N H PEERAN SAHEB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the father of the petitioners applied for the grant of prospecting licence under Rule 11 of the mineral concession rules, 1960 to the director of mines and geology, government of karnataka, in respect of 320 acres in n.e.b. range of sandur taluk, looking out for iron ore.

(2.) on 4/5-4-1956 the application dated 2-4-1956 preferred by the applicant was acknowledgedby the concerned authority. The sketch of the area applied for is annexure-b. A letter was received by the applicant from geologist, bellary division, stating that he will be visiting the site on 11-12-1957. A letter dated 2-2-1957 was received by the applicant from the director of mines and geology stating that the area applied for overlaps with certain portions of blocks already granted to other partics as noted in the sketch and only the area marked in green colour is available for grant and therefore asking the applicant to intimate whether he was agreeable to have the prospecting licence on the reduced area after exclusion of the overlapping portion. The said letter also made it clear that the applicant should be agreeable to accept the actual area that would be found vacant at the time of survey and demarcation. This was followed by a letter dated 6-12-1957 from the geologist, bellary division, intimating that he would be visiting the site on 11-12-1957. According to the authorities the area available for grant consisted of 39.19 acres only and accordingly the letter was received from the director of mines and geology by the applicant that only 39.19 acres of land was available for grant of prospecting licence. This letter dated is 12-12-1963. On 20-9-1967 the applicant demised and he was succeeded by the petitioner. By that time the prospecting licence had been issued on 12-12-1963 in respect of 39.19 acres only, to the applicant. On the death of peersab the prospecting licence was transferred to the name of the petitioner in respect of the same extent of land. Later on petitioner applied for mining lease over an area of 39.19 acres in respect of which he had obtained a prospecting licence. At this stage, some litigation came in the way of grant of mining lease and when it came to an end on 7-4-1976 a mining lease was granted to the petitioner on the basis oflease deed executed on 7-4-1976. When the petitioner learnt that an extent of 26 acres of land was the subject-matter of prospecting licence granted to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the competent authority claiming that these 26 acres of lands really formed an integral part of total extent of 320 acres for which the applicant had made an application for grant of prospecting licence and grant of these 26 acres of land was unjustified inasmuch as the father of the petitioner was the prior applicant. However the revision petition came to be dismissed on 27-1-1981. It is this order which is in question in this writ petition.

(3.) the case of the petitioner is that when his father applied for grant of prospecting licence in respect of 320 acres of land on the basis of the supposed verification or surveying made by the concerned department, only an extent of 39.19 acres of land was found to be available for grant. The applicant consented to have the prospecting licence to the extent of available land believing the report of the department to be true and if he had been made aware that 26 acres were still available to be included under the prospecting licence the applicant would not have consented to restrict his claim only to the extent of 39.19 acres. Either by oversight or by mistake the department led the applicant to believe that only 39.19 acres of land was available and therefore the applicant did not have the opportunity of pressing his application for grant of prospecting licence in respect of that area also. However, it transpired that on 27-7-1980 vide Annexure-H third respondent was granted prospecting licence in respect of 26 acres of land which formed a part of the area of 320 acres originally applied for by the applicant for grant of prospecting licence. On coming to know this information, the applicant challenged the said order in revision without success.