3998 of 2011, State of Rajasthan versus Fatehkaran Mehdu.
598 of 2009.
1185/124, on which licence issued to Smt.
1185/124 company.
ft is shown.
1345/1185/124 rakba 3 bigha, entry in which regard was made with special stipulation on quarry licence but in technical map told about according approval on plot No.
It appears that the High Court failed to advert the substance of allegation against Shri Mehdu, as we have already numbericed from the chargesheet that Shri Mehdu although, granted quarry licence only for three bigha gap land in Plot No.
Shri Mehdu after taking all papers from Smt.
The Special Judge after companysidering the companytention putforth by the learned companynsel for the parties numbered the charge that against the total area of 52,272 Sq.
The Special Judge found, a clear prima facie case of framing charges.
Under khatedari policy Shri Fatehkaran Mehdu only with view to cause loss to tenure holders of plot No.
The said quarry licence was transferred in the name of Kishan Singh Rawat S o Devi Singh Rawat resident of Suradia, Tehsil Byawar District Ajmer Rajasthan , which is number effective at present.
while Fatehkaran Mehdu issued sanction of 80,000 Sq.
Plot No.
Considering the chargesheet and other materials on record, the charges have been framed.
1185/124 Mauza village Nayanagar, Tehsil Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.
Sushma Devi had started mining operations.
1181/124, which was included in the quarry licence of Smt.
The Respondents have brought on record the companyy of the quarry licence granted to Kishan Singh Rawat as Annexure A 3 and A 4 which indicates that two quarry licences were for 12500 Sq.
1345/1185/124.
1345/1185/124, but technical map issued by Shri Mehdu was to an area of 80,000 Sq.
1185/124 of Shri Kishan Singh Rawat for years.
Further, after numbericing the facts, pertaining to grant of quarry licence to Kishan Singh Rawat and Smt.
In the year 1997 the Mining Enginner in companylusion under gap fat policy with view to provide undue profit by back door got surrendered 3 bigha land out of 5 bigha in favour of State Government and recorded without name so that gap fat companyld be approved under above policy.
Rakba 2 bigha land and whenever question for measurement arises then he shows being approval on the basis of departments technical map whereas, in quarry lincence and files permission is accorded only to plot No.
She deposited a bankers cheque of Rs.
1345/1185/124 is total three bigha i.e. 52272 Sq.
There was a clear allegation in the chargesheet that quarry licence to Kishan Singh Rawat was given by Shri Mehdu in furtherance of object and purpose of illegally benefitting Kishan Singh Rawat.
In para 2, it has further been numbered Under the quarry licence passed by Shri Fatehkaran Mehdu, Shri Kishan Singh undertook unauthorized mining work for years on five bigha land in place of three bigha land due to which State Government suffered loss of annual rent etc.
1181/124 situated in the southern side of land No.
592/2009 Fatehkaran Mehdu versus State of Rajasthan and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
available, Shri Mehdu has issued sanction for 80,000 Sq.
Shri Mehdu did number try to settle the disputes on the spot rather he issued licence to parties without any acceptable demaraction and canceled without adopting process.
1181/124 situated in south of plot No.
ft each.
263 A and 264 A of Arazi No.
1,75,000/ dated 23.4.1998 and the quarry licence for 4.95 hectare 30 bigha and 12 biswas was prepared in the name of Smt.
whereas in the technical map, area was shown 80,000 Sq.
1185/124 was given which presently is recorded as khatedari land in name Dhiru son of Limbu Bheel R o Suradiya Tehsil Beawar in khata which is ancestral village of Kishan Singh Rawat.
208/2005 dated 24.10.2005 was submitted.
Sushma Dhakar that Kishan Singh Rawat be benefited by allotting land to Kishan Singh Rawat neighbour of Smt.
Sushma Dhakar, Shri Fatehkaran Mehdu called for the same in the name of rectifying the same, he canceled the quarry licence in violations of all the rules and its information was number companyveyed to the licence holders.
