Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE appellant - State and the Forest Department, have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before this Court aggrieved by the concurrent decree of injunction given by the two courts below in respect of mining leases issued in favour of plaintiffs/respondents not to interfere with their mining operations.
(2.) THE facts are illustratively taken from S.B.C.S.A. No. 77/2005 - State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Basantilal & Anr. The plaintiff/respondent filed suit (Suit No. 72/1996 - Basantilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was decreed by the learned trial court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Division) No. 3, Udaipur, on 13.05.1998 with the following findings in favour of plaintiff that the mining lease of the plaintiff was in Aaraji No. 3385 (Old Aaraji No. 1589) and the same was not notified as 'reserved forest' by the State Government and, therefore, the Forest Department could not interfere with the mining operations of the plaintiff, which was being carried out in accordance with the mining lease given in their favour with the environmental clearances obtained by them. The relevant findings of the learned trial court about the land not falling in the forest area are quoted herein below: - - The defendant State (Forest Department) filed first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, which Appeal No. 31/1999 - State of Rajasthan v. Basantilal, also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court on 22.07.2003 affirming the findings of the learned trial court in the following manner: - -
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the same, the State and Forest Department have filed the present second appeal in this Court on 20.10.2003 and the matter is pending for admission for last 12 years.;