KALIKI SUBBARAMI REDDY Vs. UNION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND METALS NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ petitions are concerned with the applications for the grant of mica mining leases. In these writ petitions, the petitioner K. Subba Rami Reddy, is one of the co-owners of shrotriem land bearing Survey No. 535, measuring Acres 215-44 in Chengampalli alias Gokula Brindavanam of Saidapuram village of Rapur Taluk in Nellore District, having betn granted, after the abolition of Inams, a joint ryotwari patta in his as well as in the names of other inamdars. We will refer to the respondents as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No. 207, throughout. The 1st respondent is the Union Government of India; the and respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh; the 3rd respondent is Linga Reddy Venkata Reddy; the 4th respondent is B.Narasimhamurthy ; the 5th respondent is the District Collector, Nellore and the 6th respondent is the Official Receiver, Nellore. On 19th May, 1942, three leases were granted by three sets of inamdars to the 3rd respondent. Under the procedure then in vogue for the grant of mineral concessions, there should be a tripartite agreement known as joint patta land agreement, between the lessee, the owners (i.e., the lessors) and the Government. This joint patta land agreement was entered into between the three parties and the periov of lease was for 20 years commencing from nth May, 1943, and ending with 10th May, 1963. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 retained for himself an area of Acres 7-0 and sub-leased an extent of Acres 48-53 in favour of the 4th respondent on 19th April, 1953, and Acres 162-46 in favour of Krishna Mining Company. It may be noticed that the leasehold right of the 3rd respondent according to the petitioner, was upto 12th May, 1963. The petitioner alleges that he has also been working the mica mines for the last 15 years, that he is one of the ryotwari pattadars and was in all 60 per cent, interest in the said lands, namely, 32 per cent interest as an owner and 28 per cent, as lessee of the other shareholders and that neither the 4th respondent nor Krishna Mining Company owned any portion in the said land and after the expiry of the existing joint patta land agreement in favour of the 3rd respondent on 12th May, 1963, he intends to work the mines.

(2.) In the year1957, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Developme Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed and rules were framed thereunder in 1960. Respondents 3 and 4 and Krishna Mining Company have applied for regularisation of the joint patta land agreement under the new Mineral Concession Rules, for the uncxpired period of the agreement, i.e., upto 10th May, 1963. The petitioner having come to know that in the process of regularisation of the joint patta land agreement, the State of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No. 2, was contemplating inclusion of a clause for an option for a renewal of the said lease for a further period of 20 years, objected to the inclusion of such a clause, and raised a further objection in regard to the right of the State Government to renew the Jease beyond 12th May, 1963, without the consent of the pattadar, i.e., himself, who had a share in the minerals. The Government in its Memorandum No. 47 2-B-3/6 1-2, dated 5th November, 1962, informed the Collector, Nellore, that no question of regulation of the joint patta land agreement under the Mineral Concession Rules of 1960 arises, and further declared that the old rules continued to apply to the joint patta lease agreement granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner states that as a matter of fact, the joint patta land agreement does not contain any clause for renewal of the same for any period whatsoever, and in all cases where a renewal of the agreement was requested, it was refused on the ground that it was not regularised by the execution of a lease deed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960-Vide Memo. No. 3114-B-11-64-1, dated 1st October, 1965.

(3.) The Act came into force on 1st June, 1958, and the Mineral Concession Rules, on 11th November, 1960. While the joint patta lease agreement was refused to be regularised in the case of the 3rd respondent, in the case of the 4th respondent, a lease was executed in Form K appended to the Mineral Concession Rules, on 31st October, 1961, under the colour of regularising the unexpired period of the joint patta land agreement. The State Government while purporting to regularise the lease in favour of the 4th respondent, included a clause for renewing the lease for a period of 20 years at their option. This was done without giving a notice to the petitioner, although he is a pattadar and lessor of the said land. On coming to know the above facts, the petitioner filed a petition before the State Government for deleting the said clause on the ground that the Government have no right to lease out the patta lands to anybody other than the pattadar. But the Government in its memorandum dated 17th September, 1963, intimated the petitioner that the lease was renewable at the option of the lessee. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Central Government contending that the lease cannot be renewed either at the option of the Government or of the lessee for any period after 12th May, 1963. The Central Government rejected this revision petition on 29th September, 1965, as untenable on the ground that the State Government in its Memorandum No. 4947/Bill/618 dated 17th September, 1962, had merely declared the legal position and did not pass any orders giving rise to a cause of action for revision.