Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff, Yunus S/o Hussain, in this Court on 11.06.2012 aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2012 whereby the application for Temporary Injunction in Civil Misc. Case No. 139/2011 has been rejected by the learned trial court of Additional District Judge, Parbatsar, District: Nagaur.
(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff claimed that under the 'Bapi -Patta' the mine in question being Mine No. 107 was given to the forefathers of the family of which the plaintiff is also a member and the quarry licence was issued in favour of defendant on 05.01.1988 after the said mine in question was declared as "Khasla" by the State Government on 24.08.1968 on an application filed by the defendant on 17.12.1987, the said quarry licence was issued in favour of defendants on 05.01.1988 under which the defendant is carrying on the mining operations in the said mine. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the year 2011, after almost 24 years of the continued mining operation by the defendant/respondent claiming that without seeking a declaration of the mine on the basis of "Bapi -Patta" issued in favour of forefathers of the plaintiff by the erstwhile State, the defendant/respondent No. 1 could not be given the said quarry licence on 05.01.1988 and the plaintiff was not a party under the so -called family settlement, which was alleged to have taken place on 15.02.1973 and, therefore, he sought a relief of declaration that the mining operations carried out by the defendant under the quarry licence issued to him, he be restrained from carrying out the mining operations in the said mine, which the learned trial court after discussing, prima facie, the relevant evidence found that once "Bapi -Patta" was de -recognized by the State Government while declaring the mine in question to be "Khalsa" on 24.08.1968, and thereafter the mining lease/quarry licence was issued in favour of defendant/respondent on 05.01.1988 after following the due process of law, the plaintiff was not entitled to any temporary injunction against the defendant.
(3.) THE present suit has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff after more than 20 years and the plaintiff was not entitled to temporary injunction against the defendants. The relevant findings of the learned trial court refusing to grant temporary injunction read as under: - ;