Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioners appellants in both the appeals, vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be reversed. He fervently contended that the District Collector, Pali had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the private (6 of 20) [SAW-396/2020] respondent under Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act. Referring to the provisions of Section 50 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Shri Moti Singh urged that the Gram Panchayat Kharadi has the primary obligation of doing all functions and acts in relation to the properties falling within its jurisdiction which includes the Temple and its lands. The deity being a perpetual minor, notice of the proceedings under Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act was mandatory to be served upon the deity through the Gram Panchayat as its trustee. He urged that in the subject application preferred by the private respondent, the temple, which is private in nature having no control of the Devesthan Department, was intentionally and malafide impleaded through the Dy. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur. Resultantly, no notice was ever sent at the address of the temple. He further submitted that in the application filed by the private respondent to the District Collector, it was nowhere pleaded that it was seeking mining rights over the land assigned by the State Government for this purpose. As a matter of fact, there was not an iota of assertion in the application that the land of the temple was ever approved by the State Government as falling under the lease originally issued to one Mishrilal. He further submitted that the District Collector, proceeded with the matter as if he was sanctioning acquisition of the land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013'). The compensation was quantified and the cheque was forwarded to the Devasthan Department. He referred to the reply filed by the Devasthan Department in the appeal wherein, a (7 of 20) [SAW-396/2020] specific assertion is made that the proceedings undertaken by the Collector and the order passed by the Collector are absolutely illegal. The temple is private in nature and consequently, the cheque has been returned by the Devasthan Department. He further urged that the assertion made by the respondents that other parties have approached different forums for challenging the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, would not impede the petitioners-appellants from exercising their bonafide rights of defending the land of the temple because neither the Gram Panchayat nor the appellants writ petitioners in appeal No.396/2020 have challenged the order passed by the District Collector before any other forum. Shri Moti Singh further urged that the mining area, which was sanctioned to the original mining lease holder, was 100 Hectares and as per the existing Revenue Entry No.861 (Annexure-3), the private respondent is already possessed of this land area which is categorised as 'Gair Mumkin Magri'. He urged that the land of the temple is recorded as ' डोली बनाम मन्दिर शश्री ममहादिहादेववजश्री वााकहादे दिहादेमह बएतनामम' and is a 'Barani Doyam' land. Two crops a year are being harvested on this land. Regarding the right of the petitioners to bring the writ petitions irrespective of the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal, Shri Moti Singh referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. vs. City Industrial Development Corpn. & Anr. reported in (2007)9 SCC 593 and urged that as the District Collector exercised powers without having jurisdiction, the bar of statutory remedy cannot negate the petitioners' right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the perverse and arbitrary action of the (8 of 20) [SAW-396/2020] respondents. On these submissions, Shri Moti Singh vehemently and fervently implored the Court to accept the appeals and set aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench as well as the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the District Collector, Pali.

8. Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG refuted the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He urged that the District Collector has exercised jurisdiction well within the confines of law while passing the impugned order dated 10.01.2020. Notice of the proceedings under Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act was served on the Devasthan Department and that there is neither lack of jurisdiction nor breach of principles of natural justice in the (9 of 20) [SAW-396/2020] impugned proceedings and hence, as per Shri Beniwal, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners and relegating them to avail the statutory remedy.

9. Shri Ravi Bhansali, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by learned counsel Shri Ramit Mehta and Shri Tarun Dudia, Advocate representing the respondent No.5, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Moti Singh. He urged that the respondent No.5 acquired the mining lease in question by way of a valid transfer approved by the Mining Department. Thereafter, the subject application was filed before the District Collector under Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act seeking permission to exercise mineral extraction rights on the land owned by the temple which was falling in the sanctioned mining lease area. No prayer was ever made by the respondent for acquisition of the land. The use of the term 'acquisition by the District Collector' in the impugned order was made in a casual manner. However, the final directions, which have been issued vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2020, are only limited to permitting the private respondent No.5 to carry out mining activities on the land in question. Furthermore, the temple has been suitably compensated with a huge sum of Rs.2,63,55,679/-, the cheque whereof was sent to the Devasthan Department. The private respondent is, even as on date, ready to offer the compensation quantified by the District Collector to the Devasthan Department and this amount can be used to purchase a fresh chunk of land for offsetting the loss caused to the temple by the mining activities (10 of 20) [SAW-396/2020] permitted to the respondent No.5 under the impugned order. Shri Bhansali further urged that the learned Single Bench was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petitions on the issue of maintainability as statutory remedy of appeal is available to the appellants herein against the impugned order passed by the District Collector. He further pointed out that few of the villagers have already availed remedies before different forums to challenge the order passed by the District Collector and as such, this Court should refrain from entering into the disputed questions of facts and that appeals should be dismissed on this very ground. He further submitted that in the intervening period, Mining Department carried out survey over the mining area in question and the Khasra numbers of the temple land were found to be covered by the mining lease issued in favour of Shri Mishrilal and hence, the District Collector was perfectly justified in accepting the application preferred by the respondent NO.5 (lessee) under Section 89 of the Land Revenue Act. He thus urged that the view taken by the learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petitions by the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 does not warrant any interference by this Court.