AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 10804/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2009 wherein the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.
The appellant herein tiled W.P. No. 10804/2008 seeking for declaration that the sketch appended to the notification dated 28.4.2008 in so far as it permits quarrying lease for a period of 20 years over an area of 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 124 of Haliyar village, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district, where there is no black dyke for quarrying, is illegal and quash the same.
It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was granted quarrying lease for 10 acres 24 guntas of land in government Sy. No. 124 of Haliyar village, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar district under two registered lease deeds dated 7.7.1978 for quarrying ornamental black dyke. The period of lease was for five years. The area was surveyed and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. The petitioner spent huge sums of money for dealing the land of thorns; for laying roads and for construction of dwelling sheds for labourers and the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 15 lakhs from Canara Bank, Bank of Madurai and Sangli Bank. Initially the 2nd respondent had asked the petitioner to stop transporting black dyke and thereafter by letter dated 30.3.1982, the petitioner was permitted to transport black dyke, The petitioner applied for renewal of quarrying license by application dated 26.11.1982 and the said application was rejected. The said rejection was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 10792/1983 and the writ petition was rejected in view of the amendment to the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules. It is averred that there was a dispute regarding the area of operation. Along with the lease deed, a map of the area of mining was enclosed. The area specified in the map did not actually contain minor mineral i.e. ornamental black dyke. On resurvey, the Authorities were able to locate the exact area. The area fails within the area shown by the petitioner in his application. It is averred that the distance between the two areas is about five furlongs It is on account of this variance which the Authorities noticed initially that the petitioner was issued with a notice. However, this was resolved and the Deputy Director permitted the petitioner to work in the same area. One Subbanna had filed a revision petition before the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology challenging the grant of lease to the petitioner, particularly in relation to the changed area and the same came to be rejected holding that there was no deviation in the Rules in changing the area. The said order was challenged in W.P No. 10662/1978 and the said writ petition was disposed off in view of the pendency of revision petition filed by Subbanna. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had been issued with notice stating that he was unauthorisedly quarrying black dyke. The petitioner gave a reply to the said notice dated 15.4.1981 and he has been asked to stop quarrying and transporting black dyke till the dispute is settled. However, the petitioner was permitted to continue the quarrying by a letter dated 30.3.1982. By 1983, the period of lease came to an end. The petitioner''s application for renewal was rejected by an order dated 6.6.1983. The same was challenged in W.P No. 10792/1983 and an interim order was passed by this Court directing the petitioner and the respondents not to operate the quarries in question. The State was restrained from granting quarrying lease. The quarry material existing was permitted to be transported. The petitioner was not given quarrying license, even though he had applied for renewal. This Court issued certain direction to the department. The petitioner was also directed to send his renewal application dated 24.7.1992 afresh. Finally, by a letter dated 12.6.2007, the Deputy Director, Department, of Mines and Geology appears to have sent a proposal for granting renewal and by a notification dated 28.4.2008, the Government granted renewal of lease for quarrying of black dyke in an extent of 7 acres. The petitioner was aggrieved by the area shown in the notification as there is no black dyke in the said area. The petitioner wanted to quarry in the changed area since in the earlier lease period, the petitioner was in fact permitted to quarry in the changed area. But the authorities have prevented the petitioner from carrying on quarrying operation. The petitioner is highly aggrieved by the action of respondents, this writ petition is filed for the above said reliefs.
Learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, impleading applicant by order dated 9.2.2009, held that the declaration sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted as the area had been surveyed and the order granting renewal of lease and the petitioner has undertaken mining operation in the said area cannot now contend that he is entitled to declaration that the area appended to the lease deed and the renewal of lease is not correct and the petitioner must be permitted to carry on quarrying operation in the area, in which he was carrying on quarrying work. Even though, it is not included in the area appended to the lease deed and the renewal of lease and permitting the petitioner to carry on quarrying operation and the area as shown in the lease deed and renewal of lease would amount to premium conferred upon a person, who has no respect for law and has quarried outside the leased area and therefore it is impermissible to grant reliefs and in a writ petition, the sketch appended to the lease deed cannot be quashed having regard to the material on record and it is not a case of rectifying a mistake as sought to be made out in the writ petition. Accordingly, rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition by order dated 9.2.2009, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the teamed counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the sketch annexed to the lease deed granted to the petitioner is not correct as the- area shown in the sketch does not contain minerals and the petitioner ought to have been permitted to carry on quarrying operation in the area in which he was carrying on quarrying work
On the other hand, the Government Advocate submitted in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The. learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent argued in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record.
The material on record would clearly show that admittedly the petitioner/appellant was granted lease for quarrying black dye. The lease was granted for a period of five years in lease Nos.2042 and 2043. The area in which the petitioner/appellant was carrying on quarrying operation has been appended to the lease deed executed in favour of petitioner/appellant. The said fact is not disputed. However, what is contended by the petitioner/appellant is that the area, which was shown in the sketch appended to the lease deed, did not contain black dye and the petitioner/appellant was permitted to carry out quarrying operation in the adjacent area and wherefore the sketch appended to the lease deed is not correct and the same is liable to be quashed and the petitioner/appellant may be permitted to carry out quarrying operation in the area in which the petitioner/appellant was carrying on quarrying operation prior to the renewal of lease. The fact that the lease has been renewed and the petitioner has been permitted to carry on quarrying operation as per the order of renewal is not disputed. There is no order by the respondents permitting the petitioner/appellant to carry on quarrying operation on the area outside as described in the sketch appended to the lease deed and the renewal order. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner/appellant to contend that he is entitled for declaration that the area of 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 124 of Haliyar village as per the sketch appended to the notification dated 28.4.2008 is illegal and liable to be quashed and the said relief cannot, be granted. If the petitioner/appellant was really aggrieved by the sketch appended to the notification dated 28.4.2008, he ought to have approached the competent Authority to modify the same. This Court cannot pass an order for modification of the area as shown in the sketch appended to the notification. Rule 55 of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1969 deals with power of the competent authority to rectify the apparent mistakes and Rule 56 confers power on the government to relax in special cases. The petitioner has not made an application to the respondents for modification of the sketch appended to the lease deed and renewal order. Therefore, the question of declaration as sought for in the writ petition does not arise. In the absence of any order passed by the respondents permitting the petitioner/appellant to carry on quarrying operation outside the area as described in the sketch appended to the lease deed, the petitioner/appellant would not be entitled for any order in that behalf and wherefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to cell for interference in this intra court appeal. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
The writ appeal is dismissed.