M.L. Joshi, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are : There is a lime stone plot measuring 500 feet x 500 feet situated village Hanumanpur in hill known as Reni Pahari, in Tahsil Karoli District Sawai Madhopur. The plot in question was formerly leased out to M/s Sharma Lime Company Hanumanpur of which the petitioner was one of the partner. That lease was for a period of 5years from 21 -8 -1963 to 20 -8 -1968. The petitioner applied for the giant of lease of the aforesaid plot in question on 19 -11 -1968. One Kedarlal had applied for the grant of lease of the same plot en 21 -8 -1968 i.e. some time before the petitioner had applied for the lease. The Mining Engineer rejected the applicition of Kadarlal on 31 -12 -1968 holding it premature on the ground that by Mat time the area was not free for grant of Mining Engineer however by his order dated 1 -1 -1939 sanctioned the grant of the lease in the name of the petitioner for a period of five year from the date of agreement. Pursuant to the order of the Mining Engineer a lease deed was executed in the name of the petitioner and the State on 25 -3 -1969 and the game was registered on 4 -4 -1969 In pursuance of the and lease the petitioner Was put in possession of the plot in question on 11 -4 -1939 Kadarlal feeling aggrieved by the order of the Mining Engineer rejecting his application appealed before the Joint Director Mines Udaipur. He did not implead the petitioner as a party in the appeal. The Joint Director accepted the appeal of Kedar Lal by his order dated 11 -3 -1999 and directed the lease of the area bi granted by auction of the plot in question. The petitioner who had gone a lease in his favour naturally felt aggrieved by the order of the Mining Engineer directing auction of the plot. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 1969. In the writ petition the petitioner threw a challenge to the validity of the order of the Joint Director. This writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1301 of 1969. In the writ petition the petitioner obtained ex parte interim stay order on 24 -9 -1969 restraining the respondent in that, case from interfering with the petitioner's possession. That writ petition came to be heard by Tyagi J. In that wit petition the petitioner principally rested his case on three grounds (i) that he had a registered lease deed in his favour, (ii) the Joint Director was not competent to direct the auction of the plot in question in the fact of the subsisting lease in the petitioner's favour, and (iii) he petitioner could not be dispossessed from the plot in question in compliance of the order of the Joint Director and that the Mining Engineer's threat to dispossess the petitioner wag Without jurisdiction. The Single judge of this Court held that the lease in the petitioner's favour was granted in contravention of the directions of the Joint Director Mining and that the Joint Director had power to grant the lease by auction while accepting the appeal of Kedatlal. It was, however, said in that judgment that Kedarlal's appeal was accepted without affording opportunity to the petitioner of being heard as the petitioner was not impleaded party in that appeal and so there was violation of principles of natural justice. The Single Judge of this Court, however, refused to grant relief claimed and dismissed the writ petition No. 1301 of 1969 in view of the conduct of the petitioner in suppressing material facts. The petitioner then challenged the judgment of the Single Bench by way of Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court but the appeal was dismissed on 23 -10 -1970.
(2.) WHEN the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court the stay order granted in that writ petition stood vacated The petitioner thereupon in order to retain his possession filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Mining Authority from dispossessing him on 23 -9 -1969 in the court of Munsif Karoli and also obtained an interim stay order from that Court. That suit was however withdrawn in February, 1971, with permission to file fresh suit as there was a formal defect in it as no notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was given before filing of that suit. On 23 -3 -1971, the petitioner after complying with the provisions of Section 80 C.P.C. brought another suit for injunction restraining the State authorities to dispossess him. That suit remained pending till 7 -9 -1974, when, it was withdrawn by the petitioner on the ground that he had already filed a writ petition in this court and obtained the stay order. It may be stated here that the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 6 -3 -1974. To complete the narration of facts it may be stated that while the writ petition No. 1301 of 1969 was pending it appears that the Joint Director issued a notice to the petitioner for rehearing the appeal of Kadarlal as the petitioner was not heard in it. The joint Director, however, decided the matter after the decision in the previous writ petition against the petitioner by observing that in view of the judgment of the High Court he was unable to rehear the appeal of Kedarlal. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director appealed to the State Government and obtained stay order cot to disposes him. The State Government vacated the stay order on 24 -8 -1973. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the State Government on 2 -1 -1974.
(3.) AS stated earlier while the appeal before the State Government was pending the petitioner had brought yet another suit for permanent Injunction restraining the State from dispossessing the petitioner and applied for grant of injunction order but the Munsif Karoli rejected the application for injunction by his order dated 27 -9 -1973. The petitioner appealed against that order and obtained stay order from the appellate court on 3 -1 -1974 which was vacated on 13th of February, 1974. The petitioner did not reconcile with the vacation of the stay order and therefore moved this court in revision The revision application was, however, withdrawn on 18 -4 -1974 and the suit out of which the revision arose was also withdrawn subsequently on 7 -9 -1974.;