The Bench of Justice Rekha Borana redefined the Rajasthan Tenancy Act

Subhra Dan

Adamas University, Kolkata 

In a very recent judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, it was emphasized that the piece of land used for operating mining, cannot be used for any agricultural activities as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955[1]. In the verdict, Rekha Borana J. deciphered that the land is assigned for agricultural purposes or subservient thereto, and agriculture includes the rearing of cattle, horticulture, farming dairy, poultry farming, plantation, or forestry[2]. So, mining cannot be termed an agricultural practice or any variant of agricultural purpose. Along with this, the court made the opinion that the piece of land was officially recorded for mining purposes and was never used for any agriculture practice or farming purposes. The petition filed in the High Court against the trial court’s decision was dismissed on the ground that the particular piece of land could not be considered cultivable or agricultural land under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955.

Background of the case-

In the case of M/s SASRK Marble Udyog v. Shree Pustimargiya and Ors.[3] the petitions were filed by the parties to challenge the decision made by the trial court. The motive behind the petition was to hold suits seeking permanent injunctions against mining operations maintainable. The dispute arose when the petitioner sought to restrain the mining process on those lands that are recorded as mining sites without their consent or approval and tried to establish that the lands hold fertility which is suitable for practicing agriculture. The petitioner also contended that the land was not officially converted into a mining plot, so the fertility was intact and the land was suitable for cultivation or other agricultural processes. On the other hand, the Respondent’s stance was that the fertility or potentiality of the land was altered to a great extent due to mining activity.

Arguments Submitted by the Respective Councils-

The Council for the Petitioner submitted that the licensing of land does not alter the agricultural productivity or fertility of a certain land. Also, it was submitted that the land was recorded as a mining area but hardly there was an official conversion. The mere use of land for mining doesn’t change its inherent nature or agricultural fertility. So, any suit regarding this plot must be heard in the revenue court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955[4].

On the other side, the Council for Respondent presented that once land is registered or recorded as land for mining purposes, it ceases to be agricultural. According to section 5(24) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the word ‘land’ indicates a piece of plot that is let or held for agricultural purposes or purposes for pasturage, including land occupied by houses or enclosures situated on a holding, or land covered with water which may be used for irrigation or other similar produce but excluding ‘abadi’ or residential land; it shall include benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth, but in case the land was hardly held for agricultural purposes. Mining fundamentally changes the nature of the land along with its usage. The Council further submitted that the trial court already decided the case that the land is no longer registered as agricultural land according to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

Judgment-

After going through the arguments of both the learned parties, the single judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan decided that the mining operations are not to be considered under the agricultural practices as enshrined in sections 5(24) and 5(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The court emphasized and clarified the point that land that is registered as agricultural land should be used as a plot for practicing cultivation or farming based on fertility, But, when any piece of land is registered officially as mining land, then it could not be treated as a land for agricultural activities[5]. At last, the Hon’ble High Court concluded that the decision of the lower court was enforceable. The decision to reject the application for planting was appropriate and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with this decision. The petition challenging the trial court’s judgment was entirely dismissed, affirming that the land in question could not be accepted as an agricultural plot under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955.

[1] Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, No. 3, Acts of Rajasthan State Legislature, 1955 (India).

[2] LIVE LAW ACADEMY, https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-ruling-mining-not-agricultural-activity-rajasthan-tenancy-act-280042#:~:text=Rajasthan%20High%20Court%20has%20ruled,the%20land%20was%20recorded%20as%20%E2%80%9C (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).

[3] M/s SASRK Marble Udyog v. Shree Pustimargiya and Ors., AIR 2023 RHC 122.

[4] THE LEGAL AFFAIRS, https://thelegalaffair.com/news/mining-land-not-agricultural-land-under-rajasthan-tenancy-act-rules-rajasthan-high-court/ (last visited Jan. 10,2025).

[5] AIR NEWSS, https://airrlaw.com/m-s-s-a-s-r-k-marble-udhyog-vs-shree-pustimargiya-tritiya-on-3-january-2025/ (last visited Jan. 10, 2025).