//
you're reading...
legal issues

The apex court set aside the high court orders which directed that the matter should be decided by civil court in respect of overlapping of lease=to avoid delay, the apex court granted directions in sundur mining lease(1) The Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka, shall constitute a Committee of officers for conduct of the demarcation and identification of the boundaries of the area leased to the appellant in terms of Mining Lease No.2622. The Committee so constituted shall include the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned, the Chief Conservator of Forests or his nominee who shall be an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Director of Survey and a Senior Officer of the Mines Department to be nominated by the Secretary. The Secretary shall be free to nominate any other official or officials whom he considers suitable for 25

Location of the Bellary district with respect ...

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8819 OF 2011

 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35213 of 2010)

Ashok Kumar Lingala ...Appellant

 Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors. ...Respondents

 With 

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8820 OF 2011

 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 200 of 2011)

L.V. Ashok Kumar Lingala ...Appellant

 Versus

M/s. Sandur Maganese & Iron 

Ore Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

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 -

 1

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 & 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: 

-

 2

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. 

-

 3

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 

 4

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. 

 5

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 

 6

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 challenging the said 

order/communication on several grounds and praying for a 

direction to the respondent to refrain from interfering with 

the mining activities of the appellant which the lease deed 

authorised him to carry out. Respondent no.3, SIMORE filed 

Writ Petition No.18043 of 2010 challenging the very grant 

of the mining lease in favour of the appellant. The said two 

writ petitions were finally disposed of by the High Court in 

terms of a common order dated 1st September, 2010 

impugned in the present appeals. 

 7

7. Relying upon the orders passed by the Director, 

Department of Mines and Geology dated 5th March, 2010 

and 25th May, 2010, the High Court concluded that there 

was overlapping of areas held by the appellant and SIMORE 

-

under their respective lease deeds. The High Court held 

that the appellant had not been in a position to produce any 

evidence to show that the conclusion drawn by the Director 

of Mines regarding overlapping of the areas was erroneous. 

The High Court observed:

 "We permitted learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Lingala 

 to examine the same. Even therefrom, learned counsel 

 representing Ashok Kumar Lingala could not repudiate 

 the finding of fact recorded in the two impugned orders.

 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

 15. From the two orders issued by the Director, 

 Department of Mines & Geology dated 05.03.2010 and 

 25.05.2010, we have no other alternative or hesitation 

 but to conclude, that `M/s Simore' had been granted a 

 mining lease, in respect of the same land, well before 

 Ashok Kumar Lingala was awarded the mining lease. 

 That being so, the claim of Ashok Kumar Lingala could 

 not have been 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."

 8

 (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 have to be paid by `M/s Simore' to 

 the private land owner under rule 72 of the Mineral 

 Rules. But the submission of this learned counsel 

 representing Ashok Kumar Lingala, also leave no room 

 for any doubt, that `M/s Simore', in spite of the grant of 

 a mining lease covering private owned land, would not 

 be in a position to unilaterally and arbitrarily conduct 

 mining activities thereon without the 

 consent/permission of the land owner Smt. Yallamma. 

 The instant conclusion is based on the second proviso 

 under rule 22(3) (i) (h) of the Mining Rules which 

 mandates, that unless permission/authorization is 

 granted by the land owner, mining activity cannot be 

 carried out. Even if it is assumed, that prior consent of 

 the land owner was not obtained by `M/s Simore' before 

 9

 obtaining the lease deed from the State Government, 

 still the second proviso under rule 22(3) (i)(h) of the 

 Mining Rules extracted above, mandates that, prior to 

 entering into private owned land for mining activities, 

 permission from the land owner is a necessary pre-

 requisite."

9. What followed the above two findings, one touching 

the question of overlapping of the lease areas and the other 

dealing with the effect of the overlapping qua privately 

owned land, is interesting. The High Court took a -

somersault and held that the question of overlapping could 

not be decided by it authoritatively and left the same must 

be decided by the Civil Court on the basis of evidence 

adduced before it. It observed: 

 "Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to record any 

 concrete finding on the factual aspect of the matter. 

 We have noticed hereinabove, that a civil suit is 

 pending between the parties. It will be open to the rival 

 parties to lead evidence therein, if they are so advised, 

 to determine the specific identity of the property over 

 which mining leases have been granted to them. In 

 case such evidence leads to the conclusion, that the 

 land over which mining leases have been granted to the 

 rival parties, do not overlap, then both of them would 

 be entitled to carry out mining activities, under the 

 lease agreements executed by the State Government in 

 their favour. In case the factual finding is to the 

 contrary, then on account of the conclusions drawn 

 hereinabove, the earlier licensee will have to be granted 

 the superior right to exclusively carry out mining 

 activities. As such, `M/s Simore' shall have a 

 preferential right over Ashok Kumar Lingala. In such an 

 10

 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 

 11

by any private party. Paras viii (a), x-A(a) and (b) of the 

renewal application are as under:

 viii Particular of the mining lease of ML No. 1179

 which renewal is desired a) Area: 16.74 sq. miles

 In Sandur Taluk of Bellary 

 District

 Karnataka 

 x-A Does the applicant continue to Yes (Government land).

 have surface rights over the  a) area of the land for which he 

 requires renewal of the mining 

 lease. 

 b) If not, has he obtained the Not applicable

 consent of the owner and 

 occupier for undertaking mining 

 operations. If so, the consent 

 of the owner and occupier of 

 the land obtained in writing, be 

 filed. 

