Rabi & Ors. v. Mining Engineer, Mines & Geological Deptt., Makrana & Ors.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioners. .... BY THE COURT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition against the order dated 20.05.2009 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Parbatsar in Succession Case No.16/2009. By the order impugned, the learned Additional District Judge, Parbatsar dealing with the application as moved by the petitioners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has considered the objections as submitted by the objectors-respondents Nos.2 to 6 in response to the general notice advertised in the newspaper wherein they have claimed the right in the property in question on the basis of the will and gift-deed and have also made a counter-claim for issuance of succession certificate in their favour; and, in the circumstances, the learned Judge has ordered impleadment of the objectors as party to the proceedings. 2 Seeking to challenge the order so passed by the learned Judge on 20.05.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that essentially the claim of the petitioners is of transfer of quarry licence as held by their late father being his legal heirs; and such a claim is in conformity with Rules 31 and 74 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed the application seeking succession certificate only for the purpose of the said quarry licence and in that regard, the objectors, who are not the heirs of the deceased father of the petitioners, are not entitled to put forward any claim. Whether the claim as sought to be made by the objectors is sustainable or not, is a matter entirely different but, with regard to the submissions as made in their objection petition, wherein a counter claim has also been made, the learned Additional District Judge cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in ordering their impleadment. The impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error leading to failure of justice so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.