Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur Raj v. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department

Judgment

4. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Tyagi Bhawan, Old City, Dholpur. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Dholpur Raj.

Rambharosi, S/o Shri Rameshwar, R/o Village Veerpur, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur Raj. Vilas, S/o Shri Rameshwar, R/o Village Veerpur, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur Raj. ---- Proforma-Respondents/Plaintiffs For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Jain, Adv. with Mr. Udit Sapra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 25/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil appeal No.03/2009, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed the plaintiff, affirmed the judgment and decree dated

28.02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Badi, Dholpur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.02/2009, by which the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction. (2 of 5) [CSA-560/2010] Brief facts of the case are that in an auction held on

25.03.1983 a mining lease deed for sandstone situated in plot No.4 Village-Veerpur was issued in favour of the plaintiffs at the deed rent of Rs.5,100/- of which advance amount of Rs.2,550/- was deposited by the plaintiffs on 25.03.1983. On 14.06.1984 the said mining lease was cancelled by the mining department on the ground that the said mining area was within the purview of forest area. It was revealed to the plaintiffs that the defendants were again auctioning the mining lease of plot No. 4 Veerpur on

16.11.1992. The plaintiffs prayed that by way of permanent injunction, the defendants be restrained to auction the mining lease of plot No. 4 Veerpur, Tehsil Bari and to issue patta of the said mining lease in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant to the order dated 25.03.1983. The defendants filed a written statement and it was stated that since the plaintiffs’ mining lease was illegal as penalty was imposed and on account of non-deposition of penalty, the amount of Rs.2,550/- deposited by the plaintiffs was adjusted in the penalty amount. It was further stated that since the mining area was falling within the limits of forest area, therefore the plaintiffs’ lease was cancelled and information in this regard was given on

19.11.1985 and 06.03.1986 but despite the information given to the plaintiffs, they did not appear, therefore the patta of the plot was cancelled. Plot No 4 was not being auctioned on 16.11.1992, and the plot being auctioned was different than the plot No.4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- (3 of 5) [CSA-560/2010] ”1- vk;k fookfnr IykV ua-&4 izksVsDV iksjsLV dh lhek ds vUnj vk tkus ds dkj.k oknhx.k }kjk uhykeh esa vf/kdre cksyh ij iV~Vs ij fn;s tkus dk vkns’k fn- 25-3-83 fujLr dj fn;k\ 2- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k dks ikcUn djk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS fd og fookfnr IykV ua&4 ohjiqj rglhy okMh dks uhyke u djs vxj uhyke djs rks oknhx.k dks iwoZ ds vkns’k fn- 25-3-83 ds rgr oknhx.k dks iV~Vk tkjh djus dk vkns’k fnyk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k oknhx.k }kjk fcuk /kkjk 80 lh-ih-lh- dh ikyuk fd;s nkok nk;j fd;k gS bl dkj.k nkok iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ 4- vk;k orZeku IykV ua-0&4 iwoZ IykV ua0&4 ls fHkUu gS\ 5- vk;k nkok cs:u E;kn gS\ 6- nknjlh\” To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 Shankar Singh, PW-2 Ramvilas, PW-3 Chandan Singh. To prove their case, the defendant got examined DW-1 Ramjilal Meena. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

28.02.2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated

09.07.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2009 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have committed an error while dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. The trial court while deciding the issues, has not considered the Survey Commissioner’s report. As per the Survey Commissioner’s report (4 of 5) [CSA-560/2010] the plot which is going to be re-auctioned is the same plot which was earlier auctioned to the plaintiff and the said plot does not fall within the protected forest area. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the defendants wrongly adjusted the penalty amount paid by the plaintiffs as Rameshwar had no concerned with the said plot. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set-aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs because earlier auction of the said plot was cancelled because it fell within the protected forest area. The said order attained finality. The plaintiffs had not challenged the said order. The re- auctioned plot is not the one which was earlier auction to the plaintiffs. So, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that on 14.06.1984 earlier auctioned plot No.4 was cancelled because it fell within the protected forest area. The plaintiffs had not challenged the said order. The re-auctioned plot is not the one which was earlier auctioned to the plaintiff. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. (5 of 5) [CSA-560/2010] So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. Gourav/65 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J