Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Mayank Int Udyog vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 19 November, 2016
Bench: Govind Mathur, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.1069/2013
M/s Mayank Int Udyog,
Through its proprietor- Sant Lal s/o Shri Harchand Rai
Modi, age 77 years, r/o Chak 15 Barani, Nohar,
Tehsil- Nohar, District- Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The District Collector, Hanumangarh (Raj.)
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, NOHAR, District-
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
4. The Tehsildar (Revenue), NOHAR, District -
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
5. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology
Department, District- Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondents
Mr. Vishal Jangid, for the appellant
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment 19/11/2016 ( 2 of 4 ) [SAW -1069-2013] The facts and issues raised in this Special Appeal are covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.544/2013 "M/s Jai Shri Bricks Manufacturing Vs. State of Rajasthan" and other connected matters decided on 14.11.2014, in which it was held as follows :-
"15. In the present case, we are not concerned with the powers of the Collector for granting leases for running brick-kilns. The issue is confined to the conversion of the khatedari land under section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with Rules of 2007 from agricultural to industrial purposes. The conversion of the land from agricultural to industrial purpose is not an encroachment or is in conflict with the powers of the Mining Engineer to grant mining lease on the land. The grant of mining lease does not authorize the licensee to establish and run brick- kiln on the land, which is a khatedari land. It is a permission given for change of user of khatedari land from agricultural to industrial purposes and this permission has to be granted on ( 3 of 4 ) [SAW -1069-2013] certain conditions and on payment of minimum rates, which are prescribed under the Rules of 2007. There is no conflict between the powers conferred on the Mining Engineer under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and the powers conferred on the revenue authorities under section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for conversion of agricultural land for industrial use, for which the procedure and rates are prescribed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007.
16. We do not find that the petitioners, who are appellants before us, had challenged the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Non-Agricultural Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 2007 and thus, we are relieved of adjudicating the question of validity of the Rules of 2007, the procedure and rates prescribed thereunder for conversion of agricultural land for industrial purposes.
( 4 of 4 ) [SAW -1069-2013]
17. We do not find that there is any foundation for the argument that the land for which the notice has been given for conversion to industrial use is not a khatedari land or that such land is not situate in rural areas. There are no pleadings to support the argument raised regarding the location of the land in areas other than rural areas.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the Special Appeals. All these Special Appeals are accordingly dismissed. A copy of the judgment be placed in all the files."
We do not find that any new or fresh ground has been raised in this Special Appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.(GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil Kumar Choudhary