1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 263 of 2000 MOOL CHAND V/S STATE & ANR Mr. JL PUROHIT, for the appellant / petitioner Date of Order : 28.4.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 7.3.2000 dismissing the writ petition. The prayer of the writ petitioner was for issuance of direction to the respondents to reduce the mining area of the petitioner's lease deed dated 28.2.86 to 64 hectares which is available to him for excavation in Block 'A' in the plan attached to the mining lease dated 28.2.1986, and also for direction to charge dead rent from the petitioner for area of 64 hectares only. As appears from the lease deed that the lease was granted for 1300 hectares of land which is said to be equal 2 to 5 sq. miles in two blocks being Block-A and Block-B as per the site plan annexed with the lease deed produced in the paper book as Annexure-1. The learned Single Judge has found that the matter rests in the realm of contract and there are several disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction for which the petitioner has a better alternative and efficacious remedy before the Civil Court. Then, it has been noticed that interim order has already been vacated in 1992. As such, the petition was dismissed. Arguing the appeal the whole thrust of the submission was, that out of the area originally granted to the petitioner being 1300 hectares different parts of land have been granted on mining lease to different persons, with the result, that the petitioner is not able to excavate on the land, and only 64 hectares is available for excavation, therefore, his liability to pay dead rent is restricted to that only. As against this as appears from the record that of course, different mining leases have been granted, but then they have been granted to different persons, for different minerals. Obviously, under the scheme of things, including Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, 3 Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules as have been in force from time to time, so also even under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time, since the mineral wealth belongs to the crown, the Government is always free to grant mining lease with respect to each mineral to one, or more persons, and simply because the mining lease has been granted to one person for excavating one particular mineral, such lessee cannot prevent the Government from granting lease hold rights in favour of any other person for excavating any other mineral, nor such lessee is entitled to create any obstruction in undertaking mining operation by such other lessee to whom right to excavate other mineral may have been granted. It is different story that the lessee is under obligation even to report to the Government in the event of his finding any other mineral in that area. May be that he may obtain mining lease for that mineral but then it can very well be granted to other person also. Then, a look at Rule 18(3) of the Rajasthan Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 as are relevant for the present purpose which reads as under:- “(3) The lessee shall also pay for every year, such yearly deadrent within the limits specified in Second Schedule as may 4 be fixed by the Government in this behalf in quarterly instalments or as fixed by the Government, in advance, and if the lease permits the working of more than one mineral the State Government may charge separate dead-rent for each mineral provided that the mining of one mineral shall not obstruct the mining of another mineral: Provided further that the Government may revise the rate of dead-rent after every five years from the date of the grant of the lease and the lessee shall be liable to pay such revised dead-rent: Provided also that the lessee shall be liable to pay the dead-rent or royalty in respect of each mineral whichever is higher in amount but not both.” does show that where more than one mineral is excavated, or lease is granted to win more than one mineral, whether to one lessee or more than one lessee, liability of dead rent, or royalty, as the case may be, is attracted qua each such mineral, irrespective of the fact as to whether it is granted to one lessee, or different lessees. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment of learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/