment, bank office, guest house, hostel, hotel, restaurant, dhaba (whether pucca or temporary structure), show-room, cinema, multiplex, petrol pump, explosive magazine, weigh bridge, godown, workshop or any other commercial activity and shall also include the use thereof partly for residential and partly for commercial purposes but shall not include tourism units;
(c) "Developer" means a person, who desires or undertakes sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots;
(g) "Industrial purpose" means the use of any premises or workshop or an open area for any industry including Information Technology Industry, whether a SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 89/106 small or medium or large scale unit, or a tourism unit shall include a brick kiln or a kiln but shall not include any premises used for a perpose as defined in clause (b).
(o) "Rural Area" means an area which is not include in the notified area of urban bodies and their periphery belts;
3. Purposes for which Agricultural land may be converted.- Any agricultural land held in the Khatedari tenancy of the applicant, may be converted in rural area for the following purposes: -
(i) Residential units
(ii) Residential Colony/Project.
(iii) Commercial purpose
(iv) Industrial purpose/industrial area
(v) Salt manufacturing purpose
(vi) Public Utility purpose
(vii) Institutional purpose
(viii) Medical facilities.
4. Land for which conversion not to be permitted. - No permission shall be granted for conversion of the -
(a) Land which is under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
(b) Land falling within the boundary limits of any Railway Line, National Highway, State Highway or any SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 90/106 other road maintained by the Central or State Government or any Local Authority as specified in any Act or Rules of the Central or State Government made in this behalf, or within the limit specified in the guidelines of the Indian Road Congress for establishment of industry from the middle point of National Highway/State Highway/Major District Road/Other District Road/Rural Roads, whichever is longer:
(c) Land falling within the radius of 1.5 km of outer limits of abadi of a village for the purpose of an industrial unit or lime kiln or a crusher Unit or an Industrial area.
This restriction shall not apply where the conversion is sought for the brick kiln or non-polluting industry, small or cottage industry;
(d) Land falling under catchment areas of a tank or village pond, river, nala, tank, lake or land used as pathway to any cremation or burial ground or village pond, even if not so recorded in the village revenue map or revenue record.
5. Conversion for Dwelling House, cattle-shed or Store-house without conversion charges.- A Khatedar tenant shall be entitled to convert his agricultural holding for construction of a dwelling house or cattle shed or store house on an area not exceeding 500 Sq. mts. without any conversion charges payable under Rule 7. The area so converted shall continue to be in his khatedari tenant.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 91/106
6. Use of Khatedari land for establishment of small scale industries and kjawa.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, no permission for conversion shall be required where a Khatedar tenant establish a small scale industrial unit on his own khatedari land upto an area not exceeding 2500 Sq meters. The area so used shall continue to be in his khatedari.
7. Conversion charges.- The premium payable for conversion of agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes, for the area not covered by Rules 5 & 6, shall be as under: -
Purpose Rate per Square meter. (i) Residential unit. Rs.5/- per sq. mts. or 5% amount of the
DLC rate of agriculture land, whichever is higher.
(ii) Residential Rs.7.5/- per sq. mts. or 7.5% amount of Colony/Project. the DLC rate of agriculture land, whichever is higher.
(iii) Commercial purpose. Rs.10/- per sq. mts. or 10% amount of
the DLC rate of agriculture land,
whichever is higher.
(iv) Industrial Rs./- per sq. mts. or 5% amount of the
Area/Industrial pupose DLC rate of agriculture land, whichever is
higher.`
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 92/106 Purpose Rate per Square meter.
(v) Salt manufacturing Rs.0.5/- per sq. mts. or 0.5% amount of purpose. the DLC rate of agriculture land, whichever is higher.
(vi) Public Utility purpose Without premium upto 10,000 sq. meters but Rs.5/- per sq. meters or 5% of DLC rate for area exceeds 10,000/- sq. meters, whichever is higher.
(vii) Institutional purpose. Rs.5/- per sq. mts. or 10% amount of the DLC rate of agriculture land, whichever is higher.
(viii) Medical Facilitiies. Rs.10/- per sq. mts. or 10% amount of
the DLC rate of agriculture land,
whichever is higher.
8. Exemption of conversion charges.- (1) No conversion charges shall be payable by any department of State Government or a local authority for conversion of land for non-agricultural purpose for any official use.
(2) No conversion charges shall be payable where a tenant desires to establish a Tourism unit on the land held by him up to an area not exceeding 2000 sq. meters.
(3) Fifty percent of the conversion charges shall be charged in case of conversion of land for establishment of eligible unit as approved by the prescribed authority under the provisions of Rajasthan Investment Promotion SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 93/106 Scheme, 2003.
(4) No conversion charges shall be payable where a tenant establish a new budget Hotel (1 star, 2 star and 3 star hotels) upto 31.3.2010 on the land held by him upto an area not exceeding 1200 sq. meters under the new Hotel Policy, 2006.
(5) Fifty percent of the conversion charges shall be charged in case of conversion of land for development of tourism Hub as declared by the Tourism Department, Government of Rajashan under the provisions of tourism Hub Policy.
20. Repeal and Saving.- The Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agriculture Land for non-agriculture purposes in Rural Area), Rules, 1992 are hereby repealed:
Provided that such repeal shall not affect any order made, action taken, effects and consequences of anything done or suffered thereunder or any right, title privilege, obligations or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder or any enquiry conducted, verification made or proceedings taken in respect thereof."
Similarly, Section 90-A and Section 102, the relevant provisions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 are also SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 94/106 reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"90-A. Use of agriculture land for non-
agricultural purpose-(1) No person holding any land for the purpose of agriculture, and no transferee of such land or any part thereof, shall use the same or any part thereof, by the construction of buildings thereon or otherwise for any other purpose except with the written permission of the State Govt. obtained in the manner hereinafter laid down and otherwise that in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission.
(2) Any such person desiring to use such land or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of agriculture shall apply for the requisite permission in the prescribed manner and to the prescribed officer or authority and every such application shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) The State Government shall, after making or causing to be made due inquiry in the prescribed manner, either refuse the permission applied for or grant the same subject to the prescribed terms and conditions.
(4) When any such land or part thereof is permitted to be used for any purpose other than that of agriculture, the person to whom such permission is granted shall be liable to pay to the State Government in respect thereof-
(a) an urban assessment levied at such rate and in accordance with such manner is may be laid down in SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 95/106 rules to be made in this behalf by the State Government; or
(b) such amount by way of premium as may be prescribed by the State Government; or
(c) both.
(5) If any such land is so used-
(a) without the written permission of the State Government being first obtained, or
(b) otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission, or
(c) after such permission having been refused under sub-sec. (3), or
(d) without making any of the payments referred to sub-
section (4), the person originally, holding the land as aforesaid for the purpose of agriculture as well as all subsequent transferees, if any, shall be deemed to be a trespasser or trespassers, as the case may, and shall be liable to ejectment from such land in accordance with Section 91 as if he or they had occupied or continued to occupy such land without lawful authority and to every such proceeding the provisions to Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) shall apply as if such land were in danger or being wasted, damaged or alienated:
Provided that State Govt. may, in lieu of having such person and the subsequent transferees so ejected from SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 96/106 the land in question, allow him or them, as the case may be, to retain such land, use the same for any purpose other than that of agriculture on payment to the State Govt. in addition to the urban assessment and premium payable under sub-sec. (4) of such fine by way of penalty as may be prescribed."
Section 102 - Power of Government to allot land for purposes other than agricultural as well as on special terms.- Notwithstanding anything hereinforce contained, the State Government shall have power to allot land for the purposes of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as it deems fit."
24. The precedents of the Rajasthan High Court cited above, with great respects to the learned counsels, do not at all cover and apply to the facts and controversy in hand in the present batch of writ petitions and those precedents have never decided that the conversion charges cannot be demanded by the revenue authorities for use of agricultural land for the non-agricultural purposes and same was not even the controversy before them. Closer scrutiny of the quoted portions of the judgments cited above would reveal that the controversy arose before different benches of this Court in different perspectives when the Revenue authorities insisted upon SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 97/106 giving fresh leases by their own department, which was considered as interference with the other department of the same State Government, namely, Mining Department, who alone was authorized for dealing with the minor mineral, and brick earth being the minor mineral, different benches of this Court held and with great respect rightly that the Revenue authorities could not overlap and override those powers of the Mining Department and insist upon issuance of fresh leases by their own Revenue Department and demand necessary charges for the same, otherwise the mining rights would be obstructed and this action and the relevant conditions were struck down by this Court, as noticed above, but in the present set of cases before this Court the controversy is altogether different and now the Revenue Department seeks to levy and collect conversion charges for the admitted user of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes which include mining activity as well. Since the facts are not disputed that the petitioners are carrying out mining of brick earth, a minor mineral, and also engaged in manufacturing of bricks, which is an industrial and manufacturing activity and which definitely cannot be described as agricultural activity or operation, therefore, the demand of conversion charges or one time premium by the Revenue Department for such admitted user of agricultural land for non-agricultural, industrial and commercial purposes, cannot be SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 98/106 disputed and denied by the petitioners, therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsels for the petitioners on the previous decisions of this Court to support their challenge in the present cases to such demand of conversion charges is misplaced and those precedents are clearly distinguishable from the facts and controversy involved in the present cases, whereas, the decision of Karnataka High Court in Chikkusappa's case (supra) and of Supreme Court in Raj Homes case (supra), on the other hand supports the case of respondent Revenue Department and respectfully following the same, this Court upholds the show cause notices issued by the respondent authorities of the Revenue Department and the demand of conversion charges from the petitioners under the relevant conversion rules.
