BANDEPALLI VEERARAGHAVAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the shrotriemdars of Ananthamadugu village of Rapur Taluk, prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or directions directing the respondent, the State of Andhra represented by the Collector of Nellore District, to lease out the mica mines or otherwise derive income from the mica mines in the said shrotriem village or in the alternative to compensate the petitioners in respect thereof. The case of the petitioners is that the shrotriem village was notified as an inam village under the Madras Estates Abolition Act with effect from 27th May, 1953, the possession whereof was taken by the Government on that date ; that there are rich mica mines in the said village which were being leased out from time to time, the lessees, working them under a joint patta land agreement executed by the Government, the shrotriemdars and the lessee as provided under the Madras Mining Rules; that one M. Kotireddy held such a mining lease for 9 years which expired by the 1st July, 1951; and that after the expiry of the lease, the shrotriemdars executed a lease for 9 years in favour of certain lessees to come into effect from 1st July, 1951 for Rs. 10,000 per year, but as the lessors and lessees were subsequently advised that under the provisions of section 20 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the lease executed subsequent to 1st July, 1945 will not be valid, but only those leases which did not exceed for a period of one year were valid, the original leases between the shrotriemdars and the lessees for 9 years were cancelled ; after that they gave and executed 16 lease documents between 27th April, 1953 and 7th May, 1953 with respect to S.No. 47-1 for a period of one year in favour of D.Balarami Reddi, Chillakuri Poli Reddi and Yerramreddy Balakrishna Reddi.

(2.) It was averred that the said village was notified and taken over by the Government. It was further averred that after the Government had taken over the village, the petitioners expected that the Government would permit the lessees to work the mines and derive income therefrom which can be taken into account in arriving at the basic annual sum for purposes of computing the compensation payable to them. This expectation, however, was not fulfilled because on the objection raised by certain individuals the Manager and the Collector of Nellore held an elaborate enquiry into the validity of the leases and whether the same are binding on the Government. Though the Manager of the Estate and the District Collector, Nellore, ultimately held that the leases were valid, binding and enforceable against the Government, the Government did not permit the lessees to work the mines in spite of the fact that the lessees had become entitled to the renewal of the leases for another year under rule 40 of Chapter V of the rules framed under the Mineral Concession Rules made under section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act LIII of 1948 ; that on or about the 20th April, 1954, the Government issued a G.O. to the effect that it had decided to reserve the plot in question for future development and that no mineral concessions for mica be granted to private persons in respect of that area. It is therefore alleged that though it is more than one year since the Government notified the shrotriem village and took over the same, they have not till now taken any steps to recover any income from the mines and that as a result of the failure of the Government to permit the lessees to work the mines or otherwise derive proper income from the mines, they have been substantially injured, because in the scheme for determining compensation under Act XXVI of 1948, the first step is to ascertain the basic annual ryotwari demand in respect of all lands in the Estate, less certain deductions and the whole of the average net annual miscellaneous revenue derived from all sources in the Estate specified in section 3, clause (b) of the Act, which includes the income from mines. The net average income from the miscellaneous revenue, according to the petitioners under section 34 of the Act, is the average of the net annual income derived by the Government from such sources during the fasli year commencing on the 1st day of July succeeding the notified date and the next two fasli years and the basic annual sum thus computed will be capitalised in accordance with the scales provided under section 37 of the Act. It is therefore contended that by reason of the Government not leasing out the mica mines or otherwise deriving income during the crucial period the petitioners are deprived of their compensation which would have been capitalised at least 20 times if the income from the mines was taken into account. Even the interim payments to which they are entitled under section 50 of the Act in respect of the fasli in which the estate is notified and in every subsequent fasli year until the final compensation is deposited, has not been paid after taking into account the basic annual sum in which the income from the mines should have been included. In paragraph 10 it is alleged that the action of the Government in not permitting the lessees to work and in not working the mines themselves is mala fide and done with a view to defraud the petitioners of a large portion of the compensation and interim payments due to the petitioners under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948.

(3.) The respondent, Collector, stated in his counter that the lessees under the leases granted by the petitioners filed a writ petition No. 264 of 1954 on the file of the Madras High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to accord permission to the petitioners therein to carry on mica mining operations in Survey No. 49/1 and 2 Bench of the Andhra High Court held that the lease granted by the shrotriemdars on several dates between 27th April, 1953 and 13th May, 1953 are valid and enforceable by the lessees under the provisions of Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, and according to the Mineral Concession Rules ; but notwithstanding this the Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that the period of the lease expired, that the relief asked for could not be granted, and consequently having regard to this judgment, the present writ application was not maintainable and is liable to the same infirmities as the writ petition filed by the lessees ; that the lease amount of Rs. 10,000 fixed in the leases executed between 27th April, 1953 and 7th May, 1953 is grossly exaggerated. With respect to the fixation of compensation, the respondent denied the allegation that the Government had deliberately prevented any income from the mines as being wholly false and stated that the petitioners are entitled to advance compensation worked out according to section 31 (iv) and section 34 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and if the petitioners are aggrieved in any way, namely, that the average net annual miscellaneous revenue derived from all sources specified in section 3 (b) was not taken into consideration, they should have invoked the provisions of section 39 of the said Act wherein a machinery is provided for preferring a revision to the Board of Revenue. The counter further denied the allegations that the Government deliberately prevented the lessees from working out the mines and deriving any income from the mines and averred that the Government on 24th April, 1954 issued a G.O. to the effect that they have decided that the plot in question be reserved for future development and that no mineral concession to mica is granted to private persons in respect of that area, having regard to the importance of the mines. In paragraph 8 it was further stated that without prejudice to the contentions mentioned in the counter, the applications made to the Government for grant of the mineral right are under its consideration and the delay in passing the orders on the applications has been occasioned by the petitioners, and lessees acting in collusion with them creating complications by way of filing application for leave to Supreme Court and also application for interim orders ; and that this petition was premature and without merit and ought to be dismissed.