Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35213 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 8820 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 200 of 2011). Case: 1. Ashok Kumar Lingala, 2. L.V. Ashok Kumar Lingala Vs 1. State of Karnataka and Ors., [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. 8820 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 200 of 2011)], 2. Sandur Maganese and Iron Ore Company Ltd. and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 8819 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35213 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 8820 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 200 of 2011)
CounselFor Appellant: Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., L.M. Chidanandayya, Prachi Bajpai and M.P. Shorawala, Advs. and For Respondents: T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv., Sunil Dogra and A. Venayagam Balan, Advs.
JudgesCyriac Joseph and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
IssueKarnataka (Sandur Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1976 - Section 10; Minor Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act; Mines and Minerals Act - Section 24A; Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 - Rules 22(3), 59, 60, 72
CitationAIR 2012 SC 53, 2012 (2) EFLT 543, 2012 (1) KarLJ 697, 2012 (3) RCR 591 (Civil), RLW 2012 (1) SC 910, 2011 (12) SCALE 121, 2012 (1) SCC 321, 2012 (1) UJ 133
Judgement DateOctober 18, 2011
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

T.S. Thakur, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 1st September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka -whereby Writ Petition No. 17281 of 2010 filed by the Appellant has been disposed of with the direction that the question of identity of the area forming the subject matter of the mining leases granted to the Appellant on the one hand and Respondent M/s Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Company Ltd. ('SIMORE' for short) on the other, shall be determined by the Civil Court in the suit pending before it on the basis of the evidence that the parties may choose to lead. The High Court has further held that in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that the area over which the mining leases have been granted to the rival parties does not overlap then both of them would be entitled to carry out their mining activities under their respective lease agreements. In case, however, the Civil Court is of the opinion that there is an overlapping of the area covered by the two leases, the lessee who claims under the lease granted earlier in point of time would have a superior right to carry out the mining activities in preference to the one granted later. The facts in brief are as under:

  3. Land measuring 4.42 hectares situated at village Devagiri, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District falling under Surveys No. 56/P, 57/P, 58/P and 91/P was according to the Appellant dedicated to Kumaraswamy Devaru Temple. The entire extent of land which now falls in new Survey No. 27 was given to one-Pennaiah S/o Dodda Pennaiah for cultivation in lieu of the services which he was rendering to the temple. With the enactment of the Karnataka (Sandur Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1976 abolishing all rights in inam lands and permitting the cultivators and tenants of the land to make applications under Section 10 of the Act for re- grant and registration, the cultivator-Pennaiah also made an application to the Land Tribunal, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District seeking a re-grant. The said application eventually culminated in the Tribunal passing an order dated 22nd October, 1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the tenant, pursuant whereto the Tehsildar issued a registration certificate registering his occupancy rights and entering his name in the record of rights.

  4. The Appellant's further case is that Pennaiah continued to cultivate the land personally especially when neither the order of re-grant was challenged before the Land Tribunal nor his cultivation objected to by anyone including the 3rd Respondent who held a lease in respect of Government and forest land situate in Sandur Area. The Appellant asserts that the land aforementioned is a piece of private patta land that was held by Pennaiah during his life time and by his widow Yellamma after his death. Neither Pennaiah nor Yellamma had in their capacity as Pattadars in cultivating possession of the land ever offered the property to SIMORE or granted any right or any other interest in its favour. On the contrary Yellamma in her capacity as Pattadar had permitted the Appellant to obtain a mining lease under the provisions of Minor Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, read with Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 which application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, to verify the status of the land and also to the Deputy Director of Mining and Geology for conducting an actual spot inspection. Both the authorities had, according to the Appellant, submitted their respective reports in which the said property was found to be private Patta land. They had, therefore, offered no objection to the grant of a mining lease qua the same.

  5. It was on the basis of the reports aforementioned that the State Government had sought the approval of the Central Government for the grant of a mining lease in favour of the Appellant which approval was upon due and proper consideration granted by the Central Government. The State Government had pursuant thereto issued a Notification dated 15.1.2010 sanctioning a mining lease over an area of 4.42 hectares situate in Devagiri Village Sandur Taluk Bellary Distt., as per the sketch furnished by the Director Department of Mines and Geology. Boundaries of the area in question were fixed for an extent of 3.36 hectares in terms of letter dated 2.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Director Mines and Geology, Hospet and a lease deed executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar under ML No. 2622.

  6. The Appellant's case is that when he started the mining activities in exercise of his right under the lease -aforementioned, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka issued a communication dated 5th March, 2010 by which the Appellant was restrained from conducting any such activities on the ground that the area covered by the lease granted to the Appellant overlapped the area stated to have been granted to the SIMORE Respondent No. 3 herein. On receipt of the said letter the Appellant filed an application to the Director of Mines and Geology objecting to the order and pointing out that the same had been passed without issuing to the Appellant any notice or granting to him any opportunity of being heard in the matter. The Appellant also represented to the State Government against the direction issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and asserted that even when 3rd Respondent SIMORE had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kudligi and prayed for an injunction no such injunction had been issued by the said Court. The Director of Mines was not, therefore, justified in issuing an injunction which the Civil Court had not issued; on the very same factual matrix. The restraint order issued by the Director of Mines and Geology continued to remain -in force despite the objections raised by the Appellant. As a matter of fact, the Director of Mines wrote a letter dated 25.5.2010 to the Appellant saying that order dated 5.3.2010 stopping mining operations could not be vacated or modified. The Appellant was in that backdrop forced to approach the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 17281 of 2010...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT