//
archives

bellary

This tag is associated with 3 posts

M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mahabaleswarapa & Sons, M/s. Ananthapur Mining Corporation and M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.= The “Category-A” comprises of (a) working leases wherein no illegality/marginal illegality have been found and (b) non working leases wherein no marginal/illegalities have been found. The number of such leases comes to 21 & 24 respectively. 29. “Category-B” comprises of (a) mining leases wherein illegal mining by way of (i) mining pits outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to 10% of the lease areas and/ or (ii) over burden/waste dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be up to 15% of the lease areas and (b) leases falling on interstate boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and for which survey sketches have not been finalized. For specific reasons as mentioned in the statement of “Category-B” leases, M/s. S.B. Minerals (ML No. 2515), M/s. Shantalaxmi Jayram (ML No. 2553), M/s. Gavisiddeshwar Enterprises (ML No. 80) and M/s. Vibhutigudda Mines (Pvt.) Ltd. (ML No. 2469) have been assigned in “Category-B”. The numbers of such leases in “Category-B” comes to 72. 30. The “Category-C” comprises of leases wherein (i) the illegal mining by way of (a) mining pits outside the sanctioned lease area have been found to be more than 10% of the lease area and/or (b) over burden/waste dumps outside the sanctioned lease areas have been found to be more than 15% of the lease areas and/or (ii) the leases found to be involved in flagrant violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act and/or found to be involved in illegal mining in other lease areas. The number of such leases comes to 49.= We, therefore, order for the complete closure of the Category ‘C’ mines and for necessary follow up action in terms of the recommendations of the CEC in this regard, details of which have already been extracted in an earlier part of this order. – The operation of the 7 leases placed in “B” category situated on or nearby the KarnatakaAndhra Pradesh inter-State boundary will remain suspended until finalisation of the inter-State boundary dispute whereupon the question of commencement of operations in respect of the aforesaid 7 leases will be examined afresh by the CEC. -(12) The recommendations made in paragraph XI (grant of fresh leases) and paragraph XII (in respect of pending applications for grant of mining leases) of the CEC’s Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 59) are not accepted. In view of the discussions and conclusions in para 44 of the present order, this Court’s order dated 02.11.2012 placing an embargo on grant of fresh mining leases need not be continued any further. Grant of fresh mining leases and consideration of pending applications be dealt with in accordance with law, the directions contained in the present order as well as the spirit thereof. (13) . Determination of the inter-State boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in so far as the same is relevant to the present proceedings, as agreed upon by the two States, be made through the intervention of the office of Surveyor General of India.We also direct that all consequential action in terms of the present order be completed with the utmost expedition. The writ application filed by Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and IAs shall stand disposed of in terms of our abovestated conclusions.

Page 1     1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL /APPELLATE JURISDICTION & CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 562 of 2009 Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Ors. … Petitioner (s) Versus State of Karanataka & Ors. … Respondent(s) WITH SLP (C) Nos.7366-7367 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos.32690- 32691 of 2010, WP … Continue reading

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order XIII Rule 3 : Evidence Act, 1872- Section 65 : Civil suit-Production of secondary evidence-No objection raised against the evidence at trial stage-Objection to mode of proof at appellate stage- Permissibility of such objection-Held: Mode of proof falls within procedural law-Such objection can be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record and not at appellate stage. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the suit plot was his and his brother’s absolute property and sought injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from entering the suit property. According to the respondent the title came to him through the sons of `G’ vide a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1944 Exhibit P-1 and later on under Exbt. P-2 a gift deed. Appellant claimed title of only a portion of the suit property claiming to have title of the same through wife of `G’. Appellant did not challenge Exbts. P-1 (the certified copy of sale deed) and P-2. Trial Court decreed the suit inter alia holding that Exbt P-l was admissible as the document was 30 years old and hence presumption under Section 90 of Evidence Act applied to the same and that Exbt. P-2 stood proved. Lower appellate Court, dismissed the suit holding that Exbts. P-l and P-2 were not proved as original sale deed (Exbt. P-l) was not produced, that plaintiff had not laid foundation for admissibility of secondary evidence under Section 65(a) and (f). In second appeal High Court upheld the order of trial Court In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the certified copy of the sale deed being secondary evidence was not admissible as no steps were taken to produce the original sale deed nor any step was taken to prove the loss of the same.

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2434 of 2000 PETITIONER: SMT. DAYAMATHI BAI RESPONDENT: SRI K.M. SHAFFI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/08/2004 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & S.H. KAPADIA. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J. This appeal by special leave is filed by the original defendant against the judgment and order dated 18th December, … Continue reading

Adverse Possession-meaning of and requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession-Suit claiming title to the property on the basis of Municipal records-Possession of the property by plaintiff three years prior to filing of the suit-Allegation against defendants of encroachments on a portion of the property-Defendants stating that the land belonged to Government and they were in adverse possession of the same-Held: Defendants’ plea of being in adverse possession of the property is not established-If the occupant is not sure of the actual ownership of the property, the question of his being in hostile possession and denying the title of the true owner does not arise-A possession, in order to be adverse, should be a hostile possession in express or implied denial of the title of the true owner-Such possession must be peaceful, open and continuous-If possession can be referred to a lawful title, the same cannot be considered to be adverse-The burden to prove is on the person who bases his title on adverse possession-Limitation Act, 1963-Section 65-Evidence-Burden of proof. Words and Phrases: ” Adverse possession”-Meaning of. Appellants filed a suit claiming title to the property in question by virtue of entries in the Municipal records. Appellants purchased the property from its owner two days after filing of the suit. The erstwhile owner had mortgaged the property in favour of the appellant. The allegation of the appellants was that the respondents had encroached upon a portion of the property putting a hutment about 3 years prior to filing of the suit. Respondents denied the title of the appellants, contending that they were in possession of the premises for about 16 years; that the land was a Government land; that they were paying tax to the municipality; that they were in adverse possession of the land; and that the area had been declared a slum area. Respondents also filed a counter suit. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants and allowed that of the respondents. Appellate Court upheld the title of the appellants and granted them relief of possession setting aside the judgment of trial court in both the suits. In second appeal, High Court held that the respondents had established their plea of adverse possession of a portion of the property, hence grant of decree for declaration of title and possession to that extent in favour of appellants was bad in law. Hence the present appeals.

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3594 of 2006 PETITIONER: T. Anjanappa and Ors RESPONDENT: Somalingappa and Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 24307-24308 of 2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted. Challenge in these appeals is … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,037 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com