KOIRA GROUP PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of preliminary hearirg, respondents were notified and learned High Court Government Pleader was also directed to appear for respondents 1 to 3. Accordingly, Sri S. Udayashankar, learned Government Pleader, has obtained the records and has also received the instructions. Learned Counsel Sri Mir Noor Hussain represents respondents 4 and 5. As the matter relates to grant of mining lease, it is taken up for final disposal itself.

(2.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, which is a Village Panchayat Committee, has sought for quashing the orders dated 29-1-1982/6-2-1982 bearing No. DMG 515 and 675/LMS/RVN/81-82 (Annexure-A) ; 16-12-1983 bearing No. CI 17 MRC 82, dated 16-12-1983 (Annex- ure-B) passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively and the notification dated 20-2-1982 bearing No.OLS 545/NIN 91-82 41302 (Annexure-C); 20-2-1982 bearing No. 546/NIN/81-82 41312 (Annexure- D) according sanction for grant of quarry leases in favour of respondents 4 and 5 respectively by the 3rd respondent. Quarry leases in respect of two different portions in the same survey number are granted to respondents 3 and 4. Under Annexure-C respondent-3 is granted quarry lease over an area of 4-10 guntas, and under Annexule-D, respondent-4 is granted a quarry lease over an area of 4 acres in S; No. 187 of Koira village, Devanahalli taluk, for a period of 5 years.

(3.) The petitioner-Panchayat Committee, was granted a quarry lease in respect of the area in question, on 17-7- 1976 for a period of five years. The said R.36. lease expired on 16-7-1981. But, an application for renewal of the lease was filed by the petitioner on 19-8-1981 even though it ought to have been filed much earlier to that date. In view of the fact that the rpplication was filed beyond the prescribed period, it was rejected. Then, the petitioner filed another application for grant of a fresh quarry lease in respect of the very same area. That appli- cation was filed on 25-8-1981. Prior to this, respondents 4 and 5 also had filed the applications for grant of quarry lease in re: pect of the very same area. In addition to this, there were other two persons by name, Smt Munibachamma and Sri H Muddu Nagaraju, who had also filed the applications for grant of quarry lease in respect of the very same area. All these applications stood rejected by reason of the provision providing for deemed rejection contained in Rule 6 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), as the said applications were not disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt. Smt Munibachamma and Sri H. Muddu Nagaraju did not challenge the order of deemed rejection. Whereas, the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 challenged the same in a revision before the 2nd respondent. The revision petition filed by respondents 4 and 5 came to be allowed ; whereas that of the petitioner was rejected on 29-1-1982/6-2- 81 by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner went up in further revision to the State Government That also met with the same fate. In the meanwhile, the respondents 4 and 5 came to be granted quarry leases as per the notifications dated 20th February 1982 produced as Annexures C and D. The 2nd respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on three grounds i.e., (i) that the petitioner went on operating the quarry even after the expiry of the lease period and stopped it only after the notice was issued and action was proposed to be taken ; (ii) that in respect of the earlier lease, it had not paid arrears of royalty ; (iii) that it being a village Panchayat Committee and not a citizen of India, no quarry lease could be granted in its favour without the prior approval of the State Government. In the second revision, the State Government has held that the Panchayat was in arrears of royalty and that the area for lease was not available on the date the application was filed by it. Another reason is that the quarry lease has already been granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5.