REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      8819       OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35213 of 2010)

Ashok Kumar Lingala …Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors. …Respondents

With  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   8820      OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 200 of 2011)

L.V. Ashok Kumar Lingala …Appellant

Versus

M/s. Sandur Maganese & Iron  Ore Co. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  arise  out  of  an  order  dated  1st  

September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka -

1

whereby  Writ  Petition  No.17281  of  2010  filed  by  the  

appellant has been disposed of with the direction that the  

question of identity of the area forming the subject matter  

of the mining leases granted to the appellant on the one  

hand and respondent M/s Sandur Manganese & Iron Ore  

Company Ltd. (‘SIMORE’ for short) on the other, shall be  

determined by the Civil Court in the suit pending before it  

on the basis of the evidence that the parties may choose to  

lead. The High Court has further held that in case the Civil  

Court comes to the conclusion that the area over which the  

mining leases have been granted to the rival parties does  

not overlap then both of them would be entitled to carry  

out  their  mining  activities  under  their  respective  lease  

agreements.  In  case,  however,  the  Civil  Court  is  of  the  

opinion that there is an overlapping of the area covered by  

the  two  leases,  the  lessee  who  claims  under  the  lease  

granted earlier in point of time would have a superior right  

to carry out the mining activities in preference to the one  

granted later.  The facts in brief are as under:   

-

2

3. Land  measuring  4.42  hectares  situated  at  village  

Devagiri,  Sandur  Taluk,  Bellary  District  falling  under  

Surveys No. 56/P, 57/P, 58/P and 91/P was according to the  

appellant dedicated to Kumaraswamy Devaru Temple. The  

entire extent of land which now falls in new Survey No.27  

was  given  to  one-Pennaiah  S/o  Dodda  Pennaiah  for  

cultivation in lieu of the services which he was rendering to  

the temple. With the enactment of the Karnataka (Sandur  

Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1976 abolishing all rights in inam  

lands and permitting the cultivators and tenants of the land  

to make applications under Section 10 of the Act for re-

grant and registration,  the cultivator-Pennaiah also made  

an application to the Land Tribunal, Sandur Taluk, Bellary  

District seeking a re-grant. The said application eventually  

culminated  in  the  Tribunal  passing  an  order  dated  22nd  

October, 1981 granting occupancy rights in favour of the  

tenant, pursuant whereto the Tehsildar issued a registration  

certificate registering his occupancy rights and entering his  

name in the record of rights.   

-

3

4. The appellant’s further case is that Pennaiah continued  

to cultivate the land personally especially when neither the  

order of re-grant was challenged before the Land Tribunal  

nor his cultivation objected to by anyone including the 3rd  

respondent who held a lease in respect of Government and  

forest land situate in Sandur Area. The appellant asserts  

that  the  land aforementioned is  a  piece  of  private  patta  

land that was held by Pennaiah during his life time and by  

his widow Yellamma after his death. Neither Pennaiah nor  

Yellamma had in their capacity as Pattadars in cultivating  

possession of the land ever offered the property to SIMORE  

or granted any right or any other interest in its favour.  On  

the  contrary  Yellamma  in  her  capacity  as  Pattadar  had  

permitted the appellant to obtain a mining lease under the  

provisions of Minor Mineral (Development and Regulation)  

Act,  read  with  Mineral  Concessions  Rules,  1960  which  

application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary  

District,  to  verify  the status of  the land and also to the  

Deputy Director of Mining and Geology for conducting an  

actual spot inspection. Both the authorities had, according  

4

to the appellant, submitted their respective reports in which  

-

the said property was found to be private Patta land. They  

had, therefore, offered no objection to the grant of a mining  

lease qua the same.  

5. It was on the basis of the reports aforementioned that  

the  State  Government  had  sought  the  approval  of  the  

Central  Government  for  the  grant  of  a  mining  lease  in  

favour of the appellant which approval was upon due and  

proper consideration granted by the Central  Government.  