Plot No.
The application was made for grant of quarry licence for Khatedari land situated at Nayanagar in different plots, including Plot No.
Sushma Devi filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.04.1999 allowed the appeal and restored the quarry licence of Smt.
342/01 was registered on 18.09.2001 and was received for investigation.
In the chargesheet following has been specifically numbered On spot Shri Kishan Singh Rawat in present time is also doing mining work on plot No.
whereas, Shri Fatehkaran Mehdu Mining Engineer, Bijolia has granted sanction of 80,000 Sq.
It was further stated that although, approval for quarry licence on Plot No.
263A and 264A which companytained a companydition that the said approval shall number be effective outside Plot No.
Dispute prevailing between land No.
The chargesheet numberices the following whereas it is also pertinent to mention here that area of plot No.
On the other hand, Sri Kishan Singh Rawat, the respondent was also granted quarry licence on gap land in Block No.
1345/1185/124 area 3 bigha was granted, total area of which companyes to only 52,272 Sq.
to the Office Assistant Sohanlal.
After companyducting the investigation, a chargesheet No.
1345/1185/124 area 3 bigha.
Further in para 2, the order states From the investigation it was established that Smt.
Landowners of companycerning khasra numbers expressed their companysent in favour of applicants, thereafter, on 06.05.1998 Shri Mehdu granted approval for issuing quarry licence and licence were issued.
1185/124, called back issued quarry licence of Smt.
In Para 6 of the order, following has been stated Prima facie charge has been framed against accused persons that with the intentions to cause loss to Khatedars of land No.
Sushma Devi.
ft land as against 52272 Sq.
The answer given in the said letter dated 03.11.2009 is to the following effect As per the information sought with regard to the captioned subject, as per the record available in the office numberlicence of 80,000 Sq.
1181/24 was filed on 13.7.1998 by Kishan Singh against the Khatedars of Plot No.
It is relevant to numbere some of the allegations, as recorded in the chargesheet against the respondent.
Sushma Devi for issuing new quarry licence, with intentions to get other person Kishan Singh unlawfully benefits, companynived with him and malafide and issued licence.
1345/1185/124 was given rest of two bigha land of khatedar property No.
Sushma Devi checked quarry licence on 08.05.1998, then came to know that serious nature of lacunae were found.
dishonestly benefiting Kishan Singh Rawat.
ft, which was a source for Kishan Singh Rawat to carry on unauthorised mining over the larger area than that of actually allotted to him.
On spot Shri Kishan Singh Rawat in present time is also doing mining work on plot No.
1185/125 and 1181/124 companyld have been settled earlier by carrying out measurement in detail through the Department of revenue, but numberany effort was made in this companytext, companysequently, Kishan Singh Rawat has undertaken unauthorized mining work on five bigha area of land No.
1185/124 companybined so that if anytime measurement is carried out then same companyld be found according to technical map and according to same Shri Kishan Singh Rawat companyld get illegal profit.
The said letter was addressed to Fatehkaran Mehdu in reply to his querry, as to whether, Kishan Singh Rawat was granted quarry licence for 80,000 Sq.
1185/124 company.
Sushma Devi did number issue her a fresh licence, whereas, Smt.
After holding a Preliminary Enquiry No.
The Respondent, Fatehkaran Mehdu was working as Mining Engineer at Tehsil Bijolia, District Bhilwara, State of Rajasthan in the year 1997 98.
Stating excessive cuttings, Shri Mehdu instead of taking all the papers from Smt.
Both the appeals having arisen out of First Information Report No.
Another suit No.
Aggrieved by order dated 05.05.2009, Fatehkaran Mehdu filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
On 11.08.1998, Mining Engineer Fatehkaran Mehdu directed Smt.
1185/124 in place of three bigha land due to which State Government has suffered loss of annual rent etc it also established in the investigation that Fatehkaran Mehdu had got the intentions behind cancelling of quarry licence of Smt.
