State Of Rajasthan vs Shiv Dayal

2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.

3. The appellants are the defendants and respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which these appeals arise.

5. The respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit against the appellant ­ State and its authorities and claimed therein a relief of grant of permanent injunction restraining the State and its authorities from interfering in carrying out the mining operations on the suit land by respondent No.1.

6. Respondent No. 1 claimed this relief inter alia on the averments that the suit land was not the part of any protected Forest area as claimed by the State authorities but it was a part of the Revenue area. It was averred that since the suit land did not fall in the protected forest area, the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) had a right to carry out mining operation on the suit land without any interference of the State and its authorities.

7. The State contested the suit by denying the averments made in the plaint. The Trial Court framed issues. Parties led their evidence. By Judgment and decree dated 10.05.1998, the Trial Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff the suit and granted an injunction against the State and its authorities in relation to the suit land, as prayed in the plaint.

15. We do not agree with the aforementioned reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.

28. Lastly, whether the plaintiff on facts/evidence has proved that the suit land is a part of Revenue land and, therefore, it does not fall in the protected forest area and, if so, whether any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is made out for grant of permanent injunction in plaintiff's favour?

30. In our view, the High Court, therefore, should have admitted the second appeal by framing appropriate substantial question(s) of law arising in the case and answered them on their respective merits 10 rather than to dismiss the appeals without considering any of the aforementioned questions.

31. It is for this reason, we are of the view that the interference in the impugned order is called for to enable the High Court to decide the controversy in its proper perspective.

32. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the second appeals afresh on merits after framing appropriate substantial questions of law(s) arising in the case.

34. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case having 11 formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for deciding afresh.

36. The parties are, however, granted liberty to make necessary amendments in the cause title of the second appeals after remand of the case to the High Court by deleting the name of Shiv Dayal and substitute in his place the name of his wife­ Kasturi Devi and his other legal representatives, if there are, before hearing of the second appeals.

37. We request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the appeals preferably within 6 months.

August 14, 2019 13