National Green Tribunal
Gajendra Singh Naruka vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 27 April, 2026
Item No.09
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No. 91/2025(CZ)
Gajendra Singh Naruka Applicant(s)
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 27.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Vaibhav Pancholy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for
State of Rajasthan & RSPCB
Mr. Shantanoo Saxena, Adv. with
Mr. Ashwin Rastogi and Mr. Rishi Pal Singh
Chouhan, Adv. for R-14
ORDER
1. The grievance of the Applicant is illegal operation of Mining activities by Respondent No.14 beyond the designated area of Mining Lease bearing no. 258/89 Village Jhiri Tehsil Thanagazi District Alwar and also Respondent No. 14 is doing mining activities against the mandatory conditions of Environmental Clearance, Consent to Operate and Wildlife Clearance possessed by him and he is causing irreparable loss to the environment by carrying on illegal mining activities upon reserved/protected forest land situated in Khasra No. 1116 of Village Jhiri Tehsil Pratapgarh District Alwar and the forest land is being diverted for non-forest purposes against Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
2. It is further contended that a joint survey was conducted by concerned departments in presence of representatives of Project Proponent on 1 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
31/05/2025 and the survey report was prepared on 04/06/2025. The perusal of the joint survey report would reveal that Project Proponent had exceeded its mining lease area and performing mining operations upon reserved forest land of Khasra No.1116 of Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar and as per the joint survey report Project Proponent had done the mining activities upon 1876 Sq. meter land of Khasra No. 1116 of Village Jhiri Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar and thus from the perusal of the joint survey report it is clear that reserved forest land is being diverted for non-forest purposes in contravention to Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Case of T.N. Godavarman dated 12/12/1996 and Project Proponent had caused irreparable loss to the environment by the way of illegal mining activities.
3. The main allegations of the Applicant are that the Respondent/Project Proponent has violated the environmental norms encroaching the forest land and Mining Department has allotted the land for mining which is within the forest area.
4. Notices were issued to the Respondents to submit the reply.
Accordingly, reply has been filed.
5. During the course of hearing, a Committee was constituted consisting;
one representative from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur, representative from Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, and one representative from the Rajasthan State PCB, with direction to submit the factual and action taken report. The report has been filed.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Applicant are that the office of Superintending Mining Engineer Jaipur Circle Jaipur, 2 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
Government of Rajasthan has approved the Mining Scheme in respect of Marble M.L. No. 258/89 vide letter dated 19/05/2016 subject to some conditions and the condition no.3 to the letter dated 19/05/2016 is very specific and it has been stated in said condition that Mining Scheme is being approved subject to the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and rules made thereunder. It is also stated in condition no. 8 that no mining activities shall be carried on outside the mining area and if case of violation of these conditions the Mining Engineer Alwar shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Rajasthan vide letter dated 22.08.2016 had issued Environmental Clearance in favour of Respondent No.14 subject to specific and general conditions.
8. It is further submitted that the proposal of Project Proponent seeking Wildlife Clearance was pending before National Wildlife Board since 2016 and as per the condition of Environmental Clearance Project Proponent should have obtained prior Wildlife Clearance from National Wildlife Board before carrying on mining operations but Project Proponent had started the mining operation after grant of Environmental Clearance without obtainment of prior Wildlife Clearance from National Wildlife Board and said fact can be proved from the e-Rawannas issued prior to obtainment of Wildlife Clearance and the e-Rawannas are in possession of mining department and they are duty bound to produce the same in the Court of Law and if they do not produce the same then adverse inference be taken against them in view of Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the National Wildlife Board had granted the Wildlife Clearance in favour of Project Proponent on 25.03.2022 and in furtherance of grant of Wildlife Clearance, The Chief Wildlife Warden vide letter dated 09.05.2022 had 3 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
accorded approval subject to some conditions. It is submitted that Project Proponent was required to develop green belt on the periphery of project area and also it was stipulated that water harvesting system would be mandatory for the project but neither the green belt is developed nor water harvesting system is established by Project Proponent in order to make sure the compliance of mandatory conditions imposed by The Chief Wildlife Warden and also it was mandatory for the Project Proponent to construct six feet high wall on the periphery of applied project area but Project Proponent is performing mining activities without construction of wall boundary as stipulated in the letter dated 09.05.2022 issued by The Chief Wildlife Warden and other conditions of the letter dated 09.05.2022 are not being complied with by Project Proponent.
9. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has also relied on the order dated 28.01.2022 passed in O.A. 154/2020 in which this Tribunal has directed the Chief Secretary Rajasthan to oversee the compliances with the assistance of DGP Rajasthan, PCCF (HoFF) Rajasthan, Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan, Field Director and all other officers of the State.
10. To examine the correctness of the allegations as levelled in the application, the Committee constituted by the Tribunal visited the site in presence of Forest Officials among others and submitted the observations and report as follows:-
"Observations made by joint committee:
The area formerly known as Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary and Sariska National Park in Rajasthan is presently designated as the Sariska Tiger Reserve. Initially declared a Wildlife Reserve in 1955, it was upgraded to a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1958. Subsequently, in 1978, the area was brought under Project Tiger and notified as a Tiger Reserve, and later, in 1982, it was declared a National Park.4
O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
The mining lease ML No. 6/1979 (R 258/89) for mineral Marble, covering an area of 11.7057 ha, became effective on 13.03.1980. Subsequently, a joint survey was carried out on 10.03.2000 by the Revenue Department, Forest Department, and the Department of Mines and Geology. During the survey, it was identified that 1.52 ha of forest land fell within the lease area, and this portion was surrendered by the lessee. The Department of Mines and Geology accepted the same, and accordingly, the retained lease area was revised to 10.1857 ha vide its order dated 03.04.2000.
During the inspection, mining operations were found closed in compliance with GRAP Stage-III directions issued by CAQM, New Delhi. As per DCF Alwar letter No. 11019 dated 13.06.2025, boundary pillars R and Q of the mining lease fall within the forest land and mining activities were carried on approximately 0.1876 hectares of forest land as per joint survey conducted on 31.05.2025.
As per Forest Department Circular No. 2003 dated 14.03.2023, the Forest Department shall not issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) if the mining lease area is located at a distance of 50 metres or less from the forest boundary. Further, if the mining lease area is located between 50 meters and 100 meters from the forest boundary, a permanent wall is required to be constructed along the side facing the forest boundary.
During inspection, no mining operations were observed in the portion of forest land located within the mining lease, and no machinery was found installed in that area. At present, no active mining operations were observed within 50 meters of the forest boundary. Additionally, no active mining activities were found outside the mining lease area.
Towards the boundary line (A/P pillars) of the mining lease, old mining pits were found to be filled, and the area has been reclaimed with new plantation. On-site, the representative of the mining lease, Shri Budda Lal Sharma, informed the inspection team that heavy earth-moving machinery (HEMM) is operated only in the presence of a First-Class Mine Manager. He also produced permission from DGMS for the use of HEMM (without deep hole blasting).
That a matter involving similar issues was before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 10247/2025, wherein the 5 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
Hon'ble High Court examined the report submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forest and the Assistant Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, vide its order dated 28.07. has stated as follows:
".....6. These are the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but looking to the fact that several inspection reports have been annexed with the writ petition and a detailed reply along with this document has been submitted by the petitioner before the respondents. It is expected from the authorities concerned to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass the appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
8. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.....
The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Rajasthan, has accorded Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006, vide letter dated 22.08.2016, in favour of M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. for mining operations at ML No. 258/89 near Village Kalsi Kala, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, for a production capacity of 3,16,750 TPA. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden, Jaipur, vide letter No. 1546 dated 09.05.2022, has granted In-Principle Approval for wildlife clearance to M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. for an area of 10.1857 hectares situated at Village Kalsi Kala, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar.
The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) has granted Consent to Operate (CTO) to M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. for mining operations over an area of 10.1857 hectares at ML No. 258/89 near Village Jhiri, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, vide letter dated 24.02.2025, for marble mining of 3,16,750 MT/annum, valid up to 28.02.2030. 6 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
Additionally, RSPCB has also issued Consent to Operate to a mineral grinding unit named as M/s Om Shubham Dolomite Powder, located on Khasra Nos. 1180-1184 and 1187-1191, Village Jhiri, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar, adjoining the mining lease area, vide letter dated 13.07.2023, for dolomite powder production of 20 MT/hour, valid up to 30.04.2033. A copy of the RSPCB letter dated 13.07.2023 is enclosed as Annexure-13. During inspection, the machinery was found covered with a tin shed, and adequate pollution control measures were observed.
Conclusion In view of above facts and site observations dated 14.11.2025 it is submitted that no active mining is occurring within the forest land or within 50 metres of the forest boundary, and necessary corrective measures such as fencing and reclamation have been undertaken. The project proponent holds valid statutory clearances i.e. Environmental Clearance, Wildlife Clearance and Consent to Operate, and compliance with regulatory requirements is presently observed."
11. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents are that the matter was agitated before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in SB Civil Writ Petition No.10247 of 2025 and the Hon'ble Court passed an order as follows:-
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10247/2025 .............x.............x...........x............. 11/07/2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
"(i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby call the entire record pertaining to the present matter and may kindly quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 passed by the respondents;
(ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue the mining operation of the mining lease No. 258/89 7 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
situated At Village Talsikalan, Guwada, District Alwar till the application of petitioner is decided.
(iii) Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 13.06.2025 and 16.06.2025 issued by the Office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Alwar and the Department of Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology, Alwar respectively.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is conducting mining activities within the prescribed allotted area and this fact is clear from the joint inspection report prepared by the authorities. Counsel submits that without any basis, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Alwar has sent a letter to the Department of Mining Engineering for taking action against the petitioner for cancellation of his mining activities, as the land of the petitioner is falling under forest area. Counsel submit that a detailed reply to the aforesaid notice has been submitted by the petitioner before the Deputy Conservator of Forest but the said reply submitted by the petitioner has not been decided and in the meantime, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology has issued a notice to the petitioner to comply the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest. Once this fact from the joint inspection report has been put on record that the petitioner is not doing any illegal mining activities but he is doing mining activities within the prescribed area and when this fact has also been clarified to the respondent by way of filing a detailed reply, no action for cancellation of his mining lease was required. Counsel submits that even a detailed factual report has been given by the Department of Mining Engineering to the District Collector, Alwar on 17.05.2025, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Whether the petitioner is doing any illegal mining activities or not and whether the petitioner is doing the mining activities within the prescribed area or not?
8 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
6. These are the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but looking to the fact that several inspection reports have been annexed with the writ petition and a detailed reply along with this document has been submitted by the petitioner before the respondents. It is expected from the authorities concerned to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass the appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
8. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner."
12. On the basis of above, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents are that this is not a dispute of illegal mining but a dispute of identification and measurement which comes within the revenue laws to be determined and decided by the Collector by constituting the competent officials to demarcate it or to do the needful according to rules.
13. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3, 5 & 10 are that upon receipt of various complaints regarding illegal mining activities by Respondent No.14 (M/s Om Shubham Housing and Construction Private Limited) in Mining Lease No. 258/89 situated at Village Jhiri/Kalsi Kala, Tehsil Pratapgarh (formerly Thanagazi), District Alwar, the District Collector, Alwar, directed the Settlement Department to conduct a survey using DGPS technology. Consequently, a comprehensive Joint Survey was conducted on 31.05.2025 and 04.06.2025 involving representatives from five different departments, namely the Mining Department, Revenue Department, Settlement Department, Forest Department, and Wildlife Department. 9 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
This survey was carried out using DGPS technology in the presence of Shri Kamlendra Singh, the representative of Respondent No. 14, who also signed the survey report dated 31.05.2025. The Joint Survey Report conclusively established that the boundary pillars 'R' and 'Q' of Mining Lease No. 258/89 are located within the Forest Land of Jhrir A forest block Khasra No. 1116. It was scientifically determined that Respondent No.14 had encroached upon approximately 0.1876 Hectares (1876 sq. meters) of forest land. That the enforcement action commenced on 31.05.2025, when a Joint Survey was conducted, followed by preparation of a Panchnama dated 04.06.2025, clearly demarcating forest boundaries and revenue boundaries, including the location of boundary pillars. Both reports were prepared in the presence of and with signatures of the authorised representative of Respondent No. 14 on 31.05.2025 and that the findings of the Joint Survey dated 31.05.2025 and the Panchnama dated 04.06.2025 were specifically relied upon by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alwar, while issuing the letter dated 13.06.2025 seeking cancellation of the mining lease as well as wildlife and environmental clearance in respect of 0.1876 Hectares of forest land found under illegal mining.
14. It is further submitted that the subject forest land presently falls under the jurisdiction of Deputy conservator of forests, Alwar and Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Jaipur, rendering the said authority a necessary and proper party to the Original Application. That the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Jaipur, has independently recommended cancellation of the mining lease and wildlife clearance due to non-compliance of clearance conditions by Respondent No. 14; however, the Chief Wildlife Warden has not taken a final decision till date. That further communications dated 02.07.2025 and 22.12.2025 10 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
were issued by the Forest Authorities to the Mining Engineers seeking cancellation of the lease, recovery of compensation for illegal mining/encroachment, and damages for loss of forest minerals, along with reference to the mandatory 50-meter safety zone requirement. That earlier communications dated 16.12.2019 and 17.06.2020 categorically restrained issuance of Ravannas owing to restrictions on mining operations within prescribed distance from forest land and also communicated to get Prior NOC. That the subject land is recorded as Gair Mumkin Rada, attracting restrictions under the Aravali Notification dated 07.05.1992 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 03.07.2018, and that Respondent No. 14 has also encroached upon adjoining revenue land, proceedings whereof are pending before the Court of Tehsildar.
15. It is further submitted that taking immediate cognizance of the encroachment confirmed by the Joint Survey, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alwar, vide letter dated 13.06.2025, formally communicated with the Mining Engineer, Alwar, the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Jaipur, and other competent authorities. In the said communication, it was explicitly recommended that the mining lease of Respondent No.14 be cancelled for violating the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 12.12.1996 regarding the protection of forest land. It is pertinent to mention that Respondent No. 14 challenged this order/letter dated 13.06.2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10247/2025. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 11.07.2025, disposed of the petition with a direction to the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner therein within four weeks. That to strictly penalize the 11 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
illegal activities and encroachment upon forest land, the Forest Department has initiated criminal prosecution against the Project Proponent. A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 0008/2026 was registered on 16.01.2026 at Police Station Partapgarh, District Alwar. The FIR has been registered against Smt. Anita Kanwar Rathore, Director of M/s Om Shubham Housing and Construction Private Limited (Respondent No. 14), for offences under Sections 30, 33, 41, and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953; Sections 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR explicitly records the illegal mining in 0.1876 Hectares of forest land and the illegal dumping of overburden/waste on approximately 1.20 Hectares of forest land of jhiri A block in KhasrrNo. 1116. This decisive action underscores the State's commitment of protecting forest ecology and refutes any allegation of collusion.
16. It is further submitted that regarding the Wildlife Clearance that Respondent No. 14 was granted an "In-Principle" Wildlife Clearance by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Rajasthan, vide letter dated 09.05.2022, subject to 24 specific conditions. These conditions included the mandatory construction of a pucca wall along the lease boundary and Construction of water Harvesting Structure, the development of a green belt. However, a site inspection conducted on 20.12.2025 by the team of Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Jaipur, and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alwar, revealed gross non-compliance. It was observed that the Project Proponent had failed to construct the wall along the 796-meter periphery, failed to develop the required green belt, and had instead dumped mining waste on 1.20 Hectares of forest land of Jhiri a Forest block Khasra No. 1116. Consequently, the Deputy 12 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Jaipur, vide letter dated 23.12.2025, has recommended the revocation/cancellation of the In-Principle Wildlife Clearance. That the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department, Government of Rajasthan, vide Rajkaj Reference No. 16861079 dated 30.07.2025, has issued directions regarding the identification of lands such as Oran, Dev-van. Rundh, and Gar Mumkin Pahad, Gair Mumkin Rada in light of the Hon'ble Suprem Court's orders. It is submitted that the Mining Lease No. 258/89 of Respondent No. 14 includes Khasra Nos. 1117, 1195, 1199, 1200, 1210. 1275, and 1285, which are recorded as "Gair Mumkin Rada" in Government Account No.1. Under the Aravali Notification dated 07.05.1992, mining activities on such lands are restricted without prior environmental clearance. The Department has consistently maintained that no Ravanna should be issued without a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Forest Department, as communicated vide letter dated 17.06.2020.
17. However, it is submitted that there was a specific condition in the letter dated 19.05.2016 that the project proponent shall not carry out mining operations outside the mining lease and the lease shall remain subject to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Alwar vide letter dated 13.06.2025 had apprised the Mining Engineer qua the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 by the Project Proponent as Respondent No. 14 had carried out mining operations upon Reserved Forest Land situated in Khasra No. 1116. The DCF Alwar also apprised the Mining Engineer regarding the Circular dated 14.03.2023 issued by the Forest Department, which bars mining operations within 50 meters from the forest boundary.
13 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
18. The submissions and contentions of the learned Counsel for the Rajasthan State PCB are that the observations of the Joint Committee Report are that the area formerly known as Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary and Sariska National Park in Rajasthan is presently designated as the Sariska Tiger Reserve. Initially declared Wildlife Reserve in 1955, it was upgraded to a Wildlife Sanctuary in 1958. Subsequently, in 1978, the area was brought under Project Tiger and notified as a Tiger Reserve, and later, in 1982, it was declared a National Park. That the mining lease ML No. 6/1979 (R 258/89) for mineral Marble, covering an area of 11.7057 ha, became effective on 13.03.1980. Subsequently, a joint survey was carried out on 10.03.2000 by the Revenue Department, Forest Department, and the Department of Mines and Geology, wherein it was identified that 1.52 ha of forest land fell within the lease area, which was surrendered by the lessee. The Department of Mines and Geology accepted the same and revised the retained lease area to 10.1857 ha vide order dated 03.04.2000. It is stated that during inspection, mining operations were found closed in compliance with GRAP Stage-III directions issued by CAQM, New Delhi. As per DCF Alwar letter No. 11019 dated 13.06.2025, boundary pillars R and Q of the mining lease fall within the forest land and mining activities were carried on approximately 0.1876 hectares of forest land as per joint survey conducted on 31.05.2025 and as per Forest Department Circular No. 2003 dated 14.03.2023, the Forest Department shall not issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) if the mining lease area is located at a distance of 50 meters or less from the forest boundary, and if located between 50 meters and 100 meters, a permanent wall is required and during inspection, no mining operations were observed in the portion of forest land located within the mining lease, and no 14 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
machinery was found installed in that area. No active mining operations were observed within 50 meters of the forest boundary and no mining activity was found outside the mining lease area. Old mining pits near the boundary line (A/P pillars) were found filled and reclaimed with new plantation.