The  State  Government  had  pursuant  thereto  issued  a  

Notification  dated  15.1.2010  sanctioning  a  mining  lease  

over  an area of  4.42 hectares situate in Devagiri  Village  

Sandur Taluk Bellary Distt., as per the sketch furnished by  

the Director Department of Mines and Geology. Boundaries  

of  the area in question were fixed for an extent of  3.36  

hectares in terms of letter  dated 2.2.2010 issued by the  

Deputy  Director  Mines  and Geology,  Hospet  and a  lease  

deed executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar under  

ML No.2622.  

5

6. The  appellant’s  case  is  that  when  he  started  the  

mining activities in exercise of his right under the lease -

aforementioned,  the  Director  of  Mines  and  Geology,  

Government of Karnataka issued a communication dated 5th  

March, 2010 by which the appellant was restrained from  

conducting any such activities on the ground that the area  

covered by the lease granted to the appellant overlapped  

the  area  stated  to  have  been  granted  to  the  SIMORE  

respondent no.3 herein. On receipt of the said letter the  

appellant filed an application to the Director of Mines and  

Geology objecting to the order and pointing out that the  

same had been passed without issuing to the appellant any  

notice or granting to him any opportunity of being heard in  

the  matter.  The  appellant  also  represented  to  the  State  

Government against the direction issued by the Director of  

Mines  and  Geology  and  asserted  that  even  when  3rd  

respondent SIMORE had filed a Civil  Suit in the Court of  

Civil  Judge  (Senior  Division)  Kudligi  and  prayed  for  an  

injunction no such injunction had been issued by the said  

Court. The Director of Mines was not, therefore, justified in  

6

issuing an injunction which the Civil Court had not issued;  

on the very same factual matrix. The restraint order issued  

by the Director of Mines and Geology continued to remain  

-

in force despite the objections raised by the appellant.  As a  

matter of fact, the Director of Mines wrote a letter dated  

25.5.2010  to  the  appellant  saying  that  order  dated  

5.3.2010 stopping mining operations could not be vacated  

or modified. The appellant was in that backdrop forced to  

approach the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ  

Petition  No.17281  of  2010  challenging  the  said  

order/communication on several grounds and praying for a  

direction to the respondent to refrain from interfering with  

the mining activities of the appellant which the lease deed  

authorised him to carry out. Respondent no.3, SIMORE filed  

Writ Petition No.18043 of 2010 challenging the very grant  

of the mining lease in favour of the appellant. The said two  

writ petitions were finally disposed of by the High Court in  

terms  of  a  common  order  dated  1st September,  2010  

impugned in the present appeals.  

7

7. Relying  upon  the  orders  passed  by  the  Director,  

Department of Mines and Geology dated 5th March, 2010  

and 25th May, 2010, the High Court concluded that there  

was overlapping of areas held by the appellant and SIMORE  

-

under  their  respective lease deeds.  The High  Court  held  

that the appellant had not been in a position to produce any  

evidence to show that the conclusion drawn by the Director  

of Mines regarding overlapping of the areas was erroneous.  

The High Court observed:

“We permitted learned counsel for Ashok Kumar Lingala  to examine the same.  Even therefrom, learned counsel  representing Ashok Kumar Lingala could not repudiate  the finding of fact recorded in the two impugned orders.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

15.    From  the  two  orders  issued  by  the  Director,  Department of Mines & Geology dated 05.03.2010 and  25.05.2010, we have no other alternative or hesitation  but to conclude, that ‘M/s Simore’ had been granted a  mining lease, in respect of the same land, well before  Ashok Kumar Lingala was awarded the mining lease.  That being so, the claim of Ashok Kumar Lingala could  not have been considered for grant of a mining lease  over the area which comprised of part  of the mining  lease already granted to ‘M/s Simore’, as the application  of Ashok Kumar Lingala was bound to be treated as a  premature application. This inference is inevitable from  a collective reading of rules 59 and 60 of the Mineral  Rules, and Section 24A of the Mines and Minerals Act.”

