Rajasthan Tenancy Act | Land Recorded As “For Mining Purposes” In Revenue Records Cannot Be Used For Agricultural Purposes: High Court

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that since mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”), the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes especially when in the revenue records the nature of the land was recorded as “for mining purposes”.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana was hearing revision petitions filed against a trial court order in which the applications for rejection of a plaint were dismissed and the suits were held to be maintainable.

Suits for permanent injunctions were filed against the petitioners for restraining them from conducting mining operations on the subject lands without the consent of the plaintiff. In these suits, the applications for rejection of the plaint were filed on the grounds that the land in question was an agricultural land and thus, the suit for permanent injunction in relation to an agricultural land was not maintainable before a civil court.

The Trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that in the revenue records, the land was recorded as a “mining area”. Hence, the present petitions.

It was the case of the petitioners that merely because the sanctions for mining operations were granted in relation to the land, its nature did not change from “agricultural”. It was submitted that the grant of mining license was only for a particular purpose and since the land was never converted, it effectually remained agricultural.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents argued that mining was a civil right, and once the mining license was granted, the land's nature changed because it was not used for agriculture anymore. Furthermore, reliance was placed on Section 5(24) of the Act that defined “land” and it was argued that unlike the definition, the land was neither let nor held for agricultural purposes and hence could not be termed as “agricultural land”.

After hearing the counsels, the Court perused Section 5(24) and Section 5(2) of the Act that defined “Land” and “Agriculture” respectively, and held that the conjoint reading of these reflected that the mining could not be termed as an agricultural activity and the land used for mining operations could not be termed as a land used for agricultural purposes.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the fact of the land being recorded as “for mining purposes” in the revenue records, and observed that,

“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.”

Accordingly, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and the petitions were dismissed.

Title: M/s S.A.S R.K. Marble Udhyog v Shree Pustimargiya & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 5

Click Here To Read/Download Order