Samir Aggarwal vs Sanjhi Bhumi Committee of Village Haveli Kalan and Others

Sat Pal, J.—By this judgment, I am disposing of two petitions bearing C.R. No. 3398 of 1997 and 3399 of 1997, as both the revision petitions have been directed against the same judgment dated 14.5.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. By the aforesaid order the learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of defendants No. 2 and 3 who are respondents No. 2 and 3 in the present petition and has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C before the learned trial Court.

In this case the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining defendants No. 2 and 3 from interfering into the peaceful possession and from interfering into the peaceful possession and from forcibly dispossession the plaintiff from the suit land. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement dated 31.1.1995 with respondent Sanjhi Bhumi Committee at Village Haveli for lifting the sand and quarry/khad of village Haveli Kalan as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- per month which was for the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1998. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.3.1997. By this order, the learned trial Court held that the suit land has been shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat Maqbuza Malkan and as such the land belonged to Sanjhi Bhumi Committee who had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunction as prayed in his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The aforesaid order has, however, been set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide order dated 14.5.1997. In this order, the learned Additional District Judge has observed that under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (herein after referred to as ''the Act'') and Punjab Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1964, the land in dispute was covered by the definition of Mines and Mineral and as such the State Government only has the power to issue a licence for quarry even though the land has been shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat Maqbuza Malkan.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order dated 14.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, I do not find any affirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. In terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Mangat Ram, L.P.A. No. 416 of 1974 decided on 12.7.1976, sand is a mineral as defined under the provisions of the Act. It was further observed in this judgment that u/s 42 of the Act, such land is presumed to be owned by the State but this presumption is rebuttable. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, the land in dispute belongs to the State and it is only the State which can auction such land to issue a licence for quarry. It is true that this presumption can be rebutted but the question of rebuttal can only be examined when the parties lead their evidence in support of their case. In the present proceedings which have arisen from the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, the question of rebuttal can not be decided.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly both the petitions are dismissed with no orders as to costs. It is, however, made clear that any observation given herein above shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

With this order both the petitions stand disposed of.