8

(underlined)  

8. Having held that there was an overlapping of the areas  

covered by the two leases, the High Court interpreted the  

rules to record a finding that even when the area leased to  

SIMORE may include private land owned by Smt. Yallamma  

-

and  even  when  Yallamma  has  not  granted  any  surface  

rights to it, SIMORE could undertake mining activity in the  

private area by paying compensation to Yallamma before  

undertaking such activities. The High Court observed:

“On  the  issue  whether  ‘M/s  Simore’  could  carry  out  mining activities  over  the land owned by the private  owner Smt. Yallamma, the provisions relied upon by the  learned  counsel  representing  ‘M/s  Simore’  leave  no  room  for  any  doubt,  that  in  case  mining  activity  is  carried  out  by  ‘M/s  Simore’  over  private  land,  compensation will have to be paid by ‘M/s Simore’ to  the  private  land  owner  under  rule  72 of  the  Mineral  Rules.   But  the  submission  of  this  learned  counsel  representing Ashok Kumar Lingala, also leave no room  for any doubt, that ‘M/s Simore’, in spite of the grant of  a mining lease covering private owned land, would not  be in a position to unilaterally and arbitrarily conduct  mining  activities  thereon  without  the  consent/permission of the land owner Smt. Yallamma.  The instant conclusion is based on the second proviso  under  rule  22(3)  (i)  (h)  of  the  Mining  Rules  which  mandates,  that  unless  permission/authorization  is  granted by the land owner, mining activity cannot be  carried out.  Even if it is assumed, that prior consent of  the land owner was not obtained by ‘M/s Simore’ before  

9

obtaining the lease deed from the State Government,  still the second proviso under rule 22(3) (i)(h) of the  Mining Rules extracted above, mandates that, prior to  entering into private owned land for mining activities,  permission  from the  land  owner  is  a  necessary  pre- requisite.”

9. What followed the above two findings,  one touching  

the question of overlapping of the lease areas and the other  

dealing  with  the  effect  of  the  overlapping  qua  privately  

owned land, is interesting. The High Court took a -

somersault and held that the question of overlapping could  

not be decided by it authoritatively and left the same must  

be  decided  by  the  Civil  Court  on  the  basis  of  evidence  

adduced before it.  It observed:       

“Thus viewed,  it  is  not possible for  us to record any  concrete  finding on the factual  aspect  of  the  matter.  We  have  noticed  hereinabove,  that  a  civil  suit  is  pending between the parties. It will be open to the rival  parties to lead evidence therein, if they are so advised,  to determine the specific identity of the property over  which mining leases have been granted to them.  In  case such evidence leads  to the conclusion,  that  the  land over which mining leases have been granted to the  rival parties, do not overlap, then both of them would  be  entitled  to  carry  out  mining  activities,  under  the  lease agreements executed by the State Government in  their  favour.   In  case  the  factual  finding  is  to  the  contrary,  then  on  account  of  the  conclusions  drawn  hereinabove, the earlier licensee will have to be granted  the  superior  right  to  exclusively  carry  out  mining  activities.  As  such,  ‘M/s  Simore’  shall  have  a  preferential right over Ashok Kumar Lingala. In such an  

10

eventuality, no interference will be called for with the  impugned orders dated 05.03.2010 and 25.05.2010.”

10. Appearing  for  the  appellant  Mr.  Dushyant  A.  Dave,  

learned  senior  counsel  strenuously  argued  that  the  High  

Court had totally misdirected itself both on facts and in law.  

He submitted that the High Court had failed to notice that  

the lease granted in favour of respondent no.3 SIMORE was  

in respect of government and forest land alone. No part of  

any private land covered the lease in its favour nor was any  

-

claim to that effect ever made by respondent no.3 SIMORE.  