-

11. He also drew our attention to the report of inspection 

dated 22nd February, 1993 submitted by Government of 

Karnataka, a copy whereof has been placed on record which 

too clearly mentioned that the area covered by the lease 

sought to be renewed was forest and government land. He 

particularly drew our attention to the following passage in 

the said report:

 12

 "The present application for renewal is for third 

 renewal. The whole area of 16.74 sq. miles is bounded 

 on the North by Sandur State Forest on the South by 

 Hospet Taluk on the East by Nauluti forest and on the 

 West by Kudligi Taluk. Area is Government and it is 

 forest land also."

12. Mr. Dave next drew our attention to the plaint filed by 

respondent no.3 SIMORE in OS No.9/2010 to buttress his 

submission that respondent no.3 SIMORE had not claimed 

any private land to be a part of its mining lease area. 

Reference in this regard was particularly made to para 11 of 

the plaint which is to the following effect: 

 "11. Further, the Plaintiff hereby submits that the Plaintiff is  in physical possession and enjoyment of the Schedule land 

 for more than five decades. The Schedule land is an un-

 surveyed land and accordingly the NOC issued by the 

 Deputy Commissioner, Bellary on 31.03.1998 refers to the 

 same as blocks and c onfirms that the same is a Revenue -

 Land (Government Land). The claim of the Defendant that 

 he has obtained Mining Lease over an area of 3.36 ha under 

 survey No.27 appears to be dubious or it may be pertaining 

 to some other land. In addition to this, the Plaintiff has paid 

 Rs.104 crore towards Net Present Value Compensatory 

 Afforestation charges on the 1615.64 of forest land and 

 Rs.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 

 13

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 lease area. He submitted 

that even when that was so the overlapping which the 

Director, Mines and Geology had referred to was possible as 

according to SIMORE the area leased to appellant ought to 

 14

be treated as a part of government land. Alternatively, it 

was contended that while the appellant may claim to have 

obtained a lease in respect of privately owned land the fact 

of the matter was that the area in which the appellant 

intended to conduct his mining activities was a part of the 

area leased to respondent no.3. 

15. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, counsel appearing for the State 

Government and its functionaries argued that the orders 

passed by the Director (Mines) suspending mining 

operations were on the basis of the conclusion drawn by the 

drawing section of the mining department according to 

which the two areas forming the subject matter of the two 

leases were overlapping. She contended that even when -

the report of the drawing section and the basis on which 

this overlapping had been prima facie established had not 

been placed on record, the site plans/maps placed on 

record supported the conclusion that there was some 

overlapping. Learned counsel further submitted that the 

orders passed by the Director (Mines) were interim in 

nature and the question whether or not there was any 

 15

overlapping had yet to be determined by the competent 

authority. She fairly conceded that in the process of any 

such determination the rival claimants shall have to be 

heard by the competent authority. 

16. We have given our careful consideration to the 

submissions made at the Bar and perused the record. The 

facts emerging from the record place the controversy within 

a narrow compass. While the appellant claims that the 

lease granted to it is in respect of a privately owned area, 

respondent no.3 SIMORE claims that the area leased in its 

favour comprises government and forest land only. If that 

be so, as indeed are the positions taken by the parties 

there is no question of any overlapping of the two areas for 

-

what is government or forest land cannot be privately 

owned and vice-versa. Mr. Andhyarujina all the same made 

a valiant attempt to persuade us to hold that the area 

falling in Survey No.27 qua which the appellant has 

obtained a lease is, in fact, government land and that no 

part of it is or was at any stage privately owned. What he 

 16

argued in support of that contention was that the grant 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 

 17

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 Devaru Temple to 

whom the land was dedicated before its grant to Pennaiah, 

have accepted that position; and raised no dispute or 

question as to the correctness of the revenue record. The 

report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, the spot 

inspection, and the very grant of a lease qua the area in 

question, all lend credence to the revenue record that 

recognises the land in question to be private land. 

17. Such being the case the only question that calls for 

determination is whether respondent no.3 SIMORE is right 

in insisting that the area in which the appellant proposes to 

carry on his mining activity is a part of the area leased to 

former. It was argued by Mr. Andhyarujina that the area 

sought to be exploited for mining purposes by the appellant 

-

comprised the workers colony of SIMORE. That assertion 

was stoutly denied by the appellant according to whom the 

mining operations are confined to the area originally 

 18

demarcated at the time of the grant of the lease. Be that 

as it may what needs to be examined is whether the 

appellant is mining within his lease area or beyond. This 

would in turn require the area leased to the appellant to be 

demarcated again assuming that an earlier demarcation 

had also taken place, especially because SIMORE denies 

any such previous demarcation having been conducted. 