19. It is further argued that the representative of the mining lease, Shri Budda Lal Sharma, informed the inspection team that heavy earth- moving machinery (HEMM) is operated only in the presence of a First- Class Mine Manager and produced permission from DGMS for use of HEMM (without deep hole blasting). Copy of DGMS permission dated 18.08.2024 is already annexed with the Joint Committee Report. It is stated that a matter involving similar issues was of adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 10247/2025. Vide order dated 28.07.2025, the Hon'ble High Court held that the issues involved were disputed questions of fact and directed the authorities to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Copy of the order dated 28.07.2025 already annexed with the Joint Committee Report and the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Rajasthan granted Environmental Clearance vide letter dated 22.08.2016 in favour of M/s Om Shubham Housing & Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. for mining operations at ML No. 258/89 for a production capacity of 3,16,750 TPA. Copy of the letter dated 22.08.2016 is already annexed with the Joint Committee Report. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden, Jaipur granted In-Principle Approval for wildlife clearance vide letter dated 09.05.2022 for an area of 10.1857 hectares. Copy of the letter dated 09.05.2022 is already annexed with the Joint Committee Report. It is 15 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
further stated that the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board has granted Consent to Operate (CTO) vide letter dated 24.02.2025 for marble mining of 3,16,750 MT/annum valid up to 28.02.2030. Copy of the letter dated 24.02.2025 is already annexed with the Joint Committee Report.
20. It is further argued that the Respondent No.15 has also granted Consent to Operate to a mineral grinding unit namely M/s Om Shubham Dolomite Powder vide letter dated 13.07.2023 for dolomite powder production of 20 MT/hour, valid up to 30.04.2033. During inspection, machinery was found covered with tin shed and adequate pollution control measures were observed. Copy of the letter dated 13.07.2023 is already annexed with the Joint Committee Report. In view of the above facts and site observations dated 14.11.2025, it is submitted that no active mining is occurring within the forest land or within 50 meters of the forest boundary and necessary corrective measures such as fencing and reclamation have been undertaken. The project proponent holds valid statutory clearances and compliance with regulatory requirements is presently observed.
21. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.14 Mr. Shantanoo Saxena has argued that the prima facie basis of approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal is on the basis of alleging violation of the Forest Conservation act, 1980. The said Act in section 1A categorically provides for the lands with respect to which the provisions of the Act are applicable as under:-
"1A. Act to cover certain land.--(1) The following land shall be covered under the provisions of this Act, namely:-
(a) the land that has been declared or notified as a forest in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927) or under any other law for the time being in force;16
O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
(b) the land that is not covered under clause (a), but has been recorded in Government record as forest, as on or after the 25th October, 1980:
Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to such land, which has been changed from forest use to use for non-forest purpose on or before the 12th December, 1996 in pursuance of an order, issued by any authority authorised by a State Government or a Union territory Administration in that behalf.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "Government record" means record held by Revenue Department or Forest Department of the State Government or Union territory Administration, or any authority, local body, community or council recognised by the State Government or Union territory Administration.
(2) The following categories of land shall not be covered under the provisions of this Act, namely:--
(a) such forest land situated alongside a rail line or a public road maintained by the Government, which provides access to a habitation, or to a rail, and roadside amenity up to a maximum size of 0.10 hectare in each case;
(b) such tree, tree plantation or reafforestation raised on lands that are not specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1); and
(c) such forest land,--
(i) as is situated within a distance of one hundred kilometres along international borders or Line of Control or Line of Actual Control, as the case may be, proposed to be used for construction of strategic linear project of national importance and concerning national security; or
(ii) up to ten hectares, proposed to be used for construction of security related infrastructure; or (iii) as is proposed to be used for construction of defence related project or a camp for paramilitary forces or public utility projects, as may be specified by the Central Government, the extent of which does not exceed five hectares in a Left Wing Extremism affected area as may be notified by the Central Government.
(3) The exemption provided under sub-section (2) shall be subject to such terms and conditions, including the conditions of planting trees to compensate felling of trees undertaken on the lands, as the Central Government may, by guidelines, specify."17
O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
22. It is further argued that the Applicant has not placed on record any document on the basis of which it can be said the land with respect to which the allegations have been levied is a land on which the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act are applicable on the contrary the land khasra number 1116 in the revenue records is shown as Government land - Charagah and not as land on which there is any forest or which is in the ownership of the Forest department, therefore, the applicability of the Forest Conservation Act is not substantiated by the Applicant in the Original Application. With regard to the allegation that the mining activities are being undertaken on Reserved/Protected Forest land is based upon Annexure A/1 being the photocopy of notification dated 19.03.1990 and Annexure A/2 being the Jamabandi for that is the revenue record for khasra number 1116 Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar and it is pleaded in paragraph 5 of the OA on the strength of the said Annexure A/2 that the khasra number 1116 is recorded in the name of the Forest department as Reserved forest land as part of the Reserved Forest Area declared by vide notification dated 07.11.1955. That the Annexure A/1 at page 34 is an incomplete document as the Annexures to the said document has not been placed on record. Moreover, the said document is a vigyapti (publication) dated 19.03.1990 under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Rajasthan Forest Act 1953. It is revealed from the bare scrutiny of the Annexure A/1 itself that the said publication was made in furtherance of section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act 1953 which provides for Protected forest and the State Government's power to notify the applicability of the provisions of Chapter IV on any forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserved forest. This would make it amply clear that any land mentioned in Annexure A/1 18 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
would certainly not be Reserved Forest because only such lands which are not included in the reserved Forest can be notified under section 29(1). That section 29(1) also clarifies that the applicability of Chapter IV of the Rajasthan Forest Act 1953 dealing with protected forest can only be made with respect to a land which is either classified as a Forest land or a Waste land. That the document placed on record as Annexure A/1 does not reveal any khasra entry and the Annexure to the said document is not placed on record deliberately by the Applicant before this Hon'ble Tribunal in an attempt to mislead this Tribunal to believe that the land is Forest Land so as to claim applicability of the Forest Conservation Act. That the khasra number 1116 having the area of 7.89 hectares has recorded land classification of "charagah" that is 'grazing land' and not as forest land and the said land has not been shown in the ownership of the Forest department but rather has been shown in the ownership of the State Government and only the possession of the Forest department is recorded as under the head "काश्तकार का नाम". From section 29(3) of the Rajasthan Forest Act 1953, it is clear that a notification for the applicability of the provisions of Chapter IV dealing with Protected Forest can be made only after the nature and extent of the rights of the State Government and the private persons in or over the Forest Land or Waste land have been inquired into and recorded at a survey or settlement or in such other manner as the State government thinks sufficient. The mere fact that the khasra entry placed on record by the applicant as Annexure A/2 records the land khasra number as 1116 as belonging to the State Government and as Charagah land goes to reveal that the said provisions of section 29 are not applicable on the said land because had the applicability of 19 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
Chapter IV would have been on the said land the same would have been recorded in the khasra entry.
23. It is further argued that the Applicant has thereafter relied upon the joint survey report dated 04.06.2025 to allege that the project proponent has exceeded its mining lease area and performing mining operations upon Reserved Forest Land of khasra number 1116 of Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar. It is here pertinent to point out here that as detailed above khasra number 1116 is not cannot be Reserved Forest Land and the documents placed on record to show that the said land is Reserved Forst land themselves reveal that the said land cannot be a Reserved Forst land. Moreover, it is revealed from the said Annexure A/8 being the Joint Survey Report dated 04.06.2025 that the survey has been done not on the basis of any established boundary marks or pillars, as is revealed from the said paragraph of the joint committee report:-
"राजस्व टीम से प्राप्त ररकॉर्ड हाल प्रचललत नक्शे को स्केन करवाकर खसरा सूपरइम्पोज कार्ड करते समर् आ०ख० न० 1144, 1143, 1147 के मध्य स्थित लतमेर्ा, आ०ख०न० 1214, 1215, 1216 के मध्य स्थित लतमेर्ा, आ०ख०न० 1148 गै० मु०चाह, आ०ख0न0 1418, 1419, 1412/3101 के मध्य स्थित लतमेर्ा, आ०ख०न० 1324, 1325, 1328, 1330 के मध्य स्थित चौमेर्ा, आ०ख०न० 1361/3095, 1371, 1363 के मध्य स्थित लतमेर्ा, आ०ख०न० 1341, 1342, 1343 के मध्य स्थित लतमेर्ा एवं आ०ख०न० 1217, 1222 के मध्य स्थित मेर् को मुश्तलकल (आधार) लिन्दु मानते हुए खसरा सूपरइम्पोज कार्ड लकर्ा गर्ा।",
24. It is submitted that the report itself demonstrates that the survey has been conducted not on the basis of the established revenue demarcation principles but on the basis of the superimposition of the maps by aligning the boundary lines of between various khasra numbers. The demarcation of the said lease area had been done earlier on various occasions more particularly, on 22.06.2015 and 07.04.2000 20 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
wherein at every occasion the demarcation was undertaken from the FRP well of Laxminarayan Meena and that the well of Laxminarayan Meena still exists as is revealed from the report of the Patwari dated 19.01.2026. It is pertinent that when the said point is in existence and a well can be established as a demarcation point in absence of the boundary pillars for land demarcation exercise then there was no need to change the references points to boundaries between various khasra points and it is only because the change in reference points at the time of the demarcation of the mining lease to the answering Respondent and the establishment of the boundary of mining lease area as is revealed from the above demarcation exercises and the recent demarcation dated 04.06.2025, that minor deviations in boundary could have been observed owing to the non-adherence to the standard procedures for the land demarcation exercise while conducting the joint survey report dated 04.06.2025. even if it is believed that any deviation in the boundary has been found the same is upon khasra number 1116 which is not a Forest land rather a charagah land which is clearly depicted in Annexure A/2, therefore, there could not be any violation of the Forest Conservation Act 1980. That on 07.04.2000 possession of 1.520 hectares of land demarcated from the FRP point of Laxmi Narayan's well was handed over to the Government and a land area of 10.1857 hectares was retained by the lease holder as has been recorded in the handover of possession report dated 10.04.2000 a copy of which is duly annexed as Annexure R/21 along with the map of the said area and that thereafter on 22.06.2015 another certificate was issued by the Government of Rajasthan recording therein that a mining lease of an area 10.1857 hectares is available and based upon the relevant GT sheets and office records the said mining lease is not in 21 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
violation of any of the orders of the Supreme Court including T.N. Godavarman versus Union of India WP 202/1995, the said letter is relevant because again the demarcation exercise has been undertaken based upon the FRP point of the well of the Laxmi Narayan's well and even the latitude and longitude have been measured. On 13.12.2019 the Deputy Conservator of Forest, issued a letter in furtherance of the request made by the lease holder company for a declaration that the land is not forest land for the purposes of availing the NBWL (National Board for Wildlife) clearance wherein in response to the said letter it has been specifically stated by the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest that the approved mining lease area is not situated in the Forest areas. It is stated that the mining activities have been undertaken only within the approved mining lease area and not outside it and that too after availing all the relevant permissions essential under law and that the said project was not essentially requiring NBWL clearance yet the answering Respondent applied for NBWL clearance and the same was duly granted to them after due scrutiny which goes on to establish the fact that the said mining lease area is not a Forest land, as has been wrongly alleged owing to wrongful demarcation exercise has been undertaken on the basis of the temporary reference points being the boundary between the parcels of land which are liable to shift and not from a permanent reference point like the well of the Laxmi Narayan Meena on the basis of the previous demarcation exercises were undertaken.
25. It is further argued that the royalty deduction and weighment exercise do not take place in night hours and the Respondent has completely complied with the conditions of the Environmental Clearance and has duly submitted the sixth monthly compliance report. It is further 22 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
submitted that the mining activities are carried out within the allotted area and has complied all clearance conditions. The Respondent No.14 has never carried out any mining/illegal mining activity in the reserved/protected forest land, more specifically over Khasra No. 1116 of Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar. Further, the question of alleged illegal mining over reserved/ protected forest does not arise because the land under Khasra No. 1116 (Old Khasra No. 1082) is originally a Charagah/Gochar land and not a reserved/protected forest, as recorded under the revenue records of Rajasthan.
26. The Respondent has further raised the issue of illegal demand letter to the head of the Central Government which is not within the domain of the Tribunal, however, contentions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent are that the Respondent are very fair and to face the clear demarcation and enquiry also.
27. The further contentions of the Respondent are that the Applicant had filed the same complaint before the Collector, District Alwar on 17.03.2025. The Collector, Alwar took prompt action on the Applicant's complaint, and called for a report from the Mining Engineer, Alwar. Thereafter, the Mining Engineer, Alwar submitted a Factual Report on 17.05.2025 to the Collector, Alwar stating the following:-
i. The Answering Respondent No. 14 is possession of National Board of Wildlife dated 09.05.2022, Environmental Clearance, Consent to Operate;
ii. That, the mining operation is being done within the permitted lease area of Mining Lease No. 258/89;
iii. That, there was no mining in the forest land; and iv. That, there is no illegal mining activity in Khasra No. 1116, Village Jhiri, by the Answering Respondent No. 14.23
O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
28. It is further submitted that based on the Applicant's complaint, the Collector, Alwar had taken action and no irregularity was found in respect of the allegations made against the Respondent. The correct and true position is such that the concerned land- (Old Khasra No. 1082) new Khasra No. 1116, Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar, admeasuring area 7.8900 hectares was originally a Charagah/Gochar land, as recorded in Rajasthan revenue records. The same can be verified from the OA's Annexure Nos. A/1 and A/2 at Page No. 34 and 35. That the Government of Rajasthan issued a Gazette Notification dated 19.03.1990 wherein 1,062.34 acres (430 hectares) of Government land of Village Jhiri, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar was transferred to the Forest Department. Under the Gazette Notification dated 19.03.1990, the total land area of 430 hectares was divided into Blocks A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H, and these Blocks were transferred to the Forest Department. The annexed copy of Jamabandi (Annexure -
A/2 of the OA) marks the said Khasra No. 1116 as "Charagah Land"
and not as 'forest land'. It is pertinent to note that it is settled legal position that Charagah Land cannot be converted for any other purposes. At the same time, the villagers of the concerned region have filed an application in competent SDM Court, Thanagazi, after obtaining directions from Rajasthan High Court in the same matter, to reaffirm the ownership of the said Khasra in favour of the State Government, and the matter is currently sub-judice.
29. So far as the plantation is concerned, it is argued that it has raised plantation over the mining lease issued to him and as well as over its own land. The Answering Respondent No. 14 has planted more than 15,000 trees spans over 33% area of the Mining Lease No. 258/89, and further, the Respondent has also reserved 12 hectares (approximately) 24 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
of its own land for plantation. The Respondent has obtained all the necessary permissions regarding blasting from the Director, Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS), Ajmer region. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent is using the most advanced technology Non- Electric Shock Tube Initiation System (Nonel Blasting), which is a no electric shock, soundless, no vibration, no debri-spray method of Blasting, and carried out only during daylight hours. Further, no mining activities are carried out before sunrise, and after sunset hours. The Respondent No. 14 has applied for Clearance from National Wildlife Board in 15.09.2016, and the Authority vide letter dated 13.09.2016 sought information from the Respondent No.14. In furtherance of the above, the NBWL granted the Wildlife Clearance to the Respondent on 25.03.2022 and thereafter, the Chief Wildlife Warden vide its letter dated 09.05.2022 had accorded its approval subject to certain conditions and further argued that the wall which is approximately 6 feet as highlighted in the has been constructed and the Respondent has installed 100 MT capacity weigh bridge at the main gate of the mining area and the timing mentioned the e-rawannas pertains only to the trucks dispatch timing and no correlation can be drawn/inferred in such e-rawannas in relation to mining operations are night time. On certain occasions, the State Government suspends internet services for administrative and/or security reasons, and connectivity resumes only by late evening. In cases where a loaded truck breaks down, e-rawanna generation occurs only after repairs are completed on-site. Further, temporary server outages also cause delays in the generation of e- rawannas. Technical malfunctions in the weigh-bridge system may occasionally interrupt or hold up e-rawanna issuance. Further, once a truck is loaded, it cannot be parked overnight for safety and logistical 25 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
reasons; hence, dispatch must occur even if e-rawanna generation is delayed. The occasional time differences in e-rawannas referred to by the Applicant in his OA (Annexure-A/6 of the OA at page nos. 45 to 54) reflect upload delays, not night-time mining. Mining strictly takes place between sunrise and sunset, delayed e-rawanna generation does not establish the fact that mining takes places late at night. The Respondent No. 14's Mining Lease No. 258/89 is situated approximately 11 km from the Protected area of Sariska Sanctuary and 8.4 km from the Jamwa Ramgarh Sanctuary, as confirmed by the DFO, Alwar. Hence, the allegation of carrying out blasting within 50 meters from a protected area is too farfetched and exaggerated.