25. CONCLUSION:
From the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present batch of writ petitions deserve dismissal and the challenge laid by the petitioners to the demand of conversion charges for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes by way of mining of brick earth and manufacturing bricks in the brick kilns established by them on the agriculture land, whether in the colony area or other khatedari agricultural land cannot succeed and SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 99/106 the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
baweja/-
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 100/106 S C H E D U L E `A'
1. S.B.C.W.P. No. 10834/2010 - Subhash Chandra Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
2. S.B.C.W.P. No. 10835/2010 - M/s Panwar Bricks Kiln Industries Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
3. S.B.C.W.P. No. 8241/2012 - M/s J.K. Kiln Com. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
4. S.B.C.W.P. No. 10768/2010 - Narendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
5. S.B.C.W.P. No. 11453/2010 - M/s Sharan Ent Udhyog Vs. State & Ors.
6. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7426/2012 - Manoj Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
7. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7490/2012 - M/s Manvinder Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
8. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7651/202 - M/s K.K. Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
9. S.B.C.W.P. No. 7652/2012 - M/s Gurdeep Singh & Brothers Vs. State & Ors.
10.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7653/2012 - Gopal Das & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
11.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7654/2012 - Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
12.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7700/2012 - M/s Madhav Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
13.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7701/2012 - M/s Raj Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
14.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7703/2012 - M/s Dada Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
15.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7740/2012 - M/s Kuber Enterprises & Anr. Vs. State & Ors.
16.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7749/2012 - M/s A. B.C. Enterpries Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
17.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7751/2012 - Smt. Laxman Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
18.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7779/2012 - M/s Baba Bricks Kiln Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
19.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7803/2012 - M/s Baba Bricks Company Vs. State & Ors.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 101/106
20.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7804/2012 - M/s Ganpati Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
21.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7859/2012 - Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
22.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7860/2012 - M/s Karam Bricks Industries Vs. State & Ors.
23.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7861/2012 - M/s Jai Jambheswar Ent Udyog Vs.State
24.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7862/2012 - Smt. Narendra Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
25.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7863/2012 - Rajveer Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
26.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7864/2012 - Kulvinder Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
27.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7870/2012 - M/s Shri Ram Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
28.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7871/2012 - M/s Bishnoi Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
29.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7872/2012 - M/s Punjab Bricks Co. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
30.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7873/2012 - M/s M.K.B. Ent Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
31.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7874/2012 - M/s Omkar Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
32.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7887/2012 - M/s Shakti Kiln Company Vs. State & Ors.
33.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7888/2012 - M/s Sohil Bricks Industries Vs. State & Ors.
34.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7889/2012 - M/s. Dashmesh Industries Vs. State & Ors.
35.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7890/2012 - M/s Annupruna Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
36.S.B.C.W.P. No. 7899/20 - M/s Surendra Pal Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
37.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8184/2012 - M/s Dada Ent Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
38.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8185/2012 - M/s Satnam Tannu Ent Udyog Vs. State &Ors.
39.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8187/2012 - M/s Amba Ent Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
40.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8190/2012 - M/s Balaji Eng Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
41.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8208/2012 - M/s Van Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 102/106
42.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8495/2012 - Smt. Reshmi Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
43.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8496/2012 - M/s Maruti Nandan Bricks Vs. State & Ors.
44.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8779/2012 - M/s Ramdev Bricks Industries Vs. State &Ors.
45.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8833/2012 - Shiv Darshan Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
46.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8936/2012 - Reshmi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
47.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9142/2012 - Smt.Anshu Goyal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
48.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9431/2012 - M/s Saini Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
49.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9432/2012 - M/s Jai Ganesh Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
50.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9433/2012 - M/s Shri Shyam Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
51.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9436/2012 - M/s Shri Balaji Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
52.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9451/2012 - M/s Shri Karni Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
53.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9457/2012 - M/s Shri Suraj Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
54.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9459/2012 - M/s Punia Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
55.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9470/2012 - M/s Shanker Brick Manufacturer Vs. State & Ors.
56.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9471/2012 - M/s Shri Ram Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
57.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9472/2012 - M/s Saini Bricks Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
58.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9473/2012 - M/s Jai Shri Bricks Manufacturing Vs. State & Ors.
