Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from a report submitted by a Court Commissioner concerning land demarcation issues involving Khasra No. 5 and Khasra No. 13. Khasra No. 5, measuring 9577 bighas, includes two forest blocks named Beri Ganga (5604 bighas) and Motisara (2973 bighas), totaling 8577 bighas of forest land. The remaining approximately 900 bighas of Khasra No. 5 is land claimed by the mining department, and around 100 bighas is government land. Khasra No. 13, adjoining Khasra No. 5, consists of 258 bighas, also claimed by the mining department. The applicant’s grievance is that there is no clear demarcation between forest land and mining land, leading to alleged indiscriminate mining activities in these areas. Despite previous directions to demarcate the land according to revenue records (trace maps), the State Government and its authorities have failed to do so, citing unavailability of trace maps. Earlier, on 15 May 2019, the court ordered a prohibition on mining or non-forest activities within forest land until proper demarcation was made. The applicant provided photographic evidence of ongoing mining activities in violation of this order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether mining activities can be permitted in the disputed areas of Khasra No. 5 and Khasra No. 13 in the absence of proper demarcation between forest land and mining land.
  2. Whether the authorities have complied with the court’s earlier directions to demarcate the forest and mining land as per revenue records.
  3. What directions should be issued to regulate mining activities pending proper demarcation.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the report of the Court Commissioner which confirmed the absence of demarcation between forest land and mining land in Khasra No. 5 and Khasra No. 13. The court noted that despite several opportunities given to the State Government and relevant authorities, no demarcation was made due to the unavailability of trace maps. The court emphasized that the lack of demarcation has led to indiscriminate mining activities, violating the earlier order dated 15 May 2019 which prohibited mining on forest land until demarcation. Photographic evidence submitted by the applicant corroborated ongoing mining activities. Given the failure of the mining department to identify and demarcate its land, the court concluded that mining activities must be halted entirely in the disputed areas until proper demarcation is effected. To ensure resolution based on accurate information, the court directed key government officials to appear at the next hearing.

Holding and Implications

Mining activities in Khasra No. 5 and Khasra No. 13 are prohibited until proper demarcation between forest land and mining land is carried out in accordance with revenue records.

The direct effect of this decision is the suspension of all mining operations in the disputed areas pending clear demarcation. The court’s order reinforces the importance of adherence to revenue records and environmental protections but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the facts of this case.

    Ram Ji Vyas v. Union Of India

    1. On receipt of the report from Court Commissioner this Original Application No. 646/2018 was separately registered. On perusal of the report, it was revealed that Khasra No. 5 admeasuring 9577 bighas, consists of forest block named Beri Ganga admeasuring 5604 bighas another forest block namely Motisara admeasuring 2973 bighas. Therefore, the total area of the two forest blocks in Khasra No. 5 is 8577 bighas. In the remaining area of Khasra No. 5 out of the total 9577 bighas, of approximately 900 bighas is of mining department and remaining 100 bighas is a government land. It is also to be noted that adjoining to Khasra No. 5 there is Khasra No. 13 which has total land of 258 bighas and the said area is that mining.

    2. The grievance of the applicant is that there is no demarcation between the land belonging to the forest department (two blocks) and one belonging to the mining department. This fact is being corroborated by the report submitted by the Court Commissioner.

    3. Therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for applicant that in absence of any demarcation, mining is being done indiscriminately (in the garb of mining lease), at various places. Consequently, the entire area of Khasra No. 5 and 13 many mines are in operation. Therefore, direction was issued that demarcation of land belonging to the forest and meant for mining be demarcated in accordance to the revenue record, that is the trace map. We had given several opportunities to the State Government and its authorities to demarcate the land but the same has not been done because the trace map is said to be not available. However, the situation at the site cannot be left unregulated till the trace map is searched out and actual demarcation at the site, with regard to the land belonging to the forest is made.

    4. Earlier on 15 May, 2019, we had ordered that in the entire area which is a forest land, no mining or non-forest activity shall be carried out till demarcation is made in accordance to the revenue record. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had visited the site on 4 June, 2019 and he has placed before us certain photographs to show that sporadic mining is being done and material is being transported in bulk through vehicles which are having no registration numbers.

    5. In the aforesaid circumstance, we deem it proper to order that no mining activity shall be carried out in the entire Khasra No. 5 as well as Khasra No. 13 till further orders, irrespective of the claim of the mining department for part of the land because they have not got it demarcated. The Mining department has failed to satisfy as to which part of Khasra No. 5 and 13 are earmarked for the mining. Therefore, till proper demarcation of the he land belonging to the forest department and one belonging to the mining department is made, no mining activities whatsoever shall be carried out.

    6. In order to resolve this issue on the basis of correct information and relevant record, we deem it proper to direct the Division Commissioner, Jodhpur, Collector Jodhpur, District Mining Officer, District Forest Officer, Jodhpur and the Commissioner of Police Jodhpur to appear on the next date of hearing.

    7. A copy of this order be sent to the respective officers through email forthwith.

    List this matter on 22 of July, 2019.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ram Ji Vyas v. Union Of India
    (May 27, 2019)