Land Used For Mining Operations Can’t Be Used For Agricultural Purposes Under Tenancy Act: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court held that the land used for mining operations cannot be used for agricultural purposes under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (RTA).
The Jodhpur Bench was deciding a batch of four Revision Petitions preferred against the Order of the Civil Judge by which the Applications under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) read with Section 207 of RTA were rejected and the Suits were held to be maintainable before a Civil Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed, “… the land in terms of the Act of 1955 is the one which is let or held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient thereto; and agriculture includes horticulture, Cattle breeding, dairy farming, Poultry farming and forestry development. Meaning thereby, as per the above definitions, neither can mining be termed to be an agricultural activity nor can the mining operation be termed to be an agricultural purpose. In the specific opinion of this Court, the land used for mining operations cannot, by a bare reading of the above definitions, be concluded to be a land used for agricultural purposes.”
The Bench explained that the land was recorded in the revenue records for mining purposes and was not being used for agricultural activities and hence, the said entry in the revenue record cannot be read to be for ‘agricultural purposes’. It added that such a land would not be covered by the definition under Section 5(24) of RTA.
Advocate Himanshu Choudhary appeared for the Petitioners while Advocate O.P. Mehta appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The case involved a dispute over land in Rajsamand, Rajasthan which was recorded as a “mining area”. The Plaintiff sought to restrain the Defendant from performing mining activities on the land without his consent. The Plaintiff further sought to restraint the State and the Department of Mines and Geology from issuing permissions/sanction or rawanna for mining activities on the disputed lands.
Applications under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 207 of the RTA were filed on behalf of the Defendant and also by the State authorities in each Suit with a submission that the land in question was evidently an agricultural land and hence, the Suit for permanent injunction qua an agricultural land could not have been maintained before a Civil Court. The Trial Court rejected the said Applications holding that the land in question cannot be termed as ‘agricultural’ and hence, the Suit was maintainable before a Civil Court. Challenging this decision, the Petitioners approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “Evidently, the land is neither a cultivated one nor is being used for any agricultural purposes therefore, even going by the position of law that the nature of land would not change by mere change in user, evidently, the nature of the land in question is recorded in the revenue records for ‘mining purposes’. By all means, the said entry in the revenue record cannot be read to be for ‘agricultural purposes’ and hence, the land in question definitely would not be covered by the definition as provided under Section 5(24) of the Act of 1955.”
The Court said that, once it has been held that the land in question is not governed by definition of ‘land’ in terms of Section 5(24) of RTA, the Court is not required even to analyse the Judgments as relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner and even otherwise, the Judgments so relied are of no help as therein the land in question evidently was an agricultural land.
“… the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the definition of “land” under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (akin to the definition of “land” under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) observed that where the land has not been used for any purpose contemplated under the Land Reforms Act, it would cease to be an agricultural land”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the reliefs as prayed for in the Suits do not fall under Schedule 3(2) of RTA and hence, Section 207 of the Act would not even apply.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petitions and upheld the Trial Court's decision.
Cause Title- M/s S.A.S. R.K. Marble Udhyog v. Shree Pustimargiya Tritiya Peeth-Pranyas & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:239)