- (1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.10.10 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 26/10, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant-plaintiff and confirmed the order dated 21.9.10 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Application No. 86/10.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking declaration that the order dated 28.7.10 passed by the respondents-defendants is illegal, null and void, and seeking permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from recovering any amount and taking any action against the petitioner-plaintiff pursuant to the said order. It has been alleged in the plaint interalia that the respondent No.2 had issued a notice dated 22.7.04 on the basis of the incorrect facts and without any authority of law to the petitioner, which was replied to by the petitioner on 7.8.04, requiring the respondent No.2 to disclose the basis on which the said notice was issued, and also documents on which the respondents had placed reliance for levelling the allegations of unauthorised excavation. It is further alleged that the petitioner-plaintiff was neither given any reply nor supplied any document by the respondent NO.2 and that about 4 years thereafter, the Mining Engineer sent a Certificate of Recovery to the Mining Engineer (Recovery), Ajmer on 4.3.08. Pursuant to the said certificate, the respondent No.3 issued notice dated 3.5.08 to the petitioner alleging interalia that a sum of Rs. 11,66,400/- was due against him and he was liable to pay the same. By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the respondent No.3 on 31.5.08. It has also been alleged that on 31.5.08, the petitioner could not remain present on account of his ill-health and had therefore sought another date. According to the petitioner, the Asstt. Mining Engineer (Recovery) thereafter sent a letter dated 28.7.10 informing the petitioner to deposit the said amount as claimed in the notice, failing which his property would be attached. According to the petitioner the entire proceedings including the order dated 28.7.10 were illegal, null and void, and therefore the suit was filed. The petitioner-plaintiff had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction of similar nature under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
(3.) The said application for temporary injunction was resisted by the respondents by filing the reply contending interalia that all the documents demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him, and his father Hukam Chand Jain had also put his signature on the note-sheet with regard to the receipt of the said documents. It was also contended that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing pursuant to the notice dated 3.5.08 and the demand letter dated 28.7.10. The respondent-defendant had also contended that as per the inspection report prepared on 16.2.04, an unauthorised excavation was found on the land belonging to the Khatedar Gopal Jat, who had informed on the spot that the unauthorised excavation was being carried out by the petitioner and, therefore, the recovery of the amount for unauthorised excavation was required to be made against the petitioner under Section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MMDR Act'). It was also contended that the remedy was available to the petitioner to file revision petition under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1960') and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions contained in Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Act'). The respondents, therefore, had prayed for dismissing the T.I. application. The trial court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties had dismissed the said application vide the order dated 21.9.10 against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellant which has also been dismissed vide the impugned order.;