Skip to content


Prem Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/76
Judge
Reported in1984WLN(UC)106
AppellantPrem Lal
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
Excerpt:
.....renewals owner granted pending hearing of the rule. in that view of the cancellation of deed of lease granted in 1973 on the ground that he applied between the prohibited period on 17-7-1967 cannot be sustained.;rule made absolute - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of..........authority only in 1972 and allotment order was effected soon thereafter. in my opinion, under the rule, applications can be made by any person who is otherwise entitled for the lease of mines. under the mineral concession rules, application for mining lease is considered if other conditions are satisfied about the propriety of the application if other conditions are equal. in the present case, admittedly, the application was made on 17-7-1p67 and it was allowed in 1973 when, there was admittedly no stay order restraining the grant of mining lease to any of the parties and it was so granted to the petitioner, lease deed executed in accordance with law and possession to the petitioner and renewals were granted delivered pending hearing of the rule. in that view of the matter, in.....
Judgment:

P.K. Banerjee, C.J.

1. In this rule, the petiotioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in second appeal at the instance of bansilal chanllenging the grant of lease of a quarry in favour of the petitioner. The only ground on which the second Appeal succeeded is that the petitioner. Applied for quarry lease on 17-7-1967 when there was an order of stay between that date between the prohibited date but the question remains, these applications for allotment on July 17,1967 were considered by the competent authority only in 1972 and allotment order was effected soon thereafter. In my opinion, under the rule, applications can be made by any person who is otherwise entitled for the lease of mines. Under the Mineral Concession Rules, application for mining lease is considered if other conditions are satisfied about the propriety of the application if other conditions are equal. In the present case, admittedly, the application was made on 17-7-1P67 and it was allowed in 1973 when, there was admittedly no stay order restraining the grant of mining lease to any of the parties and it was so granted to the petitioner, lease deed executed in accordance with law and possession to the petitioner and renewals were granted delivered pending hearing of the rule. In that view of the matter, in cancellation of the deed of lease granted in 1973 on the ground that he applied between the prohibited period on 17-7-67 cannot be sustained and must be set aside, which there by do. The rule is made absolute and the order of application of lease of the petitioner dated March 20, 1976 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //