Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj. & Ors vs Jeewa Ram on 16 April, 2009
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia, Vineet Kothari
1
DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.310/1999
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jeewa Ram.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.310/1999
State of Rajasthan and others.
vs.
Jeewa Ram.
Date : 16.4.2009
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Mr.S Bhandawat, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for the appellant State.
Mr.H Srimali, for the respondent.
- - - - -
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant State is aggrieved against the judgment dated 19.9.1996 of this Court delivered by the Single Bench in writ petition no.2875/87 filed by the respondent.
Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner after obtaining a license from the mining department excavated the mineral and manufactured the bricks from the land of khasra no.261 situated in Village Tawab and as per the appellant, 80000 bricks from the said earth and 2 DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.310/1999 State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jeewa Ram.
clay were manufactured. Since the said excavation was with the permission of the competent mining department, therefore, the bricks were belonging to the writ petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar, Bhinmal issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to the petitioner treating the petitioner to be a trespasser over the government land. The Tehsildar after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the order on 19.10.1987 and held that even if there was license in favour of writ petitioner given by the mining department, then also, the writ petitioner should have obtained the no objection certificate from the State authorities because all land belongs to the State and as per the Land Revenue Act, no one is entitled to excavate any mineral from the land falling in the State of Rajasthan without permission of the STate. On this technical ground that the writ petitioner did not obtain the no objection certificate from the State authorities, he has been declared trespasser and penalty of Rs.154.70p. has been imposed upon him by the impugned order of the Tehsildar dated 19.10.1987.
3DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.310/1999 State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jeewa Ram.
It will be worthwhile to mention here that for that very excavation and manufacturing of bricks, a criminal case was also launched which may be because of the reason that as per the opinion of the State authorities, the minerals were the properties of the State and since the writ petitioner removed that mineral unlawfully, therefore, it amounts to theft.
The said order was challenged by the writ petitioner by preferring the present writ petition wherein the learned Single Judge examined all the aspects of the matter in detail and particularly, the contention of the Government that if the Land Revenue Act has conflicting provision with the Central Act i.e. Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the rules framed thereunder known as Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, the Central Act and Rules shall prevail over the State Law. The learned Single Judge held that the Central Act and its provision prevail over the State Act and the minerals find place at item no.54 of the Union List of Seventh Schedule upon which only Parliament has exclusive power under the Constitution of India to legislate upon.
4DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.310/1999 State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jeewa Ram.
In view of the above reasons and particularly looking to the fact that in the year 1986 in the proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, a minor penalty of Rs.154.70p. has been imposed upon the petitioner even if he had committed any wrong of not obtaining NOC, then we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge for any reason. The learned Single Judge has very rightly observed that the Central Act shall prevail over the State Act, if there is any conflict between the two.
In view of the above, this special appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.
(VINEET KOTHARI), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya