Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chanchal Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 August, 2020
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [SAW-1442/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1442/2019
Smt. Chanchal Jain W/o G L Jain, Aged About 55 Years, Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Shri G L Jain, Son Of Shri Tejaraj Jain,
Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Flat No. C-804, Shantiban
Society, Opposite V IIT College, Kondhwa Budruk, (Katraj
Kondhwa Road), Pune-411048 (Maharashtra)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Mines Secretary,
Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.L. Jain on behalf of
Ms.Chanchal Jain
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on :: 04/02/2020 Pronounced on :: 07/08/2020 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.:
1. This special appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13168/2018, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.
2. The bone of contention in the present case is non-grant of mining lease to the appellant/writ petitioner on account of her non execution of agreement within specified time and not being able to get her land demarcated and since the area fell within the (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:59:23 PM) (2 of 4) [SAW-1442/2019] specified area in Aravali Hills. The prospective licenses have been issued in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner on 15.01.1998 and 27.01.1998, but the same were revoked vide orders dated 08.03.2000 and 10.06.1999 respectively. Such non-grant of mining lease to the appellant/writ petitioner, as per her pleaded case, resulted into huge financial loss/damages, wherefore the appellant/writ petitioner has also claimed compensation.
The appellant/writ petitioner raised the aforesaid grievances by way of filing the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, while holding that the appellant/writ petitioner has not challenged the revocation of the aforementioned prospective licenses and also the area in question falls within the Aravali Hills Range, which is the prohibited area, in light of the directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2002 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad and Society, Protection of Human Rights and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2008)16SCC401, coupled with subsequent amendment in Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, insertion of Section 10A in the Act, in particular. Learned Single Judge has further observed that appropriate remedy for claiming the damages suffered by the appellant/writ petitioner is to file a civil suit before the competent court.
3. Power of attorney appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that grant of mining lease in her favour was wrongly revoked as demarcation report was made in her absence and her power of attorney Shri G. L. Jain's signature on documents-field (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:59:23 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-1442/2019] book and demarcation report was forged as it was clearly proved from the Government FSL report dated 04.03.2013. He further alleged that the forgery was committed by the respondent officials, and therefore, they themselves are guilty and are liable to compensate for the losses, damages, injuries, torture etc. suffered by the appellant/writ petitioner. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in giving the finding that the Revocation Order dated 08.03.2000 was never challenged by way of any proceeding, whereas the appellant has filed two Revision applications under Section 30 of MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 before Revisionary Authority against the order dated 08.03.2000 passed by the State Government as well as has raised her grievances before the concerned authorities by way of submitting various representations.
He also submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court describing the Aravalli Hills as a prohibited area for grant of mining lease was dated 16.12.2002, whereas the appellant has been granted two prospective licenses vide orders dated 15.01.1998 and 27.01.1998 which was way prior to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the amendment in Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 whereby Section 10A was inserted was made subsequently.
4. After hearing the power of attorney on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner at length as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that prior to revocation of the mining license, the appellant was afforded sufficient opportunity for putting her personal appearance before the concerned authorities, but she failed to avail such opportunity, which resulted into the (Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:59:23 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-1442/2019] appellant not being able to get her land demarcated in her presence for the purpose of mining activity, and the petitioner at no stage has prayed for any fresh demarcation, rather the appellant was harping upon commission of forgery etc. Moreover, regarding the allegations of forgery etc. criminal proceedings are going on before the competent court, and therefore, the same cannot be dealt with by this Court.
5. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the area in question falls within the Aravali Hills Range, which is a prohibited area for grant of mining lease, as per the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the subsequent amendment in the MMDR Act, as mentioned above, and therefore, no mining lease can be granted in the area in question. Moreover, the appellant has no LOI issued in her favour and she has claimed relief only on the basis of prospective license issued in her favour.
6. The learned Single Judge has also rightly observed that for claiming losses/damages the appropriate remedy available is filing of civil suit before the competent court.
7. In view of the above, no case for making any interference in the present appeal is made out.
8. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ SKant/-
(Downloaded on 07/08/2020 at 08:59:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)