Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Magh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 16 January, 1995

Shambhu Singh vs State Of Raj & Anr on 30 March, 2012

It was also submitted that validity of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has also been upheld in Magh Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., 1995(1) WLC 731 and Hasmat Tara & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, AIR 1999 Rajasthan 163. Provisions of Section 89 of the Act of 1956 have a different object to be achieved of payment of compensation as value of land of Khatedar or owner may diminish. Even in the rules obtaining of consent is made imperative before entry/mining operation. Thus, Clause-12 of the Marble Policy, 2002 cannot be said to be unconstitutional, illegal or arbitrary or repugnant to the provisions of the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1986 in any manner whatsoever. Consequently, we find challenge to vires of Clause-12 of the Marble Policy, 2002 to be without substance.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A Mishra - Full Document

Ramsharan Modi vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 28 February, 2011

5) It is to be noted that sub-Section (4) of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provides that if in the 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 provision of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. In my view, the consent is the pre-requisite condition for considering any application for grant of mining lease for the land, which is in the khatedari of any individual. The law is very specific on this aspect, which is evident from the language used in Section 89(5) that 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 compensation has been determined and tendered to the person whose rights are infringed. Payment of compensation is therefore also a condition precedent for a mining lease rights. Validity of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act were challenged and this court in Magh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : WLC (Raj.) 1995(1) 731 held that 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. On this consideration, the provision was held to be reasonable and ultravires and the validity of Section 89 was upheld. There cannot be any question of implied bar on maintenance of suit under Section 188, which remedy is available in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 itself. Cited judgments are therefore distinguishable on facts. In any case, this could not be an objection raised by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC holding that plaint does not disclose a cause of action. However, this can be an objection of the petitioner, which may have to be decided as a preliminary issue and an issue may have to be framed by the SDO while deciding the suit on the question of maintainability of suit.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1