SANJEEVAMMA Vs. DODDAVALLABI VILLAGE PANCHAYAT NARASAPURA HOBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A huge hillock of rock used for quarrying. building stones and classified as "minor mineral" is situated', in Survey No. 50 of Dinne Hosahalli village in Kolar Taluk. Originally it vested in the local Village Panchayat. The Panchayat then used to get a good income by way of royalty on granting the quarry lease. On 29th November, 1972, the Government issued a Notification resuming the quarry from the Panchayat, and thereafter invited applications for grant of quarry lease. The petitioner and the Village Panchayat along with some others, submitted their applications. The application of the petitioner was the earliest in time. Rule 7 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called "The Rules") gave him some priority. It provides:

(2.) A few more facts may be necessary to appreciate the contentions, The Deputy Director before whom the applications were filed, granted to the petitioner, a lease over an area of 5 acres, and a similar lease to the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. He also granted a lease over an area of 2 acres to another applicant. The Chairman of the Panchayat challenged the validity of the lease granted to the petitioner, in a revision petition before the Director of Mines under Rule 61 of the Rules. The only ground urged in the revision petition was that the quarry was in the possession of the Panchayat and should not be dispossessed as it was the only source of its income. The Director, allowed the revision petition, set aside the entire order of the Deputy Director and granted a lease to the Panchayat over an area of 15 acres. The Director in his order has stated thus:

(3.) Turning now to the facts of the case, it is admitted that the Panchayat is not in a position to undertake the quarry operation. It brings to auction the right to quarry and assigns the same to the highest bidder and thus earns a little money. It was doing the same thing before the quarry was resumed to the Government. The fact that it was in possession of the quarry, in the circumstances, has no relevance when it is admitted that it was not exploiting the mineral. So, the only reason for granting the lease to the Panchayat was just to afford an opportunity to supplement its income. That, in my view, can hardly be a special reason within the meaning of Rule 7. If that be, it would defeat the very purpose of resuming the quarry to the Government, and in no case anybody else other than the Panchayat could get a quarry lease. The Director and the Government have not stated that the petitioner by any means is placed at a disadvantageous position or suffers any disqualification. She is therefore, entitled to retain her preferential right under Rule 7 of the Rules.