JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that show cause notice dated 5.11.1990 (Annex.6) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to excavate the mineral in question.
2. The petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of a mine quarry bearing No. M.L. 237 in respect of marble mineral in size 100 x 100 meters = 10,000 sq. meters in the area of Devi Mata Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur. The Mining Engineer, Udaipur issued an order on 9.3.1989 granting lease and required the petitioner to comply with certain formalities under the law. It is alleged that the petitioner complied with all the requirements of law and deposited a part of the dead rent, furnished solvent security amount, demarcation fees and also the non-judicial stamps for execution of the lease deed. It is alleged that consequently the Mining Engineer executed a lease-deed in favour of the petitioner. Then, the petitioner entered on the land in question and started search for mines, dug, processed and carried out the mining operations. He made certain kaccha approach road and necessary measures were taken for excavating the mineral. The petitioner also applied to the Additional Collector, Udaipur for determination of compensation to be paid in respect of the land leased out to the petitioner since the surface rights in respect of total Araji No. 3645 vested in Thakurji Shri Shyam Sunderji which is under the control of the Devasthan Department. In reply to this application the petitioner was informed that the valuation of the land is Rs. 10,000/- per Bigha and till the amount of compensation is not paid no mining work can be continued. But despite a number of applications being submitted the Additional Collector, Udaipur did not determine the amount of compensation. Thereafter the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to pay the maximum compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha as claimed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur as surface amount. However, the respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner that since the surface rights of the land is vested in the Devasthan Department and the Revenue Department has refused to give the surface rights the lease deed is proposed to be revoked. It is this show-cause notice which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.
3. A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents in their reply have pointed out that the respondents granted a lease in favour of the petitioner with the condition that the petitioner will only be entitled to operate mining operations subject to the permission of the land-holder and without which the lease will be no more operative. The permission from the Revenue Department and Devasthan Department was not sought by the petitioner. It is alleged that land bearing Khasra Nos. 3644 to 3646 and 3650 to 3654 as a whole stands in the name of Thakurji Shri Shyam Sunderji which is being looked after and supervised by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Devasthan Department. Therefore, it is submitted that since the Devasthan Department has not given permission as such the petitioner cannot be permitted to operate on this area. The allegation that the petitioner has made huge investment is also denied. It is also denied that the petitioner has paid Rs. l0,000/- to the labourers and also other allegations the respondents in their reply have stated that it was made clear to the petitioner that he has to obtain permission from the land holders i.e. Devasthan Department and Revenue Department despite that he started the mining operations. Therefore, the Devasthan Department filed a suit against the petitioner which was registered as Suit No. 209 of 1989 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa which was transferred to the court of A.C.M., Udaipur. Alongwith the suit an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was also filed on behalf of the Devasthan Department and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa after hearing both the parties passed an interim injunction which is still continuing. Thereafter, this temporary injunction was also confirmed as such the petitioner was prevented from operating the mines by a judicial order. It is alleged that all these facts have not been mentioned by the petitioner in his writ petition, therefore, he has concealed material facts from the notice of this Court. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this injunction order.
4. I have heard learned Counsel and perused the record.
5. It is true that the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the show-cause notice (Annex.6) only. The petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact that the interim injunction was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girwa /A.C.M., Udaipur after hearing the petitioner on the application made by the Devasthan Department restraining the petitioner from exploiting the minerals from the area belonging to the Devasthan Department. Since the area belongs to the Devasthan Department, the Devasthan Department is entitled to the surface right amount and the same was not paid therefore, the department gave a notice to the petitioner to show-cause why the lease be not cancelled. The Devasthan Department also filed a suit and the injunction order was also granted in its favour.
6. Under these circumstances, I think this case does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.