According to SIMORE the officer said to have done so was 

placed under suspension for dereliction of duties. It is 

unnecessary for us to go into the validity of any previous 

demarcation. It is obvious that when large areas are 

granted for mining purposes, some confusion as to the 

boundaries of such areas especially if they are adjacent to 

each other is nothing abnormal. What in such cases needs 

to be done is to conduct a fresh demarcation and fix 

boundaries so that the parties holding such areas stay 

within the limits of their respective areas instead of straying 

into the adjacent area.

-

 19

18. We may at this stage advert to another submission 

made by Mr. Dave that the Director (Mines) could not have 

stopped the mining operations of the appellant on the basis 

of what was according to Mr. Dave a frivolous complaint 

filed by SMIORE that alleged overlapping of the lease areas. 

He contended that a valid lease having been granted to the 

appellant after following the requisite formalities and the 

procedure prescribed under the relevant rules and after 

proper demarcation of 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 -

 20

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 resolve the dispute. It could not let the 

dispute fester and result in a stalemate. So also the 

restraint order could not be continued by the High Court till 

the dispute was adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. Doing 

so would amount to one authority making an interim order 

pending a final order to be made by another. The power to 

make an interim order is, except where it is specifically 

taken away by the statute, implicit in the power to make a 

final order. It is exercised by the authority who has to 

make the final order or an authority exercising appellate or 

 21

revisional jurisdiction, against an order granting or refusing 

an interim order. The exercise of the power implies that -

the authority seized of the proceedings in which such an 

order is made will eventually pass a final order; the interim 

order serving only as a step in aid of such final order. The 

law, in our view, does not permit the making of an interim 

order by one authority or Court pending adjudication of the 

dispute by another except in the situation mentioned 

above. Ms. Shenoy was, therefore, right in her submission 

that the order of restraining mining operation was meant to 

be a temporary and interim arrangement meant to remain 

in force only till such time the Director (Mines) examined 

the issue regarding the alleged overlapping of the area and 

passed a final order on the subject.

20. Ms. Shenoy was, however, unable to justify the 

restraint order passed by the Director (Mines) in the 

absence of the report of the Drawing Section which was the 

sole basis for the order passed by the Director (Mines). If 

the Drawing Section had indeed undertaken an exercise the 

same ought to have been disclosed to the High Court and 

 22

to this Court so that the validity of any such exercise could 

be examined. Absence of the report said to have been -

made by the Drawing Section and non-production of any 

material indicating the process by which the Drawing 

Section came to the conclusion that there was overlapping 

of the two areas, one privately owned and the other 

belonging to the State, lend support to the submission 

made by Mr. Dave that the order of restraint passed by the 

Director was made in haste. We do not, however, propose 

to dwell any further on this aspect nor do we propose to 

vacate the interim restraint order issued by the Director on 

the ground that it was based on material that was tenuous 

and remained 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 

 23

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 consider them to be 

sufficient for us to mistrust the State functionaries in the 

absence of any material to suggest that there is any real 

likelihood of bias. That does not mean that the process of 

identification and demarcation of the area leased to the 

appellant should not be undertaken by senior level officers 

 24

of the State Government to ensure that there is no scope 

for any mischief or miscarriage of justice.

-

22. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the 

impugned order passed by the High Court and allow Writ 

Petition No. 17281 of 2010 filed by the appellant in part 

and to the following extent:

(1) The Secretary, Department of Industries and 

Commerce, Government of Karnataka, shall constitute a 

Committee of officers for conduct of the demarcation and 

identification of the boundaries of the area leased to the 

appellant in terms of Mining Lease No.2622. The Committee 

so constituted shall include the Deputy Commissioner of the 

District concerned, the Chief Conservator of Forests or his 

nominee who shall be an officer not below the rank of 

Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Director of Survey and 

a Senior Officer of the Mines Department to be nominated 

by the Secretary. The Secretary shall be free to nominate 

any other official or officials whom he considers suitable for 

 25

the purpose of identification and demarcation of boundaries 

of the areas covered by the mine held by the appellant.

(2) The Secretary shall monitor the progress made by the 

Committee from time to time. A suitable order based on the 

-

report and other material, if any, placed before the 

Secretary shall then be passed by him after affording to 

each party an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The 

order so passed shall supersede the order dated 5.3.2010 

passed by the Director (Mines).

(3) The above directions shall be carried out by the 

Secretary expeditiously but not later than six months from 

the date a copy of this order is received/served upon the 

Secretary to Government by the parties.

(4) The parties shall bear their own costs. 

 ...................................J.

 (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

 ...................................J.

 26

 (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi

October 18, 2011 27

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,184 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: