Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Magh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 16 January, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995RAJ133, 1995(1)WLC731
JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. It has been prayed that the impugned order Anx. 2 may kindly be quashed and the respondents No. 2 may be restrained from proceeding in the matter.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he is holding Barani land measuring about 85 bighas at village Gangrana, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur. In support of his case he has also produced Jamabandi from Samvat Year 2037 to 2040 (Anx. 1). It has been alleged that a notice (Anx. 2) was received by him issued by the respondent No. 2 under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1) calling upon the petitioner to produce his claim for quantum of compensation as a mining lease has been given to M/s. Manglam Cement Limited in respect of the land in question. Hence, this writ petition.
3. This writ petition is pending since 21 -3-1984. This Court while admitting the petition on 23-3-1984 stayed proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta, in connection with notice Annx. 2. An application was filed by M/s. Manglam Cement Limited on 11-7-1984 for impleading it as a party-respondent in the petition, which was allowed on 19-9-1984. In pursuance of the notice, reply has been filed by the respondent-State on 1-8-1984 praying that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. The matter has come up before us. As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
5. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that unless the land is not acquired according to the provisions of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, it is not open for the respondents to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. He has also contended in the alternative that the provisions of Section 89 of the Act are discriminatory and arbitrary as they do not make any provision for hearing a person before divesting him of his property as such Section 89 of the Act is violative of Artcles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution.
6. Learned counsel for the nonpetitioners have submitted that the State Government is competent to take over the land for excavation of minerals. They submitted that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. They further submitted that the power under Section 89 of the Act has not been exercised arbitrarily.
7. We have given our utmost consideration to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the relevant provisions of law.
8. First of ail we proceed to examine the challenge made to the validity of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. For proper appreciation of the controversy, it would be just to read Section 89, which reads as under: -
"89. Right to minerals, mines, quarries and fisheries- (1) The right to all minerals, mines and quarries and to all fisheries, navigation and irrigation in and from a river shall vest in the State Government and the State Government shall have all powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right.
(2) The right to all mines and quarries includes the right of access to land for the purpose of mining and quarrying and the right to occupy such other land as may be necessary for purposes subsidiary thereto, including the erection of offices, workmen's dwellings and machinery, the staking of minerals and deposits of refuse, the construction of roads, railways or tram lines and any other purposes which the State Government * may declare to be subsidiary to Tnining and quarrying.
(3) If the State Government has assigned to any person its right over any minerals, mines or quarries and if for the proper enjoyment of such right, it is necessary that all or any of the powers specified in sub-sections(l) and (2) should be exercised by such person, the Collector may by an order in writing subject to such conditions and reservation as he may prescribe, delegate such powers to the person to whom the right has been assigned:
Provided that no such delegation shall be made until notice has been duly served on all persons having rights in the land effected and their objections have been heard and considered.
(4) I'f in exercise of the right herein referred to over any land, the rights of any persons are infringed by the occupation or disturbance of the surface of such land, the State Government or its assignee shall pay to such persons compensation for such infringement and the amount of such compensation shall be calculated by the Collector, or if his award is not accepted, by the Civil Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act XXIV of 1953).
(5) No assignee of the State Government shall enter on or occupy the surface of any land without the previous sanction of the Collector, unless the compensatin has been determined and tendered to the person whose rights are infringed.
(6) If any assignee of the State Government fails to pay compensation as provided in sub-section (4), the Collector may recover such compensation from him on behalf of the person entitled to it, as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
(7) Any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes minerals from any mine or quarry, the right to which vests in and has not been assigned by the State Government shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, be liable on the order in writing of the Collector to pay a penalty not exceeding a sum calculated at the rate of fifty rupees per tonne or a fraction thereof of the minerals so extracted or removed:
Provided that if the sum so calculated is less than one thousand rupees, the penalty may be such larger sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as the Collector may impose."
9. A bare perusal of Section 89 of the Act clearly reveals that before divesting a person of his property a right of hearing is given to him and thereafter quantum of compensation is calculated and awarded and then the land is ultimately vested in the State Government. Undoubtedly, Section 89 of the Act gives vast power to the State Government to take away the land of any person but at the same time the provisions of Section 89 envisage that opportunity of being heard be given to a person and also give liberty to him to file any objection regarding acquisition, quantum of compensation and remedy is also provided if the award of compensation is not acceptable to him. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity of Section 89 of the Act and we declare that the Section 89 is intra vires to Arts. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution.
10. So far as the contention that the proceedings are without jurisdiction is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit inasmuch as the provisions and procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act is not applicable to the case in hand. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner is to be acquired for the mining purposes as there are lime stone quarries in the disputed land for which the provisions of Section 89 of the Act and the Rules appended thereto under which the State Government is competent to initiate proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner has1 not been able to show Otherwise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the non-petitioners cannot dispossess the petitioner from the, disputed land without initiating proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. That apart the non-petitioners have specifically stated that the petitioner was-given full opportunity of hearing by the respondent No. 2 to appear before him and submit his objection but the petitioner neither raised any objection nor filed any reply/claim even when last opportunity was given to him on 8-3-1984. More so, the petitioner has remedy to file an appeal against the compensation award which will be' decided after hearing him. In this view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The ad interim order dt. 23-3-1984 stands discharged.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.