ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: By a notification, which was published six years back, the writ petitioner, that is, Banashankari Mining Corporation, was supposed to get a mining lease for iron ore and manganese ore over an area of 178.30 acres in Hosahalli village of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District.
2. There was some dispute as the area of the writ petitioner was overlapping with other two applicants.
3. The matter came up before this Court in Writ Petition No.18943 of 2010 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated October 4, 2010, inter alia, recorded the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner that the dispute between one of the applicants for the same area, namely, Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited, has been settled in which case the overlapping extent was 18 acres. - 3 -
4. The writ petitioner agreed to accept 50% per cent of the area.
5. There was another applicant, namely, Prema Chennappa, with whom there was some overlapping. Liberty was granted to the writ petitioner to obtain an affidavit from the said Prema Chennappa for accepting the settlement.
6. Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, informs us, that according to the settlement, the writ petitioner would relinquish 5.6 acres in favour of Prema Chennappa.
7. Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate, further, submits that there has been no notification proposing to grant mining lease in favour of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited. Therefore, irrespective of such settlement, the writ petitioner is entitled to receive the entire 18 acres of land as there could not be any overlapping with the said Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited.
8. Under Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, it is incumbent upon the authorities to execute the lease deed - 4 - six months from the date of the notification. Unfortunately, it has been given a go by, by the authorities on one ground or the other. Had there been a overlapping, the issue could be settled by measuring the area. Moreover, in this matter there is no necessity for the same as the parties have arrived at a settlement.
9. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition and direct the authorities to execute the lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner in terms of our discussion in this order and the discussion in the order dated October 4, 2010.
10. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands allowed.
11. We make no order as to costs. Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE mv - 5 - Ag.CJ & BVNJ: W.P No.24823 of 2015 September 9, 2015 This matter has been mentioned by Mr.K.N.Phanindra, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, in presence of Mr.M.I.Arun, learned additional government advocate for the respondents. Mr.K.N.Phanindra prays for correction of our order. He submits that the settlement arrived at between the writ petitioner and Srimathi Prema Chennappa is that the writ petitioner would relinquish 50% per centum of 5.6 acres in favour of the said lady. We accept the submissions of Mr.Phanindra. Therefore, we correct our order dated September 3, 2015, by recording that the writ petitioner arrived at a settlement with Srimathi Prema Chennappa, agreeing to relinquish 50% per centum of 5.6 acres in favour of the lady. - 6 - Mr.K.N.Phanindra prays for a specific time frame for execution of the lease deed. After hearing Mr.M.I.Arun, we direct the authorities to execute the lease deed in favour of the writ petitioner in terms of our discussions in the orders dated September 3, 2015 and September 9, 2015 and the discussions in the order dated October 4, 2010, by three months. Let this order be treated as a part of the order dated September 3, 2015. Sd/- ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB