ASHOK KUMAR LINGALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dtd. 20/10/2012 issued by Government of Karnataka, by which the mining lease of the petitioner has been held to be void under Sec. 19 of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act , 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on the ground that lease area held by the petitioner overlaps the area granted to respondent No.5 viz., M/s Sandur Manganese and Iron ore Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for short).

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal in nutshell are that the Company was granted a mining lease on 1/1/1954 in respect of an area measuring 29 Square miles. Para 6 of the lease deed executed in favour of the company provides that no lease is granted to the company in respect of private patta lands and the lease is executed in respect of revenue and forest lands belonging to the State Government. Land measuring 3.36 hectares of Sy.No.27 was granted to one Pennaiah by an order passed by the Land Tribunal. After his death, his wife's name was recorded in the record of rights. The petitioner with the consent of wife of Pennaiah viz., Smt.Yellamma made an application seeking grant of mining lease under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The State Government by an order dtd. 6/2/2010 granted the aforesaid land on lease to the petitioner. The Director, Mines and Geology passed an order on 5/3/2010 prohibiting the petitioner from conducting the mining operations. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.17281/2010. The company filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.18043/2010 seeking quashment of mining lease on the ground that it overlaps the mining lease of the petitioner. A division bench of this court by an order dtd. 1/9/2010 decided both the writ petitions and inter alia held that mining lease of the petitioner overlaps the mining lease of the company. However, the parties were required to abide by the decision rendered by the civil court in a suit seeking the relief of injunction filed by the company.