Belgaum Minerals vs The Tahasildar and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Petitioner is Belgaum Minerals. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the farmers in respect of the various survey numbers situate in Belgundi Taluk, Belagavi District. The agreement came to be registered. The terms and conditions between the parties are that the petitioner is permitted to extract aluminum-laterite and ore for a period of 20 years. The lease agreement was the subject matter before the Director of Mines and Geology and lease was granted for a period from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2021 with certain conditions. It is further submitted that as per the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement, a notification dated 18th October 2002 was issued to comply with all the conditions. On the basis of the same, mining lease was issued for a period of 20 years in No. 2431, a registered mining lease dated 29th April 2005. While the petitioner was carrying on mining operation, the respondent - first respondent Tahasildar and the officials of Department of Mines and Geology came to the spot, had drawn panchanama and seized the materials which were used for mining operations. The learned counsel submits that the impugned action of the respondents in seizing the materials by drawing panchanama dated 29.08.2015 is arbitrary and without authority of law and also the violation of the law that too without issuing any notice. The reasons assigned in the panchanama is contrary as the mineral was extracted as per licence when mining lease was granted wherein it shows that the land as barren land and is non-suitable for agricultural operations. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced several phonographs to demonstrate that after the ore is extracted the land is not suitable for agricultural operations. In this circumstance, Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Act is uncalled for. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the farmers were issued notice and the acknowledgment has also been produced before the Court and hence submits that the respondent has committed an error in taking the action.

The learned Government Advocate submits to dismiss this petition on the ground that the farmers were issued notices and the same has not been responded to it. As per Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Act, whenever the agricultural lands are sought to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, permission has to be obtained from the competent authority. The lands held by the farmers were agriculture land in which the petitioner was carrying on mining operations, which is impermissible under the provisions of MMRD Act and KMMC Rules, which is competent authority for issuance of mining lease. Unless, permission is sought and obtained under the provisions of Land Revenue Act for the use of agriculture land for non-agricultural purpose, the action of the petitioner in carrying out mining operations is arbitrary and is in violation of Section 95(1) of the Act.

Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. The submission of the learned Government advocate is that it is also a part of the MMRD Act to issue mining lease and accordingly, the lease agreement was granted for a period of 20 years. Under the provisions of KMMC Rules and MMRD Act, it is for the competent authority to grant lease. Before grant of lease it is mandatory for the authorities to look into the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 and to satisfy that the permission was granted to use the land for non-agricultural purpose. When the law says that only agricultural operations has to be carried out in the agricultural land, then it must not be used for non-agricultural purpose. On the face of it, it appears that the petitioner and the farmers have used the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose. Hence it is contravention of Section 95(1) of the Act and when two statutes come to clash, unless a particular statue has a overriding effect, it is to be required that both the provisions are to be satisfied. Mere obtaining licence under the provisions is insufficient and is suppose to hit the provisions of law as long as Section 95(1) of the Act is not complied. Be that as it may, before issuance of panchanama, rightly seizure notice was issued to the farmers. Though both the parties have not placed reliance on the RTC extract to show that their names have been referred therein, since the registered lease agreement is produced and also mining lease executed between the parties is produced and since it is the case of the petitioner that its name appears in the RTC Extract then it is appropriate for the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is also entitled for notice, for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi has sent recommendation to the Department of Mines and Geology to grant licence. That itself shows that the office of the Deputy Commissioner having noticed the fact that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out mining operations on the basis of the lease agreement executed by the farmers. In this circumstance, it is deemed proper that the petitioner is entitled for notice. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has made representation vide Annexure-L and M and the same has not been considered. In the circumstance, it is just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the representations Annexure-L and M made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is further observed that upon the recommendation made the petitioner carrying out the mining operations since 2002. Under these circumstances, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Tahasildar, Belagavi to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioner. In order to enable the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioner, the panchanama drawn on 29.08.2015 is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

At this stage, the learned Government Advocate places reliance on the notice dated 22.01.2014 and pleaded that no doubt notice is sent to the address of the Director of the petitioner. He also produced the acknowledgement and there is also no refusal on behalf of the petitioner, since no such endorsement was produced. In this circumstance, it is just and proper to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 2nd November 2015 without awaiting notice in this regard. Further, the Deputy Commissioner is also directed to consider as to whether the petitioner is permitted to carry on the mining operation as an interim measure.