Kan Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by one Mangilal and by it he seeks a writ, direction or order for quashing an order of the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, Udaipur, dated 21st February, 1966 whereby a lease in respect of 112-1/2 acres of land lying within the revenue boundaries of village Khubnagar was granted to respondent No. 5. The case with which the petitioner has come forward is briefly this :
(2.) HE claims that a mining lease in respect of the lands covered by the revenue boundary of village Khubnagar, tehsil Karauli, district Sawaimadhopur, was granted to him by the State Government on 15th November, 1962 for a period of five years as a result of public auction. The lease was executed in his favour and a copy of it (Ex. 1) has been placed on the record. The petitioner submits that since the grant of the lease he has been working the quarries in that area and had invested a substantial amount in improving the quarries by laying out roads and had also advanced money to the labourers in the natural expectation that he would be allowed to have the benefit of rights granted to him without any interruption. His grievance is that during the currency of his lease the Director of Mines and Geology granted a mining lease to respondent No. 5 in respect of three plots out of which plot No. 1 overlaps the area already granted to the petitioner as this area of plot No. 1 lay within the boundary of village Khubnagar. The petitioner is not making any grievance in respect of plots Nos. 2 and 3, granted to respondent No. 5 which are outside his leased area being in the boundaries of other villages, namely, Harnagar and Bichpari. In short, the petitioner's case is that having once granted the mining lease to the petitioner in respect of the entire area comprising the revenue boundaries of village Khubnagar, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have acted wholly without jurisdiction in granting a second lease to respondent No. 5. In view of this, he asks for cancellation of the order of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 21st February, 1966 to the extent it relates to plot No. 1 comprising the area granted to respondent No. 5. The writ petition has been opposed both by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who are the State and Officers of the Mining Department and respondent No. 5 Shri Surendra Pal, Maharaj Kumar of Karauli, to whom the second lease was granted. It has, been admitted on behalf of the State that a mining lease was granted to the petitioner in respect of the area comprising the revenue boundaries of village Khubnagar and the lease deed Ex 1 was executed in favour of the petitioner. But it is denied that the State was precluded from granting the second lease in respect of the same area to respondent No 5, as, according to the State, this area formed part of the 'that area which is reserved as property of the ex-Ruler of Karauli. It is submitted on behalf of the State that respondent No. 5 made an application for grant of a mining lease in respect of this area in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and as there was no other application for this area, the same was leased out to respondent No. 5. According to the State, this was a free area of which a grant could legitimately be made. Respondent No. 5 has shown his ignorance about the execution of the lease-deed in favour of the petitioner, but he admits that according to Ex. 1, it did appear that a lease-deed was granted in favour of the petitioner and the lease deed comprised the revenue boundaries of village Khubnagar. He, however, submits that the land granted to respondent No. 5 fell within what was known as 'badi Randh' out of which some area was reserved as personal property of the ex-Ruler of Karauli and this area was eventually demarcated in accordance with the terms of the settlement relating to the private property of the ex-Ruler. This area, according to respondent No. 5, was known as 'that' Out of this 'that' area, it is asserted that Khasra Nos. 191 and 200 were of village Khubnagar. Respondent No. 5 maintains that this area being the personal property of the ex-Ruler of Karauli, no mining lease could have been granted in favour of the petitioner without the permission of the ex-Ruler. Respondent No. 5 further submits that he had been carrying on mining operations in this area in pursuance of short term permits granted by the officers of the Mining Department from time to time beginning from 18. 11. 64 to 3. 7. 65. From the above narration, it will be clear that the main question that falls for our determination is, whether having once granted a mining lease to the petitioner in respect of the entire area comprising the revenue boundary of village Khubnagar, it was open to the Director of Mines and Geology to grant a second lease in respect of a portion of that area (112-1/2 acres) to respondent No. 5. Here, we are not concerned with the matter whether any portion of the land leased out to the petitioner was or was not the private property of the ex-Ruler of Karauli because it is nobody's case that the mineral rights in this area vested in the ex-Ruler after the settlement of the private property in his favour by the Government of India. According to sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the right to all minerals, mines and quarries shall vest in the State Government and the State Government, shall have all the powers necessary for the enjoyment of such a right, subject to the subsisting rights of private persons. Therefore, irrespective of the surface rights belonging to anyone else, the State Govt. or the officers of the State Govt. to whom the power has been delegated by the Rules could grant leases for quarrying the minerals lying in the entire area of Khubnagar. According to R. 17 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, it is for the lessee to pay separately, for the surface area used by him for the purpose of mining, surface rent equal to land revenue. Therefore,whether a particular lessee will be able to avail of the surface rights in the land or not is not the question that concerns us at the moment. The precise question, as we have already observed, is, whether the State Government or its officers were within their rights in grating a second mining lease in respect of a portion of the! area already granted to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. The Director of Mines and Geology has purported to grant a second lease on the assumption that this was a free area. It is incomprehensible as to how the area once granted to a party could be deemed to be a free area while the lease is subsisting so as to entitle-respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to grant a fresh lease thereof. We have perused the short term permits produced by respondent No. 5, but they cannot advance his case in any manner as they were also granted after the lease was made in favour of the petitioner. At any rate, they cannot have any bearing on the question of the validity of the lease in favour of respondent No. 5 covering plot No. 1 in Khubnagar. In the circumstances, the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan has acted wholly without jurisdiction in giving a lease in respect of plot No. 1 falling within the area of Khubnagar comprising 112-1/2 acres. Consequently, we quash the order of the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan Udaipur, dated 21st February, 1966 and hereby restrain the respondents from interfering with the enjoyment of the rights of the petitioner in the leased area granted to him. The petitioner will get his costs from the State of Rajasthan. . ;