TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment 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 SI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n considered for grant of a mining lease over the area which comprised of part of the mining lease already granted to 'M/s Simore', as the application of Ashok Kumar Lingala was bound to be treated as a premature application . This inference is inevitable from a collective reading of Rules 59 and 60 of the Mineral Rules, and Section 24A of the Mines and Minerals Act. (underlined) 8. Having held that there was an overlapping of the areas covered by the two leases, the High Court interpreted the rules to record a finding that even when the area leased to SIMORE may include private land owned by Smt. Yallamma and even when Yallamma has not granted any surface rights to it, SIMORE could undertake mining activity in the private area by paying compensation to Yallamma before undertaking such activities. The High Court observed: On the issue whether 'M/s Simore' could carry out mining activities over the land owned by the private owner Smt. Yallamma, the provisions relied upon by the learned Counsel representing 'M/s Simore' leave no room for any doubt, that in case mining activity is carried out by 'M/s Simore' over private land, compensation will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imore' shall have a preferential right over Ashok Kumar Lingala. In such an eventuality, no interference will be called for with the impugned orders dated 05.03.2010 and 25.05.2010. 10. Appearing for the Appellant Mr. Dushyant A. Dave, learned senior counsel strenuously argued that the High Court had totally misdirected itself both on facts and in law. He submitted that the High Court had failed to notice that the lease granted in favour of Respondent No. 3 SIMORE was in respect of government and forest land alone. No part of any private land covered the lease in its favour nor was any claim to that effect ever made by Respondent No. 3 SIMORE. In support of that submission learned Counsel drew our attention to the application filed before the Government of Karnataka by Respondent No. 3 SIMORE seeking renewal of the lease in the year, 1992. In particular, he relied upon the answers given by SIMORE to the queries made in paras viii (a), x-A(a) and (b) of the renewal application to argue that Respondent No. 3 SIMORE had unequivocally stated that the lease sought to be renewed in its favour comprised government land and no part of it was owned or occupied by any private party. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Compensatory Afforestation charges on the 1615.64 of forest land and ₹ 2,07,79,920/- towards Environmental Protection Fee on the 247.38 ha of Revenue land held by it under Mining Lease Nos. 2580 (Old No. 1179). 13. Mr. Dave vehemently argued that inasmuch as the High Court had overlooked the material on record it had fallen in a palpable error in assuming that the land leased to the Appellant could possibly overlap the area leased to Respondent No. 3 M/s SIMORE. So long as the two lessees were claiming surface rights over their respective lease areas under different owners the question of overlapping did not arise argued the learned Counsel. At any rate the area leased to the Appellant was not only verified as to its nature and ownership but was spot inspected and demarcated, which fact was evidenced from the reports placed on record. It was, therefore, wholly futile for any one to suggest that the areas granted to the two lessees were overlapping, contended Mr. Dave. 14. On behalf of Respondent No. 3 SIMORE it was on the other hand contended by Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, senior counsel that the Respondent No. 3 SIMORE did not claim any private land to be a part of its leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of occupancy rights in favour of Pennaiah was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and if that were so, any such grant could be ignored. We regret our inability to accept that submission. We say so firstly because, the validity of the grant of occupancy rights in favour of Pennaiah by the Statutory Tribunal was not under challenge before the High Court nor was any challenge ever thrown to the orders passed by it or the implementation thereof in the relevant revenue record before any other forum. Even the State under whom Respondent No. 3 SIMORE claims the right to carry out mining operations, never found fault with the grant of land in favour of Pennaiah. It is, therefore, too late in the day for any one to question the legality of the order granting land situate in Survey No. 27 to Pennaiah, or to assert that notwithstanding what has happened in the statutory proceedings, the area falling under Sy. No. 27 must be recognised as government land, hence a part of area leased to SIMORE. Secondly because in the record of rights Survey No. 27 is shown to be privately held by Pennaiah and after his death by Yallamma his widow. The State Government and Kumaraswamy D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the privately held area that was available for mining, the Director should not have on a sketchy report from the Drawing Section of the Department stopped the mining activities. It was further contented by Mr. Dave that since the mining activity had been stopped under the orders of the Director (Mines), the High Court was in error in not only upholding the said direction but extending their efficacy till such time the dispute between the parties was resolved by the Civil Court. 19. The mere pendency of a suit in a Civil Court could not be an impediment for the Appellant to start or continue his mining activity, unless there was an injunction restraining -him from doing so. No such injunction has been issued by the Civil Court. That does not, however, mean that the Government or the Director (Mines) for that matter could not in the event of any dispute between the Appellant and SIMORE regarding the identity and demarcation of the area leased to both of them direct the Appellant to refrain from carrying on the mining activity as an interim measure till such time the issue was sorted out. But once such an interim direction was issued, the authority doing so had to take steps to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un-substantiated before us. In our opinion the real problem lies in the demarcation of the two areas leased to the Appellant on the one hand and SIMORE on the other. As observed earlier the ownership of the areas claimed by both the lessees vests in different owners. So long as the areas leased to them are identifiable on spot by different survey numbers and boundaries, there is no question of any overlapping. The confusion regarding boundaries in turn is a matter the answer to which lies only in a proper demarcation of the areas. 21. It was submitted by Mr. Dave that dispute between the Appellant and SIMORE has considerably delayed the mining activity of the Appellant, and that a direction ought to be issued to the authorities to expedite the process of demarcation. He urged that keeping in view the bad blood generated between the parties it would be more appropriate to entrust the entire process of demarcation and identification of the leased areas to the Geological Survey of India. We, however, see no reason to issue any such direction at this stage. While the Appellant may have some apprehensions about the fairness of the officers of the concerned department we do not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