In  support  of  that  submission  learned  counsel  drew our  

attention to the application filed before the Government of  

Karnataka by respondent no.3 SIMORE seeking renewal of  

the lease in the year, 1992. In particular, he relied upon the  

answers given by SIMORE to the queries made in paras viii  

(a), x-A(a) and (b) of the renewal application to argue that  

respondent No.3 SIMORE had unequivocally stated that the  

lease  sought  to  be  renewed  in  its  favour  comprised  

government land and no part of it was owned or occupied  

11

by any private party. Paras viii (a), x-A(a) and (b) of the  

renewal application are as under:

viii

a)

Particular of the mining lease of  which renewal is desired

ML No. 1179

Area: 16.74 sq. miles

In  Sandur  Taluk  of  Bellary  District

Karnataka  

x-A  

a)

Does the applicant continue to  have  surface  rights  over  the  area  of  the  land  for  which  he  requires renewal of the mining  lease.     

Yes (Government land).

b) If  not,  has  he  obtained  the  consent  of  the  owner  and  occupier for undertaking mining  operations.  If  so, the consent  of  the  owner  and  occupier  of  the land obtained in writing, be  filed.      

Not applicable

-

11. He also drew our attention to the report of inspection  

dated  22nd February,  1993  submitted  by  Government  of  

Karnataka, a copy whereof has been placed on record which  

too clearly mentioned that the area covered by the lease  

sought to be renewed was forest and government land.  He  

particularly drew our attention to the following passage in  

the said report:

12

“The  present  application  for  renewal  is  for  third  renewal. The whole area of 16.74 sq. miles is bounded  on the North by Sandur State Forest on the South by  Hospet Taluk on the East by Nauluti forest and on the  West  by  Kudligi  Taluk.  Area  is  Government  and  it  is  forest land also.”

12. Mr. Dave next drew our attention to the plaint filed by  

respondent no.3 SIMORE in OS No.9/2010 to buttress his  

submission that respondent no.3  SIMORE had not claimed  

any  private  land  to  be  a  part  of  its  mining  lease  area.  

Reference in this regard was particularly made to para 11 of  

the plaint which is to the following effect:  

“11. Further, the Plaintiff hereby submits that the Plaintiff is  in physical possession and enjoyment of the Schedule land  for more than five decades.  The Schedule land is an un- surveyed  land  and  accordingly  the  NOC  issued  by  the  Deputy Commissioner, Bellary on 31.03.1998 refers to the  same as blocks and confirms that the same is a Revenue   -   

Land (Government Land).  The claim of the Defendant that  he has obtained Mining Lease over an area of 3.36 ha under  survey No.27 appears to be dubious or it may be pertaining  to some other land.  In addition to this, the Plaintiff has paid  Rs.104  crore  towards  Net  Present  Value  Compensatory  Afforestation  charges  on  the  1615.64  of  forest  land  and  Rs.2,07,79,920/-  towards Environmental Protection Fee on  the  247.38  ha  of  Revenue  land  held  by  it  under  Mining  Lease Nos. 2580 (Old No.1179).”

13. Mr.  Dave  vehemently  argued  that  inasmuch  as  the  

High Court had overlooked the material  on record it  had  

13

fallen in a palpable error in assuming that the land leased  

to the appellant could possibly overlap the area leased to  

respondent no.3 M/s SIMORE. So long as the two lessees  

were  claiming  surface  rights  over  their  respective  lease  

areas under different owners the question of  overlapping  

did not arise argued the learned counsel. At any rate the  

area leased to the appellant was not only verified as to its  

nature  and  ownership  but  was  spot  inspected  and  

demarcated,  which  fact  was  evidenced  from the  reports  

placed on record. It  was,  therefore,  wholly futile for  any  

one to suggest that the areas granted to the two lessees  

were overlapping, contended Mr. Dave.

-

14. On behalf of respondent no.3 SIMORE it was on the  

other  hand  contended  by  Mr.  T.R.  Andhyarujina,  senior  

counsel that the respondent no.3 SIMORE did not claim any  

private land to be a part of its lease area.  He submitted  

that  even  when  that  was  so  the  overlapping  which  the  

Director, Mines and Geology had referred to was possible as  

according to SIMORE the area leased to appellant ought to  

14

be treated as a part of government land.  Alternatively, it  

was contended that while the appellant may claim to have  

obtained a lease in respect of privately owned land the fact  

of  the  matter  was  that  the  area  in  which  the  appellant  

intended to conduct his mining activities was a part of the  

area leased to respondent no.3.   

15. Ms.  Anitha  Shenoy,  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  

Government  and its  functionaries  argued that  the orders  

passed  by  the  Director  (Mines)  suspending  mining  

operations were on the basis of the conclusion drawn by the  

drawing  section  of  the  mining  department  according  to  

which the two areas forming the subject matter of the two  

leases were overlapping. She contended that even when -

the report of the drawing section and the basis on which  

this overlapping had been prima facie established had not  

been  placed  on  record,  the  site  plans/maps  placed  on  

record  supported  the  conclusion  that  there  was  some  

overlapping.  Learned  counsel  further  submitted  that  the  

orders  passed  by  the  Director  (Mines)  were  interim  in  

nature  and  the  question  whether  or  not  there  was  any  

15

overlapping had yet  to  be determined by the competent  

authority. She fairly conceded that in the process of any  

such  determination  the  rival  claimants  shall  have  to  be  

heard by the competent authority.  

16. We  have  given  our  careful  consideration  to  the  

submissions made at the Bar and perused the record.  The  

facts emerging from the record place the controversy within  

a  narrow  compass.  While  the  appellant  claims  that  the  

lease granted to it is in respect of a privately owned area,  

respondent no.3 SIMORE claims that the area leased in its  

favour comprises government and forest land only.  If that  

be  so,  as  indeed are  the  positions  taken  by  the  parties  

there is no question of any overlapping of the two areas for  

-

what  is  government  or  forest  land  cannot  be  privately  

owned and vice-versa. Mr. Andhyarujina all the same made  

a  valiant  attempt  to  persuade  us  to  hold  that  the  area  

falling  in  Survey  No.27  qua  which  the  appellant  has  

obtained a lease is, in fact, government land and that no  

part of it is or was at any stage privately owned. What he  

16

argued in support of that contention was that the grant of  

occupancy rights in favour of Pennaiah was not warranted  

in the facts and circumstances of the case, and if that were  

so, any such grant could be ignored. We regret our inability  

to accept that submission.  We say so firstly because, the  

validity  of  the  grant  of  occupancy  rights  in  favour  of  

Pennaiah by the Statutory Tribunal was not under challenge  

before the High Court nor was any challenge ever thrown to  

the orders passed by it or the implementation thereof in the  

relevant revenue record before any other forum.  Even the  

State  under  whom  respondent  No.3  SIMORE  claims  the  

right to carry out mining operations, never found fault with  

the grant of land in favour of Pennaiah.  It is, therefore, too  

late in the day for any one to question the legality of the  

order granting land situate in Survey No. 27 to Pennaiah, or  

-

to assert that notwithstanding what has happened in the  

statutory  proceedings,  the  area  falling  under  Sy.  No.  27  

must be recognised as government land, hence a part of  

area leased to SIMORE.  Secondly because in the record of  

17

rights  Survey  No.27  is  shown  to  be  privately  held  by  

Pennaiah and after his death by Yallamma his widow. The  

State  Government  and  Kumaraswamy  Devaru  Temple  to  

whom the land was dedicated before its grant to Pennaiah,  

have  accepted  that  position;  and  raised  no  dispute  or  

question as to the correctness of the revenue record. The  

report  submitted  by  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  the  spot  

inspection, and the very grant of a lease qua the area in  

question,  all  lend  credence  to  the  revenue  record  that  

recognises the land in question to be private land.       