30. It is further argued that Mining Lease No.258/89 was originally granted on 13.03.1980, i.e., about forty-five (45) years ago, and since its inception, eight (8) joint surveys have been conducted by the Competent Authorities to verify and reaffirm the boundaries and extent of the lease area. The Respondent further submits that the mining lease boundaries have been meticulously demarcated and repeatedly authenticated through surveys conducted by the concerned departments from time to time. The Lease area pillars A, P, R, Q, C & D have been established in accordance with the survey done in compliance to Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 19.02.2010 in WP 202/1995 (Godavarman vs. Union of India) Contest Petition (C) No. 412/09. The area of Mining Lease No. 258/89 was ascertained employing the same GT Sheet and office records, FRP of Laxminarayan Well, Latitudes and longitudes as the coordinates used for mapping of Aravalli Hills. The report of the same was submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. The Mining Department has always functioned in accordance with the same coordinates, which has never been 26 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
challenged anywhere. The Forest Department has constructed a boundary wall along pillar P, R & Q based on these coordinates. That a portion of land of Khasra No. 1116 - 1.1520 hectare was a part of Lease Area of Mining Lease No. 258/89 until 03.04.2000, and mining activities were carried out in this part by the erstwhile Leaseholder. However, in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 12.12.1996 in Godavarman vs. Union of India, the said land was voluntarily surrendered by the Answering Respondent No. 14 on 07.04.2000 and possession thereof was duly taken over by the Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan and that the Forest Department, Rajasthan, followed due deliberation, and joint surveys, affirmed the position of P, R & Q pillars of ML No. 258/89 and thereafter constructed a 6 feet high cemented boundary wall along the common boundary of the mining lease area (Mining Lease No. 258/89). The Answering Respondent No. 14 has, on its own accord, maintained a 25-metre-wide green belt along this boundary wall, where no mining activity is carried out. This zone has been developed with dense plantation. Even if the survey report dated 31.05.2025 is taken into consideration, then also the disparity varies only from 0 to 8 meters, which is well within the green zone of lease area. Therefore, no mining activity is being undertaken in or around Khasra No. 1116. Thus, in light of the above facts, the allegation of mining on Khasra No. 1116 is completely false, baseless, and motivated by mala fide intent.
31. It is further submitted that the Applicant is placing reliance on the letter dated 13.06.2025 which is misplaced and misconceived, as the said letter is based on a new survey dated 31.05.2025, conducted by the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Alwar. The said survey merely observes that a narrow strip of land situated near boundary 27 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
pillars P, R, and Q, adjoining Charagah/Gochar land in Khasra No. 1116, appears to vary marginally, between 3 to 7 metres, from the existing six-foot-high cemented boundary wall, covering an approximate area of 1,876 square metres, as depicted in blue colour on the annexed map. The said variation can be attributed to the change in the reference point by way of using the temporary references instead of the permanent references in the nature of a well of Laxmi Narayan Meena. To place the correct facts on record and to demonstrate the Respondent's bona-fide intent. Upon receiving the said communication dated 13.06.2025, the Respondent challenged it before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10427/2025 on 07.07.2025. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its Order dated 11.07.2025, was pleased to direct Respondents No. 1 to 5 to decide the Respondent's representation strictly in accordance with law within four weeks. However, despite the said direction, the Office of the DFO, Alwar, has not taken any decision till date. Consequently, the Respondent also submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, which remains pending and unanswered and that the matter remains sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan vide its Order dated 11.07.2025. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan vide its above order was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned letter dated 13.06.2025 and issued the following directions:-
6. "........but looking to the fact that several inspection reports have been annexed with the writ petition and a detailed reply alongwith this document has been submitted by the petitioner before the respondents. It is expected from the authorities concerned to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass the appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order....."28
O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
8. "For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner."
32. With respect to the allegations concerning Khasra Nos. 1192, 1199, and 1285, situated at Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar, it is submitted that these lands are recorded as Government land as per the official revenue records. The Applicant's assertion that the Answering Respondent No. 14 is engaged in illegal mining on these lands is completely false. In fact, the SDM, Pratapgarh, in his report dated 10.06.2025 submitted to the Collector, Alwar, has categorically stated in paragraph 11 that the said Khasra numbers are vacant and free from any mining activity. This official finding itself demonstrates that the allegations made by the Applicant are unfounded and a clear attempt to waste the valuable time of this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is stated that Khasra No. 1240 forms part of the mining lease area of Mining Lease No. 258/89, as confirmed in the Cluster Certificate issued by the Mining Engineer's Office, Alwar, dated 15.05.2025. The mining lease covers 10.1857 hectares of marble mines situated at Village Jhiri, Tehsil Pratapgarh, District Alwar, encompassing multiple Khasra numbers including 1241, 1265, (Siwai Chak), Khasra No.1266, 1083, 1163, 1165, 1166, 1240, 1250 (Gair Mumkin Rada), Khasra No. 1144, 1163, 1164, 1162, 1159, 1160, 1253, 1254, 1249, 1248, 1247, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1281, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, (Leaseholder's Khatedari land) and others constituting the total lease area (10.1857 hectares) and that Khasra Nos. 1205, 1239, 1281, 1283, 1291, 1292, 1295, 1278, 1279, 1298, and 1299, admeasuring approximately 4 hectares, are duly registered in the name of Om Shubham Housing & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., the leaseholder 29 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
company, as per revenue records dated 09.01.2025. However, it later came to light that the company's retired Director, Mr. Hansraj Meena, had fraudulently transferred this land to one Mr. Ramkishan S/o Sh. Ramjilal Meena, Village Biwai, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, with the alleged connivance of officials from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Pratapgarh, District Alwar. Upon discovery of this fraudulent act, the Respondent promptly filed a protest OA before the Tehsildar, Pratapgarh on 27.01.2025, and simultaneously instituted a Civil Suit before the Learned Additional District Judge, Thanagazi, Alwar.
33. It is further argued that the Collector has already made an enquiry through Sub-Divisional Officer and no illegal mining was found.
34. The main contention of the applicant is that the Project Proponent has obtained the consent to operate under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which is valid but exceeded the mining area and there are different measures by the different department, which are self- contradictory and it requires a fresh and clear demarcation in accordance with the revenue law. The matter is being agitated before Hon'ble the High Court, in the court of Tehsildar, Collector and the SDO and concerned SDO has examined the matter and found no illegal mining. The controversy is based on the FRP well of Laxmi Narayan Meena, which was communicated by the respondent mining department in light of the order of Supreme Court of India, which is quoted below:-
"राजिान सरकार कर्ाड लर् खलन अलिर्न्ता, खान एवं िू लवज्ञान लविाग, अलवर कमां कः खि/अल/ मानलचत्र/258/89/332 लदनां क:- 22/6/15 प्रमाण-पत्र र्ह प्रमालणत लकर्ा जाता है लक ओम शुिम हाउलसंग एण्ड कन्सटे कशन प्रा०लल० द्वारा आवेलदत धाररत खनन पट्टा संख्या 258/89 खलनज मािडल क्षेत्रफल 10.1857 हैक्टर 30 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
लनकट ग्राम लिरी, तहसील थानागाजी लजला अलवर जो लक राजस्व ग्राम लिरी खुदड के आराजी खसरा संख्या. 1241 1265 1248 1247 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1281 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 व लनम्न अक्षां श एवं दे शान्तर के अन्तगडत आता है । उक्त खनन पट्टा का क्षेत्र सम्बस्थित जी.टी.शीट एवं कार्ाडलर् ररकार्ड के अनुसार माननीर् सवोच्च न्यार्ालर् के ररट र्ालचका संख्या 202/1995 (गोदावमडन िनाम र्ूलनर्न ऑफ इस्थण्डर्ा) में अरावली लहल्स के सन्दिड में पाररत आदे श लदनां क 08.04.2015 कन्टे स्ट लपलटशन (सी) 412/09 तथा आदे श लदनां क 19.02.2010 अनुसार अरावली लहल्स के सन्दिड में पाररत आदे श लदनां क 08.04.2015 कन्टे स्ट लपलटशन (सी) 412/09 तथा आदे श लदनां क 19.02. 2010 की अवहे लना में नहीं आता है ।
FRP:-well of laxmi naryan meena Latitude: 27-14-56.66 Longitude:-76-13-15-77 Total Area: 10.1857 Hect.
35. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent are that the coordinates and FRP, which is later on measured is not based according to the fix point of Laxmi Narayan Meena and it is different from the coordinates, communicated in light of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above.
36. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4, 8 and 12, are that legal actions are being taken for controlling the illegal mining. The Respondent No. 14 has filed the objection against the joint survey report and affidavit by the Dy. Conservator of Forest and submitted that the survey methodology adopted was not recognized by the trace points and it was superimposed on the basis of DGPS data, 31 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
which is not correct method and no final physical demarcation of Khasra No.1116.
37. It is further argued that the Forest Department has created a permanent pillars and permanent boundary by erecting pillars, which is neither fix point nor accurate measurement and further that the methodology being projected by the Respondents is one that claims to be anchored upon a fixed historical reference point and supported by DGPS-based superimposition over revenue maps, coupled with cross- verification through convergence points within the surrounding area. The narrative presented in the affidavit attempts to convey that the exercise undertaken was not merely a routine field inspection but a scientifically structured survey operation integrating digital positioning systems, cadastral maps and traditional reference markers, culminating in physical demarcation by erection of permanent boundary pillars. However, while the affidavit describes the methodology in broad and technical terms, it conspicuously omits detailed disclosure of the calibration data, error margins, base map authenticity, coordinate systems employed, and the process of validation undertaken before drawing conclusive findings against an existing mining lease. And that the factum of inspection and DGPS uses does not in itself set out the precise coordinates recorded, the comparative analysis between revenue records and forest notifications.
38. Furthermore, although it is claimed that Lakshminarayan's well being Khasra No. 1148 was treated as the Fixed Reference Point (FRP), the survey report itself does not clearly identify whether the FRP was the specific structure of the well or the entirety of Khasra No. 1148. A well as a fixed structure cannot be equated with an entire Khasra and the exact geo-coordinate of the FRP ought to have been recorded with 32 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
precision. The distances from the said FRP to each of the boundary pillars A, P, R, Q, C and D ought to have been measured and tabulated in the report, but no such measurement table is provided. The order dated 27.01.2026 of the Tribunal specifically directed measurement on the basis of fixed points, however, the report does not disclose the exact coordinates and distances from the so-called FRP.
39. Several Khasra numbers are described in the report as containing Timeda or Chaumeda points, yet the very map annexed with the report by the Respondents does not depict such Timeda at the stated Khasra numbers.
A. For instance, Khasra Nos. 1418, 1419 and 1412/3101 are described as having a Timeda point, whereas in the annexed map there is no such Timeda shown, nor is there any common boundary that would justify the description.
B. Similarly, Khasra Nos. 1361/3095, 1363 and 1371 are described as having a Timeda, but the map annexed by the Respondents does not reflect any such common convergence point.
C. Likewise, Khasra Nos. 1341, 1342 and 1343 are stated to have a Timeda, whereas no such common boundary or Timeda is evident from the map.
40. It is further argued that this matter is not the matter of illegal mining but it is actually the identification and measurement in accordance with Sectio 52 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and Section 60 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.
41. The matter is pending before the Court of Tehsildar and Hon'ble High Court. The matter of identification and measurement is not within the domain of this Tribunal. It is the responsibility of the Collector concerned under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act to direct for measurement after compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court 33 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
after notice because demarcation conducted without notice to the affected party is contrary to law.
42. As per records, following points are admitted:-
1. The Superintendent Mining Engineer, Jaipur Circle has approved the mining scheme.
2. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, State of Rajasthan has issued environmental clearance.
3. The National Wildlife Board has granted the wildlife clearance in favour of project proponent on 25.03.2022.
4. Project proponent had obtained the consent under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 from the State Pollution Control Board.
5. The report of the forest department with regard to measurement or taking action for cancellation of mining have been submitted to the concerned authorities and the concerned authorities have to take necessary action according to rules.
6. The aforesaid report has been sent to the Chief Wildlife Warden and the matter is pending for taking decision.
43. The matter with regard to the above mining is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in W.P. No. 10247 of 2025. Another matter is pending before the court of SDO and Tehsildar. As per report by the State Pollution Control Board the area which previously falls within the forest area have been surrendered by the lessee and department of Mines accepted the same and revised the rest of the mining. No mining observed in the area of the forest and the wall has been constructed. Necessary consent conditions have been obtained by the project proponent.
44. In view of the above facts, it is not a case of the illegal mining but it is a case of demarcation and identification of the area, which is to be decided in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 34 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..
Accordingly, we direct the Collector concerned to constitute a committee for identification and demarcation of the land in accordance with the law and legal provision as mentioned above after providing an opportunity of hearing and notice to the affected persons. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months. Necessary actions be taken by the Mining Department and the Collector in accordance with the measurements submitted and approved by the Collector. Further proceedings will be governed in accordance with the decision taken by the Hon'ble High Court/concerned court.
45. With these observations, the Original Application No.91/2025(CZ) with I.As. stand disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM 27th April, 2026, Original Application No.91/2025(CZ) AK&K 35 O.A. No. 91/2025(CZ) Gajendra Singh Naruka Vs. Union of India & Ors..