Skip to content


Ram Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 145/72
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)370
AppellantRam Singh
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....rent and all taxes--no lease deed executed price dings instituted to recover dues as arrears of land revenue--held, alternative remedy by revision under section 257b is available writ is not maintainable.;writ dismissed - - the petitioner contends that he was a not given the possession of the mines by his order dated 5-5-1959, the director of mines and geology, however cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the due installments as stipulated in the agreement. 2. in reply, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had signed an agreement on 8-5-1958 but the same was not signed by the director of mines and geology as the petitioner failed to deposit the amounts due. he requested on 27-4-59 that his contract may be terminated right from 1-4-58. but..........once been dropped cannot be recommenced and that no recovery can be made under the rajasthan land revenue act, 1956, in the absence of the agreement. the objections were rejected on 15-11-1971. the petitioner now prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery proceedings and for mandamus and prohibition to restraint the respondents from recovery of the aforesaid amount and to return rs. 2250/- paid by him.2. in reply, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had signed an agreement on 8-5-1958 but the same was not signed by the director of mines and geology as the petitioner failed to deposit the amounts due. there were certain other deficiencies also the department also stated that the area was previously held by the petitioner. he was in continuous possession of the.....
Judgment:

M.L. Jain, J.

1. The farts of this writ petition are that the respondents accorded a sanction of mining; lease for building stone in favour of the petitioner on 25-3-1958. The dead rent was of Rs. 4501/- and royalties were to be charged as stated in the order of sanction. The mining lease was for the period from 1-4-1958 to 3-3-1960. Besides, the petitioner was requiifd to pay surface rent and all taxes as per the Government Rules The petitioner deposited Rs. 1125/- of the first installment and Rs. 1125/- towards security. No lease deed was executed. The petitioner contends that he was a not given the possession of the mines By his order dated 5-5-1959, the Director of Mines and Geology, however cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the due installments as stipulated in the agreement. Thereafter, the Department of Mines and Geology sent a certificate of recovery on 27-1-1960 of the recovery of Rs. 3,945/60 under the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act to the SDO Jodhpur. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a petition denying his liability upon which the proceedings were dropped on 24-11-1961. A fresh requisition certificate was sent by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur on 4-9-70, to the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Bikaner, under Section 256 of the Rajasthan Laid Revenue Act, 1956. This certificate was transferred by the said Assistant Mining Engineer to the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery), Jodhpur. The petitioner submitted his objections before the respondent that the recovery having once been dropped cannot be recommenced and that no recovery can be made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, in the absence of the agreement. The objections were rejected on 15-11-1971. The petitioner now prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery proceedings and for mandamus and prohibition to restraint the respondents from recovery of the aforesaid amount and to return Rs. 2250/- paid by him.

2. In reply, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had signed an agreement on 8-5-1958 but the same was not signed by the Director of Mines and Geology as the petitioner failed to deposit the amounts due. There were certain other deficiencies also The Department also stated that the area was previously held by the petitioner. He was in continuous possession of the area and has also worked some quarries therein as was disclosed in his letter dated 9-5-1958 in which he protested that he established some quarries but a Railway Contractor was also working in the same area without his permission and was collecting ballast. He requested on 27-4-59 that his contract may be terminated right from 1-4-58. But the Director cancelled the lease because the petitioner fail d to make the due payments That is how the recovery came to be effected. The learned Dy. Government Advocate submitted further that the petitioner had a remedy under Section 257B of the Land Revenue Act 1956) by way of a suit and therefore, the writ petition was liable to dismissal.

3. I have heard arguments. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the said Act, Section 256, Clause (e), only such sums of money can be recovered thereunder which are due to the State Government under any g. ant, lease or contract which provides that they shall be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue. The learned Dy. Government Advocate says on the other hand, that the petitioner has been in possession of the area for one ear under the alleged order of sanction which is a grant, R. 55 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, declared that the Govt. may recover any dues in respect of dead rent, surface rent, royalty & value of minerals as arrears of land revenue under the law in force relating to such recovery. It is, therefore, not necessary to provide in the grant that any sum due thereunder mall be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue. It is by virtue of this rule implied in every sanction. This contention of the State has considerable force. Besides, Clause (a) of Section 256 also provides that any sum declare. by any law for the time being in force to be recoverable or realisable as an arrear of revenue or land revenue or rent can be recovered under Section 256. Clause (d) of the section further provides that all rents, rates and royalties due to the State Government on account of the use or occupation of land or on account of any products thereof or proceeds therefrom or on any other account are also recoverable as such. The amount which was due w.e.f. 1-4-58 to the date of cancellation was therefore recoverable under the Land Revenue Act, even if there was no agreement or lease duly executed in the manner provided under Article 299 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected Moreover, Section 257B of the said Act lays down that the petitioner can make the payment under protest and then can file a suit. The petitioner could have also made an application for revision under Rule 60 to the State Government as provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 257B. This alternative remedy was also available to the petitioner. In view of the position as stated above, I see no force in this writ petition and it is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.


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