17. Such being the case the only question that calls for  

determination is whether respondent no.3 SIMORE is right  

in insisting that the area in which the appellant proposes to  

carry on his mining activity is a part of the area leased to  

former.  It  was argued by Mr.  Andhyarujina that the area  

sought to be exploited for mining purposes by the appellant  

-

comprised the workers colony of SIMORE. That assertion  

was stoutly denied by the appellant according to whom the  

mining  operations  are  confined  to  the  area  originally  

18

demarcated at the time of the grant of the lease.  Be that  

as  it  may  what  needs  to  be  examined  is  whether  the  

appellant is mining within his lease area or beyond.  This  

would in turn require the area leased to the appellant to be  

demarcated  again  assuming  that  an  earlier  demarcation  

had also  taken  place,  especially  because  SIMORE denies  

any  such  previous  demarcation  having  been  conducted.  

According to SIMORE the officer said to have done so was  

placed  under  suspension  for  dereliction  of  duties.   It  is  

unnecessary for us to go into the validity of any previous  

demarcation.  It  is  obvious  that  when  large  areas  are  

granted  for  mining  purposes,  some  confusion  as  to  the  

boundaries of such areas especially if they are adjacent to  

each other is nothing abnormal. What in such cases needs  

to  be  done  is  to  conduct  a  fresh  demarcation  and  fix  

boundaries  so  that  the  parties  holding  such  areas  stay  

within the limits of their respective areas instead of straying  

into the adjacent area.

-

19

18. We may at  this  stage advert  to  another  submission  

made by Mr. Dave that the Director (Mines) could not have  

stopped the mining operations of the appellant on the basis  

of  what was according to Mr.  Dave a frivolous complaint  

filed by SMIORE that alleged overlapping of the lease areas.  

He  contended that a valid lease having been granted to the  

appellant after  following the requisite formalities  and the  

procedure  prescribed  under  the  relevant  rules  and  after  

proper  demarcation  of  the  privately  held  area  that  was  

available  for  mining,  the  Director  should  not  have  on  a  

sketchy report from the Drawing Section of the Department  

stopped the mining activities. It was further contented by  

Mr. Dave that since the mining activity had been stopped  

under the orders of the Director (Mines), the High Court  

was in error in not only upholding the said direction but  

extending their efficacy till such time the dispute between  

the parties was resolved by the Civil Court.   

19. The mere pendency of a suit in a Civil Court could not  

be an impediment for the appellant to start or continue his  

mining activity, unless there was an injunction restraining -

20

him from doing so. No such injunction has been issued by  

the  Civil  Court.  That  does  not,  however,  mean  that  the  

Government or the Director (Mines) for that matter could  

not in the event of any dispute between the appellant and  

SIMORE regarding the identity and demarcation of the area  

leased to both of them direct the appellant to refrain from  

carrying on the mining activity as an interim measure till  

such  time  the  issue  was  sorted  out.  But  once  such  an  

interim direction was issued, the authority doing so had to  

take  steps  to  resolve  the  dispute.  It  could  not  let  the  

dispute  fester  and  result  in  a  stalemate.   So  also  the  

restraint order could not be continued by the High Court till  

the dispute was adjudicated upon by the Civil Court.  Doing  

so would amount to one authority making an interim order  

pending a final order to be made by another.  The power to  

make an interim order  is,  except  where  it  is  specifically  

taken away by the statute, implicit in the power to make a  

final  order.   It  is  exercised by the authority  who has  to  

make the final order or an authority exercising appellate or  

21

revisional jurisdiction, against an order granting or refusing  

an interim order.  The exercise of the power implies that -

the authority seized of the proceedings in which such an  

order is made will eventually pass a final order; the interim  

order serving only as a step in aid of such final order.  The  

law, in our view, does not permit the making of an interim  

order by one authority or Court pending adjudication of the  

dispute  by  another  except  in  the  situation  mentioned  

above. Ms. Shenoy was, therefore, right in her submission  

that the order of restraining mining operation was meant to  

be a temporary and interim arrangement meant to remain  

in force only till such time the Director (Mines) examined  

the issue regarding the alleged overlapping of the area and  

passed a final order on the subject.

