CW -6359/06 -Balveer Singh Vs. State & Ors., 6052/06 - Rajendra Prasad Vs. State & Ors., 6249/06 - Om Prakash Vs. State & Ors., 6357/06 - Rajendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors., 6358/06 - Hadman Jat Vs. State & Ors., CW 6360/06 - Vikas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. & CW NO.5733/05 – Vidhyadhar Vs.State & Ors. : Judgment dt.08.04.2008 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT 1. Balveer Singh Vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6359/2006 2. Rajendra Prasad Vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6052/2006 3. Om Prakash Vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6249/2006 4. Rajendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6357/2006 5. Hadman Jat Vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6358/2006 6. Vikas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6360/2006 7. Vidhyadhar Vs. State & Ores. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5733/2005 Date of judgment : 08th April , 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. N.S. Acharya) for the petitioners. Mr. D.D. Thanvi ) Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. Government Counsel. Mr. Rishi Vaishnav, Dy. Government Counsel. Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Dy. Government Counsel for Forest Department. --------- CW -6359/06 -Balveer Singh Vs. State & Ors., 6052/06 - Rajendra Prasad Vs. State & Ors., 6249/06 - Om Prakash Vs. State & Ors., 6357/06 - Rajendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors., 6358/06 - Hadman Jat Vs. State & Ors., CW 6360/06 - Vikas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. & CW NO.5733/05 – Vidhyadhar Vs.State & Ors. : Judgment dt.08.04.2008 2/5 BY THE COURT:- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. The dispute in these writ petitions is that the petitioners claimed that they were given mining lease in khasra No.229 and 230 of village Balera but they were restrained from undertaking that mining work by order Annex.9 dated 19.9.2006 in which with reference to two survey reports, one conducted on 3.12.2005 to 24.12.2005 and another conducted on 27.2.2006 to 4.3.2006 there was a dispute as to whether the said land falls within the limit of forest area or not. Pending the final determination and demarcation of these limits, the petitioners were restrained from undertaking any mining work by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Mining Department that after Survey Reports by the concerned Revenue Authorities by a Committee constituted under the leadership of SDO Sujangarh including the Forest Authorities on 3.12.2005 to 24.12.2005 it was CW -6359/06 -Balveer Singh Vs. State & Ors., 6052/06 - Rajendra Prasad Vs. State & Ors., 6249/06 - Om Prakash Vs. State & Ors., 6357/06 - Rajendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors., 6358/06 - Hadman Jat Vs. State & Ors., CW 6360/06 - Vikas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. & CW NO.5733/05 – Vidhyadhar Vs.State & Ors. : Judgment dt.08.04.2008 3/5 ascertained that the khasra No.228, 229 & 230 were not within the forest limit and the pillars installed at the outer limit of khasras were found to be rightly placed by the Forest Department. However, the respondents have contended that the petitioners were in fact carrying on the mining operation in khasra No.231 which was illegal and the said land of khasra No.231 fell within the area of forest as per the Forest Department, the petitioner Miners could not be permitted to undertake any mining operation in khasra No.226 and 231 of the said Revenue village. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that even the initial no objection given by the Forest Department vide Annex.2 dated 1.5.1998 for khasra No.228, 229 and 230 was subject to the condition that the said area does not fall within the forest and the mining operations will be carried on 50 meters away from the forest boundary. He submitted that since the mining operations were being carried on by the petitioners even beyond the area specified in their mining leases falling within the khasra No.226 and 231, they were stopped from undertaking mining operation by impugned order Annex.9 dated 19.9.2006. CW -6359/06 -Balveer Singh Vs. State & Ors., 6052/06 - Rajendra Prasad Vs. State & Ors., 6249/06 - Om Prakash Vs. State & Ors., 6357/06 - Rajendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors., 6358/06 - Hadman Jat Vs. State & Ors., CW 6360/06 - Vikas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. & CW NO.5733/05 – Vidhyadhar Vs.State & Ors. : Judgment dt.08.04.2008 4/5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. N.S. Acharya and Mr. D.D. Thanvi fairly submitted that if the petitioners were carrying on the mining operation beyond the limits of their mining leases, the respondent department was free to take action in accordance with law and even stopping the mining operation in khasra No.226 and 231 which fall within the area of forest in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 23.8.2002 quoted in the impugned order. However, it is submitted that under the garb of that the respondents have no authority to stop their legal mining operation in accordance with mining lease in khasra No.228, 229 and 230. 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that these writ petitions can be disposed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners if the petitioners are found to be carrying on any mining operation in prohibited area of forest falling in khasra No.226 and 231 or any other area which falls within the boundary of forest as specified in the aforesaid survey reports. However, that does not preclude the petitioners from carrying on the mining operation within the specified area of the CW -6359/06 -Balveer Singh Vs. State & Ors., 6052/06 - Rajendra Prasad Vs. State & Ors., 6249/06 - Om Prakash Vs. State & Ors., 6357/06 - Rajendra Kumar Vs. State & Ors., 6358/06 - Hadman Jat Vs. State & Ors., CW 6360/06 - Vikas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. & CW NO.5733/05 – Vidhyadhar Vs.State & Ors. : Judgment dt.08.04.2008 5/5 mining lease in khasra No.229 and 230 in accordance with their mining lease which is not the forest area. Since the respondents have taken a stand in their reply that the petitioners were undertaking mining operation in forest area falling in khasra No.231 the aforesaid observations have been made though it may be mentioned that the petitioners have come to this Court only against the impugned order whereby their mining operations were stopped. Since it was not stated in the impugned order that their mining operations in khasra No.229 and 230 only was stopped, these writ petitions are being disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.49 to 54 & SS-1 babulal/-