The chargesheet has been brought on record as Annexure A 9.
The High Court vide its order, allowing the Criminal Revisions, set aside the order dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur, framing charges against both the respondents under Section 13 1 d 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of IPC.
On numbericing that the quarry licence issued on 06.05.1998 companytained various cuttings, she companytacted Fatehkaran Mehdu and handed him the licence for issue of fresh licence.
Sushma Devi that numberquarry licence was issued in her favour.
1185/124 companybined rakba 2 bigha land is also recorded as khatedari therefore, gap fat permission can number be accorded under gap fat policy but Mining Engineer in files of office accorded approval of plot No.
Sushma Devi had submitted an application for the grant of quarry licence for a mineral Sand Stone as per the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 hereinafter referred to as Rule 1986 .
166 of 1999 before the High Court of Rajasthan which was dismissed by order dated 08.03.1999 due to availability of alternate remedy of filing an appeal under the Rules 1986.
7 of 2000 against Fatehkaran Mehdu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prevention of Corruption Bureau of Udaipur, lodged a First Information Report against the Fatehkaran Mehdu and Kishan Singh Rawat under Section 13 1 d and 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of IPC.
At the same time Smt.
On 18.07.1998 one Shri K. K. Boda, inspected the area and stopped the mining activities informing Smt.
One Smt.
Sushma Devi, Manoj Kumar Sandhya and Jitmal Balai submitted application on 01.05.1998 in prescribed form.
Sushma Devi situated neighbouring has been done by companylusion.
1181/124.
1185/124 was situated towards South of Plot No.
1238/125 on 23.06.1998 for stopping Sushma Devi from carrying on mining operations.
1181/124 restraining them from interfering in mining operation on Plot No.
1345/1185/124, total area of which companyes to be 52472 Sq.ft whereas, according to technical map area 80,000 Sq.
Sushma Dhakad in name of companyrecting same by violating all rules, cancelled quarry licence and information in which regard was number given to licence holders.
Thus, Shri Fatehkaran Mehdu Mining Engineer in companylusion with Shri Kishan Singh Rawat granted sanction for 80,000 Sq.
592 of 2009 and Kishan Singh Rawat filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
available land, by which obviously proceeding for giving land to Shri Kishan Singh Rawat out of plot No.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
in the form of gap area to Kishan Singh Rawat to unduly benefit him, and the same can be decided after recording oral and documentary evidence.
1181/124 of Smt.
Under rules lease can be granted only on land of without name.
Sushma Devi Dhakad and Shri Manoj Kumar Sandhya on 06.05.1998.
Kishan Singh Rawat alongwith certain other persons had filed a suit against the companysenting party of Khatedari Land No.
Sushma Devi.
To land so surrendered plot No.
These two appeals have been filed against the companymon judgment dated 16.11.2010 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
The brief facts of the case, as emerged from materials on record, need to be numbered for deciding the issueS raised in these appeals.
1185/124 Shri Gopal Singh Rawat S o Shri Anna Singh Rawat R o Suradia Tehsil Byawar, District Ajmer Rajasthan was granted permission and quarry licence of total 12500 12500 Sq.
It is relevant to extract the findings from Para 6 of the order.
1345/1185/124 is three bigha 52272 Sq.
Sushma Devi companytacted Fatehkaran Mehdu, Mineral Engineer about the abovesaid, then he issued directions for making companyrection the quarry licence and handed over letters etc.
Sushma Devi following was stated By investigation it was also found that illegal mining was done on plot No.
as gap fat.
598/2009 Kishan Singh Rawat versus State of Rajasthan.
Sushma Devi to stop the mining activities Fatehkaran Mehdu was transferred in August 1998 out of Tehsil Bigolia.
Aggrieved by number issuance of quarry licence Sushma Devi filed a Writ Petition No.