59.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9474/2012 - M/s Soniya Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
60.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9475/2012 - M/s Rakhi Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
61.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9476/20 - M/s Hameed Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 103/106
62.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10679/2012 - M/s Gourav Kiln Company Vs. State & Ors.
63.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10720/2012 - M/s Leeladhar Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
64.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10739/2012 - M/s Jugal Kishore Golyan Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
65.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10743/2012 - M/s Shiv Shakti Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
66.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10744/2012 - M/s Suraj Mal Chachan Kiln Cont.Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
67.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10768/2012 - M/s Gagan Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
68.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10787/2012 - M/s Agarwal Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
69.S.B.C.W.P. No. 10922/2012 - Ishu Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
70.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11116/2012 - M/s S.S. Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
71.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11117/2012 - M/s Multani Bhatta Co. Vs. State & Ors.
72.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11122/2012 - M/s Milan Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
73.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11125/2012 - M/s Katariya Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
74.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11126/2012 - Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
75.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11177/2012 - M/s Ganesh Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
76.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11178/2012 - M/s O.P. Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
77.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11179/2012 - M/s Vishwakarma Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
78.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11180/2012 - M/s Vishwakarma Bhatta Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
79.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11181/2012 - M/s Multani Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
80.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11206/2012 - Smt. Kantarani Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 104/106
81.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11207/2012 - Anand Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
82.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11212/2012 - Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
83.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11417/2012 - Govind Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
84.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11559/2012 - Smt. Jasveer Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
85.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11595/2012 - Braham Brick Kiln Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
86.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11698/2012 - Shri Ram Int Udyog, Nathvania Vs. State & Ors.
87.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11710/2012 - M/s Shri Balaji Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
88.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11717/2012 - M/s Marudhar Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
89.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11718/2012 - M/s Swami Int Udyog, Nathvania Vs. State & Ors.
90.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11719/2012 - M/s Gopal Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
91.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11721/2012 - M/s Ganpati Int Udyog, Nathvania Vs. State & Ors.
92.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11722/2012 - M/s Rama Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
93.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11724/2012 - M/s Shive Brick Industries Vs. State & Ors.
94.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11725/2012 - M/s Ganpati Int Udyog, Nathvania Vs. State & Ors.
95.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11733/2012 - M/s Ladoia Int Udhyog Vs. State & Ors.
96.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11734/2012 - Pathan Int Udhyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
97.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11742/2012 - Mahaluxmi Int Udyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
98.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11749/2012 - M/s Shiv Int Udhyog Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 105/106
99.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11837/2012 - M/s Poonia Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
100.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11841/2012 - Shree Balaji Int Udhyog Vs. State & Ors.
101.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11842/2012 - Shree Balaji Int Udhyog Vs. State & Ors.
102.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11858/2012 - M/s Guru Kripa Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
103.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11859/2012 - M/s Shri Balaji Int Udhyog Vs. State & Ors.
104.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11861/2012 - M/s Shri Ganesh Int Udog Vs. State & Ors.
105.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11889/2012 - Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
106.S.B.C.W.P. No. 11890/2012 - M/s Kamdhenu Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
107.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12108/2012 - Ram Pratap Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
108.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12109/2012 - Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
109.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12114/2012 - Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
110.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12126/2012 - Mohammed Majid Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
111.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12127/2012 - Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
112.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12139/2012 - M/s Hanuman Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
113.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12144/2012 - Harpal Kaur Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
114.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12151/2012 - M/s Naina Devi Int Udhyog Vs. State & Ors.
115.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12168/2012 - Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
116.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12169/2012 - M/s Nehra Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
117.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12181/2012 - Vedprakash Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
118.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12205/2012 - Gulabi Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
119.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12211/2012 - Jaspreet Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
SBCWP No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. & other connected matters Judgment dt:26/4/2013 106/106
120.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12223/2012 - Bhagwanti Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
121.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12224/2012 - Santosh Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
122.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12225/2012 - Rajni Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
123.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12445/2012 - Smt. Sanjana Devi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
124.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12723/2012 - M/s Prince Ent Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
125.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12868/2012 - M/s Balaji Brick Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
126.S.B.C.W.P. No. 12886/2012 - M/s Balaji Int Udyog Vs. State & Ors.
127.S.B.C.W.P. No. 13309/2012 - Om Prakash Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
128.S.B.C.W.P. No. 13310/2012 - Balvindra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
129.S.B.C.W.P. No. 814/2013 - Prem Sagar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
130.S.B.C.W.P. No. 8482/2012 - Uppal Int Udhyog & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.
131.S.B.C.W.P. No. 9412/2012 - M/s Kamra Bricks Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.