20. Ms.  Shenoy  was,  however,  unable  to  justify  the  

restraint  order  passed  by  the  Director  (Mines)  in  the  

absence of the report of the Drawing Section which was the  

sole basis for the order passed by the Director (Mines). If  

the Drawing Section had indeed undertaken an exercise the  

same ought to have been disclosed to the High Court and  

22

to this Court so that the validity of any such exercise could  

be examined. Absence of the report said to have been -

made by the Drawing Section and non-production of any  

material  indicating  the  process  by  which  the  Drawing  

Section came to the conclusion that there was overlapping  

of  the  two  areas,  one  privately  owned  and  the  other  

belonging  to  the  State,  lend  support  to  the  submission  

made by Mr. Dave that the order of restraint passed by the  

Director was made in haste. We do not, however, propose  

to dwell any further on this aspect nor do we propose to  

vacate the interim restraint order issued by the Director on  

the ground that it was based on material that was tenuous  

and remained un-substantiated before us.  In our opinion  

the real problem lies in the demarcation of the two areas  

leased to the appellant on the one hand and SIMORE on the  

other.  As  observed  earlier  the  ownership  of  the  areas  

claimed by both the lessees vests in different owners. So  

long as the areas leased to them are identifiable on spot by  

different  survey  numbers  and  boundaries,  there  is  no  

question  of  any  overlapping.  The  confusion  regarding  

23

boundaries in turn is a matter the answer to which lies only  

in a proper demarcation of the areas.             

-

21. It was submitted by Mr. Dave that dispute between the  

appellant and SIMORE has considerably delayed the mining  

activity of the appellant, and that a direction ought to be  

issued  to  the  authorities  to  expedite  the  process  of  

demarcation. He urged that keeping in view the bad blood  

generated  between  the  parties  it  would  be  more  

appropriate  to  entrust  the  entire  process  of  demarcation  

and  identification  of  the  leased  areas  to  the  Geological  

Survey of India.  We, however, see no reason to issue any  

such direction at this stage. While the appellant may have  

some apprehensions about the fairness of the officers of the  

concerned  department  we  do  not  consider  them  to  be  

sufficient for us to mistrust the State functionaries in the  

absence of any material to suggest that there is any real  

likelihood of bias. That does not mean that the process of  

identification  and  demarcation  of  the  area  leased  to  the  

appellant should not be undertaken by senior level officers  

24

of the State Government to ensure that there is no scope  

for any mischief or miscarriage of justice.

-

22. In  the result  we allow these appeals,  set  aside  the  

impugned order passed by the High Court and allow Writ  

Petition No. 17281 of 2010 filed by the appellant in part  

and to the following extent:

(1) The  Secretary,  Department  of  Industries  and  

Commerce,  Government  of  Karnataka,  shall  constitute  a  

Committee of officers for conduct of the demarcation and  

identification of the boundaries of the area leased to the  

appellant in terms of Mining Lease No.2622. The Committee  

so constituted shall include the Deputy Commissioner of the  

District concerned, the Chief Conservator of Forests or his  

nominee  who  shall  be  an  officer  not  below  the  rank  of  

Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Director of Survey and  

a Senior Officer of the Mines Department to be nominated  

by the Secretary. The Secretary shall be free to nominate  

any other official or officials whom he considers suitable for  

25

the purpose of identification and demarcation of boundaries  

of the areas covered by the mine held by the appellant.

(2) The Secretary shall monitor the progress made by the  

Committee from time to time. A suitable order based on the  

-

report  and  other  material,  if  any,  placed  before  the  

Secretary shall  then be passed by him after affording to  

each party an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The  

order so passed shall supersede the order dated 5.3.2010  

passed by the Director (Mines).

(3) The  above  directions  shall  be  carried  out  by  the  

Secretary expeditiously but not later than six months from  

the date a copy of this order is received/served upon the  

Secretary to Government by the parties.

(4) The parties shall bear their own costs.     

             ……………………..………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

……………………..………J.

26

(T.S. THAKUR) New Delhi October 18, 2011

27