RAM SHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Misc.2nd Stay Application No.5556/2012 arising out of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11001/2011, essentially rejecting the appellant's/writ petitioner's request for suspending the execution of the mining lease granted in favour of the respondent No.5 therein, intervention of this forum has been sought for.

(2.) We have heard Mr.Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sandeep Pathak for the respondents No.5 to 12 and Mr.Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4.

(3.) The pleaded case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that his father had been initially awarded a mining lease for mineral limestone (building stone) situated near Village Pipakhedi, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota for five years vide order dated 19.12.1960 under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). This lease was thereafter renewed from time to time till 10.4.2011. The appellant has asserted that before the grant of the mining lease in favour of his father, he (appellant's father) had duly obtained "No-objection Certificate" from the concerned khatedars and had paid compensation to them. Meanwhile, by order dated 23.12.2005, lease then in subsistence was transferred in favour of the appellant and the said transaction was witnessed by a deed executed on 7.1.2006, whereafter according to him, he had become the lessee. Another lease, being ML No.45/1991, was similarly transferred in favour of the appellant. He has averred that before the expiry of the renewed term of the lease, he submitted a request for fresh renewal on 8.4.2010, which after being duly processed, was favourably recommended to be granted. Meanwhile, however the old khatedars had sold their khatedari rights in favour of respondents No.5 to 10, who raised objections against the grant of the proposed renewal in favour of the appellant. As the said authorities, on the basis of the objections so raised, rejected his application for renewal vide order dated 29.7.2011 overlooking the fact that the consent of the original khatedars had been obtained and that the same from the new khatedars was not required as well as relevant official circulars, he approached this Court for redress.